Standardized tests are the best way for colleges to decide on potential students.

Resolution Negated: That standardized tests are the best way for universities to discern potential students. Examination of the Resolution: One concern I have with the resolution is whether it is meant to imply it is the best way to determine which students to accept or which applications to consider. This does not make much of a difference either way, but it is worthy of consideration. I chose to remove the stipulation "such as the ACT and SAT" because there are many other tests (AP, CLEP, SAT II) and if my opponent wishes to bring those up I would be willing to address them. Introduction: To start off, I do not believe that standardized tests are necessarily a bad way of rating students, only that they are not the best. Though I believe there I benefits, I will leave those too my opponent. I will focus my the first part of my argument on the flaws of standardized tests and the second part on the merits of other selection factors. C1: These tests show no favoritism and are the same for every tester on the same day. If by this my opponent means to imply that tests is objective, than it is a fair point of view. However, score trends indicate that not everyone scores equally well on standardized tests across demographics (1). Females, Hispanics, and African Americans all score lower on average on the SAT then white males. However, this discrepancy is not reflected in college grades. Female college freshman actually have higher GPA's than their male peers, on average. Considering the fact that the test is meant to test aptitude for college-level study, this is a significant problem. C2: These tests are very practical and cheap. The tests may be cheap to administer, but they are not cheap for students. The SAT test costs $45, and it is more if the student is from a country besides the US, registers late, or wants a detailed score report (1). A student's GPA costs them nothing to acquire and regards of its administrative costs, it must be computed for class rank and graduation purposes anyway. I now offer a few objections to standardized tests: C3: They provide an advantage to those with more money. There are two main reasons why the wealthy benefit from standardized tests. One is that they can afford to pay for books and other study aids that poor students cannot afford. Personally, I improved my SAT score by around 200 points by studying out of a book. Granted, it wasn't that expensive and I wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth, but for those who are struggling to pay the bills it simply isn't an option. For those that have a great deal of money to spend, special study courses for different tests are available and they certainly seem to work. The second reason why it is beneficial to those with more money is that they can afford to take the test more times. Universities only consider a student's best scores (rightfully so) which results in many taking the tests many times. It is easy for those with more money to afford to take the test more times. C4: Standardized tests encourage poor work Standardized tests have timed segments that are far too short for effective work. The math sections of the ACT and SAT are more focused on answering many simply questions quickly than answering harder questions correctly. On the SAT, students are given 25 minutes for 20 math questions in the 2nd section. Needless to say, not many of these questions are extremely hard and students don't have time to check their work thoroughly for accuracy. The essay section is another area where this problem is most evident (2). An MIT professor found that longer essays were consistently awarded higher scores, regardless of content. He claimed it was possible to predict the grade of the essay based solely on length. The time to write the essay is only 25 minutes. The idea of writing a serious essay at a university in 25 minutes is preposterous, the essay simply encourages the students to write as much as possible in a short time. Now, here are some other factors that university admissions officials ought to consider to be as important or more important than standardized tests: C5: Admissions Essays Admissions essays give a fuller understanding of the students' intellectual capabilities by showing what their work is like when they are able to put a great deal of time and effort into it. They also give a more personal understanding of a student that allows admissions officials to gain a fuller understanding of who the student is and how well they might fit in and contribute to the community. Some universities that focus on mathematics and science, including the prestigious California Institute of Technology, put a higher focus on test scores then essays because they believe it to be a better way of gauging competence in these fields. To some extent they may be right, but college essays are becoming more open ended and provide more opportunities for students to write about their aptitude in more technical fields. To many Liberal Arts colleges, this is not even a concern. C6: Grade Point Average One of the main criticism of GPA is that it does not always reward intelligence. However, a good work ethic is just as important as intellect in a challenging college environment and they should be considered equally at the very least. Also, maintaining a high GPA requires regular high test scores in class and not one high quality performance on a single day. It can therefore be considered a better measure of long term success. Colleges look at GPA in comparison to other students at the same school, so if a teacher was unfair and awarded no A's, a student would not be penalized for a B+. Conclusion: Though standardized tests are a useful way to determine what students are good candidates for a university, they suffer from many flaws. There are other aspects of a students application that ought to be considered at least equal to standardized tests, if not more important. Sources: (1) http://www.fairtest.org... (2) http://www.nytimes.com...