NationStates Jolt Archive


Standardized tests for colleges: needed, or a bad idea?

Eutrusca
09-02-2006, 16:43
COMMENTARY: Although I can somewhat understand why this would be suggested, I tend to view it as a largely unworkable idea. The wide variety of courses and course content, the lack of any sort of uniformity, the wide disparity between various types of institutions, and the numerous different reasons for even going to college in the first place do not lend themselves to any sort of "standardized" testing process. The last place we need the federal government poking in its nose is higher education, IMHO.

Your thoughts on this?


Panel Explores Standard Tests for Colleges (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/09/education/09testing.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin)


By KAREN W. ARENSON
Published: February 9, 2006
A higher education commission named by the Bush administration is examining whether standardized testing should be expanded into universities and colleges to prove that students are learning and to allow easier comparisons on quality.

Charles Miller, a business executive who is the commission's chairman, wrote in a memorandum recently to the 18 other members that he saw a developing consensus over the need for more accountability in higher education.

"What is clearly lacking is a nationwide system for comparative performance purposes, using standard formats," Mr. Miller wrote, adding that student learning was a main component that should be measured.

Mr. Miller was head of the Regents of the University of Texas a few years ago when they directed the university's nine campuses to use standardized tests to prove students were learning. He points to the test being tried there and to two other testing initiatives as evidence that assessment of writing, analytical skills and critical thinking is possible.

The Commission on the Future of Higher Education, appointed last fall by the secretary of education, Margaret Spellings, has until August to make a report on issues that include accountability, cost and quality. Educators are wary. "To subject colleges to uniform standards is to trivialize what goes on in higher education," said Leon Botstein, president of Bard College. "Excellence comes in many unusual ways. You cannot apply the rules of high-stakes testing in high schools to universities."

In an interview, Mr. Miller said he was not envisioning a higher education version of the No Child Left Behind Act, which requires standardizing testing in public schools and penalizes schools whose students do not improve. "There is no way you can mandate a single set of tests, to have a federalist higher education system," he said.

But he said public reporting of collegiate learning as measured through testing "would be greatly beneficial to the students, parents, taxpayers and employers" and that he would like to create a national database that includes measures of learning. "It would be a shame for the academy to say, 'We can't tell you what it is; you have to trust us,' " Mr. Miller said.

He said he would like the commission to agree on the skills college students ought to be learning — like writing, critical thinking and problem solving — and to express that view forcefully. "What happens with reform," he said, "is that it rarely happens overnight, and it rarely happens with a mandate."

"It does happen with levers," Mr. Miller added, "and maybe the accreditation process will be one. Or state legislators. Or members of Congress."

His push comes as college officials in an era of high tuition say they already feel pressure to justify costs.

But university officials are wary of the notion that testing regimes should be used to measure all the different institutions that make up American higher education — small liberal arts colleges, large public universities, proprietary schools and religious academies — particularly if there is government involvement.

David L. Warren, president of the National Association of Independent Colleges, a group representing private, nonprofit colleges, said: "What we oppose is a single, national, high-stakes, one-size-fits-all, uber-outcome exam. The notion of a single exam implies there are national standards, and that implies a national curriculum. Then we are on the way to a centralized Prussian education system."

When Ms. Spellings, the education secretary, named the commission, she said that choosing a college was one of the most important and expensive decisions families make and that they were entitled to more information.

There is no unanimity on the commission, but some members also expressed interest in measuring student learning.

Kati Haycock, a commissioner who is director of the Education Trust in Washington, which has supported standardized testing, said in an e-mail message: "Any honest look at the new adult literacy level data for recent college grads leaves you very queasy. And the racial gaps are unconscionable. So doing something on the assessment side is probably important. The question is what and when."

Jonathan Grayer, another commissioner, who is chief executive of the test-coaching company Kaplan Inc., said that with so many students in college and so many tax dollars being spent, "it is important for us to seek some type of knowledge about how much learning is going on."

[ This article is two pages long. To read the rest of the article, go here (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/09/education/09testing.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&th&emc=th). ]
Auranai
09-02-2006, 17:00
Depends on what people are trying to achieve.

If society and employers think that students need to learn specific quantifyable facts, then yes absolutely they should have standardized tests. It's the only real way to measure whether people know those facts or not.

However, test-taking and fact regurgitation are skills also, and neither of them help people in the workplace. Employers want critical thinking, hard working, loyal, customer-service-oriented team players with a good attitude. They also want good communication skills - written and verbal - and good computer skills.

When it comes to industry-specific knowledge, most companies are willing to teach the above people once they've been hired.

I don't see how standardized testing will be successful in doing what companies most want to do: identify people who have the skills they're looking for.

Seems to me the only thing this will really accomplish is give schools another way to market and rank themselves.
Lunatic Goofballs
09-02-2006, 17:07
Typically, when I have mixed opinions, I defend or criticise both sides and when I have no opinion, I tend to stay out of the conversation until I get one(though I may interject some humor in an attempt to deflect hostilities).

