A reflection on the purpose of higher education and if it reaches those who “deserve” it.  

On Tuesday, April 1, I had the opportunity to attend the event “The Rise, Decline & Return of Standardized Testing,” which was a conversation with Nicholas Lemann, Dean Emeritus of Columbia Journalism School and Director of Columbia Global Reports and Interim Dean of Students Roger Lehecka. I was excited to attend this event, as I am currently in Professor Lehecka’s American Studies seminar called Equity and Access in Higher Education. It is an amazing class, which has helped me to better understand Columbia and my place in it. In the class, we read Lemann’s insightful book, The Big Test. When asked about his primary motivations as a journalist, Lemann claimed to focus on “what is it that the people you’re covering the most don’t want you to know?”

The event itself had a pretty decent turnout, with a mix of professors and students joining together for the conversation (and catered Fumo). Central to the talk was the question of the roots of the SAT and, most importantly, who gets opportunities from it and who doesn’t. In his book, as well as this talk, Lemann describes the SAT as an extremely important sorting tool for society. Within this complicated history are ties to IQ testing and, of course, the eugenics movement within the US. 

After World War II, many institutions, primarily Harvard University and its president, envisioned a new and radically different college system, which could take away from the power of inherited privilege. Of course, this was before today, when university presidents are expected to be strangely neutral figureheads. This was a major motivation for the rise of the SAT, as it was seen to embody supposedly meritocratic ideas. It challenged previous questions on the purpose of the university, as it sought to enroll and reward students who were academically gifted, which was not always the focus of earlier college admissions. 

Lemann described how, eventually, reliance on the SAT was challenged by institutions that sought more diverse classes. A heavier reliance on standardized tests was found to decrease diversity, as wealthier students have better access to preparation materials. He describes how it is very difficult to assume that every American 17-year-old has the same access to fair participation in this sorting system that could radically shift the outcome of their lives. 

The answer to the question of how universities should select their students remains an unresolved issue. As Columbia students, we hopefully feel deserving to be here, but what does that mean when we consider that we were able to make it out of this absurdly complex system? Does standardized testing really find who holds the most merit? Lemann concluded by taking some insightful questions from the audience and summarizing his point that this system often identifies those with wealth instead of those who seek to fulfill the stated mission of universities. 

The event encouraged me to reflect a lot on my own journey to Columbia and how I was grateful to not have to submit my test scores as it was after the pandemic. Knowing, however, that standardized tests are an accurate measure of student grades upon enrollment, every Ivy but Columbia has reinstated testing requirements for admission. To learn more about this topic, I would, of course, recommend the course I am in, which is offered each spring. I will try to write another post sometime soon reflecting on the course and related takeaways.

Later this semester, on May 7, there will be a related event titled “The SAT, ChatGPT, and The Future of College Admissions,” with a focus more on the economic side of this conversation. 

Decorated car via Bwog Archives