SAT Time
Copyright © 2000 by Dave Badtke
A recent Los Angeles Times article published by the SF Examiner on 1/9/2000 alleged that some affluent families were seeking disability diagnoses for their children to give them more time on their SAT exams. A child with ADD, for example, might be given 4 ½ hours to complete an exam for which others are given only 3 hours. The article reports on one girl who increased her score by 250 points when she was given extra time. The head of the Princeton Review SAT prep courses is quoted as saying: "If you give me a smart kid and 10 extra minutes a section, that’s 100 extra points."
Initially, I was outraged by this story of money and influence finding yet another way to manipulate the system to the disadvantage of those with less. The article discusses at length how various educational institutions are struggling with the problem and reports that: "…[U]nequal access to special accommodations eventually will erode the purpose of a standardized test … that can fairly compare students from the best and worst of schools."
But perhaps these "upper-income game players" have done us a favor, because something seems wrong with SAT logic.
If everyone were given more time, not just those with certain disabilities, would we see some scores rise significantly? The article suggests that we are already seeing this happen. If two scores were given for each test, the first after the current test time and the second after a much longer test time, perhaps a time long enough for the student to complete and review the test, what would happen? If a student had roughly the same score during both time periods, then we would conclude that time was not a critical factor for that student. But if the two scores were significantly different, we would probably conclude that the second number more accurately reflected the student’s ability.
Let me put this thought another way. Assume that I am dealing with a very serious problem, a problem that will eventually threaten the future of the world, and I pose the problem to two students. The first student runs through many different possibilities very quickly and gives me an answer the same day. The answer seems plausible and good, and I’m impressed with how quickly the student’s mind works. The second student goes away, and I don’t hear from him for a week. I call him, and he tells me he’s thinking and will get back to me. Another week goes by and then another, and I hear nothing. Finally, because I’m beginning to panic over the fate of the world, I decide that I’ll have to go with the first student’s answer when, to my surprise, I receive an e-mail from the second student that is masterfully researched and logically brilliant. He has solved the problem and saved the world.
Now I ask you, which student is more capable? Do you really care that the first student answered faster than the second? The end result is what counts, not how quickly the answer was given.
While someone who is quick with information and answers can be impressive, such a person can also make us suspicious. We may think him glib and worry that he’ll seek closure so quickly that he cannot be trusted with big problems. When a problem is difficult, we trust that it can be solved best by a methodical thinker who carefully filters out unnecessary information and synthesizes what he knows and learns.
It’s historically interesting to know how long it took Einstein to develop relativity, Virginia Woolf to write "To the Lighthouse", and Watson and Crick to decode DNA, but it would be ridiculous to think that perhaps they should have completed their work more quickly.
So why exactly have we decided that time should play a critical roll in university admissions? Rather than treating SAT testing as a sport like running, in which the stopwatch is critical, we should think of it as analogous to high jumping in which the clock is important only insofar as the track meet needs to be completed before dark.
Educational standards are good, and SAT questions may be a reasonable way to measure performance against standards, but throwing out the clock could be a good way to make the test more equitable for all.
- Dave Badtke is founder of the developing Carquinez Review literary journal. Find him on the web at www.CarquinezReview.com.
Contact him at:
Dave@CarquinezReview.com or Dave@Badtke.com