In this case, I can honestly say that I have no idea what to think.

Convince me. :)
Eutrusca
09-02-2006, 17:11
Depends on what people are trying to achieve.

If society and employers think that students need to learn specific quantifyable facts, then yes absolutely they should have standardized tests. It's the only real way to measure whether people know those facts or not.

However, test-taking and fact regurgitation are skills also, and neither of them help people in the workplace. Employers want critical thinking, hard working, loyal, customer-service-oriented team players with a good attitude. They also want good communication skills - written and verbal - and good computer skills.

When it comes to industry-specific knowledge, most companies are willing to teach the above people once they've been hired.

I don't see how standardized testing will be successful in doing what companies most want to do: identify people who have the skills they're looking for.

Seems to me the only thing this will really accomplish is give schools another way to market and rank themselves.
I tend to agree with you on this. I would add, however, that any employer who wants to determine whether a prospective employee possesses particular knowledge or skills should do their own testing. Any "standardized" testing the government might do probably wouldn't be specific enough to tell prospective employers anything more than they already know.
Eutrusca
09-02-2006, 17:12
Typically, when I have mixed opinions, I defend or criticise both sides and when I have no opinion, I tend to stay out of the conversation until I get one(though I may interject some humor in an attempt to deflect hostilities).

In this case, I can honestly say that I have no idea what to think.

Convince me. :)
Not really "with it" yet this morning, are ya? Have another cup of coffee, then come back and talk to us! [ trout-slap ] :D
Gargantua City State
09-02-2006, 17:51
Umm... standardized testing exists to some form already. At the end of undergrad, if you want to get into any respectable university's graduate level program, you have to go through the GRE's (Graduate Record Exams). These are used in the US and Canada (maybe other nations as well) to ensure that people in charge of admitting potential grad students are on the level that they're looking for. It makes sure that someone who went to a Mickey Mouse college and got 95% doesn't get in before someone who went to a respectable one and got a 90% and actually knows basic important information.

The GRE's, for many people, are extremely stressful, as it's weeks of studying, and hours of intensive testing on both your own subject, and general knowledge.
To add MORE tests for your average university grad seems rather pointless to me. If employers are really worried about this sort of thing, they can do a little research into which universities are good, and which aren't, and just not hire people from the bad ones. Those graduates will still find work at less choosy employers.
Lunatic Goofballs
09-02-2006, 17:56
Not really "with it" yet this morning, are ya? Have another cup of coffee, then come back and talk to us! [ trout-slap ] :D

I'm a little under the weather. I suspect I'm fighting off a cold. Fortunately, I usually win. *nod*
NERVUN
10-02-2006, 00:43
This would work only if every student in every university switched their major over to general studies.

Jesh... College is where you start specializing. To make these test actually measure what's being taught, you'd have to make one for every major in the United States.

Which, given the various majors, would almost equate an individual test for every college and university.
Myrmidonisia
10-02-2006, 00:46
There's already enough evaluation done in college. Accreditation determines the school's fitness to teach and the market determines the fitness of the graduates. There's no shortage of rankings for the various departments and school that are done by folks like Forbes and US News.
Sarkhaan
10-02-2006, 06:05
My, what a stupid idea.

Just what, may I ask, is standard about higher education? Colleges and Universities are a) private, and therefore, do not have to teach their students anything and b) a place of competition and specialization. The name is not important, it is what the student does with it.

What do they intend to test? Do they plan to compare a school like MIT with a liberal arts college in fields like English? An English major and an engineering or math major on a math test? How about a fine arts major on math and science?

Guess what? Higher educations point is to specialize and become educated in your chosen field. The point of an English degree is not to be able to do nonlinear algebra, but to be knowlegeable about English. Yes, a liberal arts degree does make you have knowlege in a wide range of subjects, but it does not make you an expert.

Additionally, do they honestly think that us students have no clue how a school ranks? SAT scores, average GPA's, numbers of retained students...we look at all that. We know how we rank on national and international listings. We know who our prestigious alumns are. And we work our asses off to make the grades and make the best of that little piece of paper we and our families pay so dearly for. At what point in my already busy semester do they suggest I take this standardized test? I pay about $200 per class that I take (works out to $600 per week for 3 hours of instruction). Are they implying that me and my family should waste $200 to take a test that in no way benefits me? And what incentive do they intend on offering to get me out of bed to take it if it isn't during a scheduled class?

It really would not be worth my time, in a quite literal sense. I have enough work without having to take yet another scan tron so I can be analyzed. I already know I go to a top university. I know this because the alums from my school are in top positions world wide, both in my field and others.

