| The problem is that tests do not ensure that high quality students are admitted. Tests measure only that you are good at answering tests under heavy stress and at cramming for them. The whole teaching/learning to test thing - you don't learn to be able to understand and practically use the knowledge but cram to pass the tests and will usually promptly forget most you have "learned" in this way after the tests are over. Not really a lot more. There are plenty of very good students that are just terrible at tests - either because they don't cope well with time pressure or because they learn in a different way and standardized testing is unable to capture that because of its "least common denominator" focus. And don't get me started on people with very common disabilities like dyslexia or dyscalculia - neither of which has anything to do with intellect and sufferers of either can be excellent students. However, they will fail horribly at any kind of standardized testing. So it is only a cheap to administer and easy to evaluate (just count the points) proxy for actual performance and knowledge that are much harder to objectively assess. But a very poor one. And then there are the various sports stipendia and legacy admissions and ... that basically bypass the entire process as long as you are either good at football/whatever or been born to a well to do alumni family. Let's call tests what they are - a cheap and somewhat objective filter to fit the large amount of applicants to the much smaller amount of available places. And don't delude ourselves it has anything to do with quality. (I am a former university teacher and have done a specialized course in university pedagogy, including assessment) |
Sounds a lot like college, particularly for engineering degrees. Someone who does well on the math portion of the SAT likely has the baseline understanding of math to start on college math.
People with disabilities is a different conversation IMO, and should have some accommodation.