There is more to an education than just how good a place is. I would say half of college is the experiance. The location, the people, the friends, the weekends, learning how to deal with a jackass of a roommate, knowing how to make ramen 40 different ways, tolerate your floormates screaming at 2 am, knowing how to pump out a 15 page paper the night before it is due, setting up groups, working and studying, reading and partying, wrestling in jello, learning how to stumble home at 4 am, drunk as a motherfucker, and still make it to your 2 hour final at 8 am that is worth 40% of your grade and pass. THAT is college.
Dakini
10-02-2006, 06:11
Standardized tests are the worst possible way to see if people are learning. Hell, tests in general are a poor comparison to the real world working environment.
The Riemann Hypothesis
10-02-2006, 06:13
It makes sure that someone who went to a Mickey Mouse college and got 95% doesn't get in before someone who went to a respectable one and got a 90% and actually knows basic important information.

Why is calling a college a "Mickey Mouse" college a bad thing? Mickey Mouse is awesome!
UpwardThrust
10-02-2006, 06:15
Fuck no

This aint a high school with a narrow field of studies ... its fucking ridiculous for generic testing for the varity of specific studies out there.
Sarkhaan
10-02-2006, 06:16
Umm... standardized testing exists to some form already. At the end of undergrad, if you want to get into any respectable university's graduate level program, you have to go through the GRE's (Graduate Record Exams). These are used in the US and Canada (maybe other nations as well) to ensure that people in charge of admitting potential grad students are on the level that they're looking for. It makes sure that someone who went to a Mickey Mouse college and got 95% doesn't get in before someone who went to a respectable one and got a 90% and actually knows basic important information.

The GRE's, for many people, are extremely stressful, as it's weeks of studying, and hours of intensive testing on both your own subject, and general knowledge.
To add MORE tests for your average university grad seems rather pointless to me. If employers are really worried about this sort of thing, they can do a little research into which universities are good, and which aren't, and just not hire people from the bad ones. Those graduates will still find work at less choosy employers.
that is true, but not really standardized in the way that NCLB tests are...as in, every student doesn't have to take them.

Also, as much as those tests do help, grad school people know the schools that grade hard, and those that hand out A's.
Cannot think of a name
10-02-2006, 06:20
This is one of those times that I wish my friend had taken to posting here, because he could lay out in intricate detail why standardized tests are bullshit. He is an educator and worked for a while grading standardized tests. The short story is that the test gives the result that the test giver wants, but I'm not going to try and do his rant by proxy.

Just to say that standardized tests in other applications are not a good idea, it's not a good idea for college either.
Gargantua City State
10-02-2006, 07:07
that is true, but not really standardized in the way that NCLB tests are...as in, every student doesn't have to take them.

Also, as much as those tests do help, grad school people know the schools that grade hard, and those that hand out A's.

To "know" it is to be biased. To have concrete proof in the form of GRE scores cannot get them taken to court for discrimination.
Delator
10-02-2006, 07:53
"What we call public universities would be under the most pressure," Mr. Miller said. "But the question is, How public are some of the private universities? They depend a lot on public funding, too. And we have shifted more of the cost back to students. So I think consumers and other people will begin to ask questions like this more."

And that is exactly why this is a stupid idea.

If the Federal Government is going to insist that students foot more of the bill for their education, then students should insist that the Federal Government NOT come in with some half-baked scheme that will only make things worse.

Honestly, sometimes you would think the government could leave well enough alone. :(
Myrmidonisia
10-02-2006, 13:20
This is kinda long for an Onion article, isn't it? Oh wait, it's NY Times. Same thing.
Lunatic Goofballs
10-02-2006, 13:27
Okay, I had a day to mull it over and I read these.

Now, my biggest concerne with standardized testing in public schools is that they tend to warp curriculums to follow those tests. What I mean is that often teachers will cover and emphasize the subjects on the tests over and above the broad course knowledge that would otherwise be presented. I think it's a bad idea for them, and I see no reason why it would be any better for colleges.
Sane Outcasts
10-02-2006, 13:42
I was going to say something about how colleges are too specialized to even be suitable for a standardized test, but others have beaten me to it.

Instead, I'll say that testing is more a problem than a help at lower levels of schooling, and I really don't see how this will help people. Here in Kentucky, we already had one standardized test from state government, CATS. When No Child Left Behind got passed, we lost about a month of instruction time preparing for both tests and actually taking them. Even then, we failed according to the national test, but were in the 90th percentile for the state test. None of us students really cared about the tests either way, mostly because they didn't do a damn thing about getting us diplomas or into college.

I'm glad I don't have to go through that crap at college now, and I'm hoping that I won't have to before I graduate.
The Nazz
10-02-2006, 14:04
Yeah, it's a bad idea all the way around. What the people in charge of this thing don't seem to understand is that undergraduate work is meant less to teach you facts and figures and more to teach you how to process information and then take the next step. It teaches you how to think, in short. Colleges are almost always behind the curve in terms of technology--what companies want are people who can adapt to a changing environment and who can pick up on their particular ways of doing things quickly and seamlessly. Standardized testing represents the antithesis of that.