For Elite Colleges, Standardized Tests Should Be More Important in Admissions Decisions Then GPA

Introduction: Just because I'm not sure if this has been properly understood: the status quo is irrelevant to this debate, the topic is what should be done. What is actually done is inconsequential. Now, with regards to my statement that, "There is absolutely no way to know what elite colleges actually consider important because that information is typically not release to the public (in much the same way a company would not release it's hiring policies to the public.)" I think that this was an overly absolute statement, but the point that I was making stands. Yes, colleges provide some idea of what they are looking for. But they do not release their exact policies, and despite that they say about test scores they seem to strongly favor the perfect over the very high. PR statements designed to encourage students and draw more applicants cannot be trusted over the statistical data. The data is quite clear: elite colleges think scoring extremely well on standardized tests is VERY important. We can debate whether or not they think it's more important than GPA but that's a waste of time because the topic of the debate is what they should do. My opponent's point about the fact that I referred to GPA as a "number" is a needless nitpick. To be more precise, I should have referred to it as a value. What I meant was, test scores as a non-subjectively evaluated numerical indicator should be ore important than grades as a non-subjectively evaluated numerical (or letter or whatever, however it is computed) indicator. The exact way the GPA is computed does not matter at all. When Yale talks about considering the "transcript" they also mean the difficulty of the course is important to them, but that's subjective. I am talking only about the GPA, which is objective. The fact that GPA must be understood in terms of subjective factors such as "course difficulty" and "ability of peers" is one of the principle charges I bring against it. Test scores are not affected by subjective factors nearly as significantly as GPA. Argument 1: My opponent is NOT defending the status quo. We are talking about what should be done, and what should be done is independent of what is done. The purpose of those statistics was to refute my opponent's baseless claim that after a certain point in the score curve a test can no longer distinguish between the ability of students. But on a properly designed test (and the ETS tests are all properly designed, of course) the difference between, say, a 2200 and a 2400 should be the same as the difference between a 1500 and a 1700. Thus, the rarity of high level test scores does create a sufficient scarcity that they are useful in distinguishing the brightest applicants from one another. The admissions statistics I provided in the previous round clearly should that elite colleges agree with this conclusion and employ it in their admissions policies. The fact that the most selective admissions committees seem to agree with my argument based on their practices is strong evidence to support its validity. Argument 2. My opponent's claim that Subject Tests are laughably easy is completely absurd. The difficulty of the Subject Tests is fairly well documented and great care is made by professions to insure that the tests are of the appropriate difficulty. The information is available here: http://professionals.collegeboard.com... With the exception of language tests (that are often taken by native speakers) perfect scores on these tests are fairly rare. I don't see how the Literature test can be called "laughably easy" when students who score in the 99th percentile do not receive perfect scores. You can't just call a test easy to attack it's validity when objective evidence shows that it is very difficult. This is true of the SAT also: a student could receive a score in the top 1% on each section and end up with a total score of only 2290 (http://professionals.collegeboard.com...). To address the "mastery" point. It is not the knowledge of subject material they demonstrate that makes Subject Tests and AP tests important. It is the fact that they demonstrate a student's ability to learn material relative to their peers. To make an example: Cornell University is known for being extremely strong in biological science and does not give credit or placement for the AP Biology exam. The Subject Tests and AP are still important in this area because they let the admissions staff know that the applicant is able to perform well over the level that is expected and therefore stands a strong chance of succeeding in their program. Should Cornell disregard a 5 AP and 800 Subject Test in biology because their department is so much harder? Of course not, they should take it as a sign that the student has a better chance of success in the department than 99% of their peers. By comparison, it's likely that a lot more than 1% of their peers have A's in AP Biology and would not be cut out for the program. Argument 3. A few notes about "bad days" on tests: 1. Tests can always been retaken, though with AP tests it is somewhat inconvenient. With SAT and ACT tests there are many chances to retake the test. 2. A guidance counselor can note on a student's application that there was a problem with a particular test score and that it thus does not reflect the student's ability. This is relevant only with AP's typically because the SAT and ACT can be retaken easily. AP tests also typically count less than Subject Tests anyway because they are less exact and designed more for placement (they are called Advanced Placement tests, after all). If an AP test needs to be taken senior year, it simply wouldn't be included in the application. In this case, midyear grades would be more important (since there is nothing to compare them to, the test has not been taken). This is a practical consideration and does not detract from my overall point (tests are more objective and better for distinguishing the best of the best from one another). My opponent does not seem to have made an argument about AMC and AIME tests. Remember, I am not arguing about the status quo. I am arguing that a result on a test such as this gives a better indicator of a student's math ability than a math class. Someone's ability to prepare for and take an extremely difficult math test is a better gauge of their skills than their ability to maintain perfect scores on relatively easy tests for an entire semester. Conclusion: When I say that grades are uniformly high, I do not mean that in a literal sense (that would be silly). I mean that there are lot's of 3.97's and 3.95's. There are also lots of 99%'s and 97%'s. Can we say that a student with a 99% in AP US History is a better history student than one with a 97% from a different school? It would take a lot of extrapolation and use of subjective judgment and even then we wouldn't be sure. Can we say that a student with a 790 on the US History Subject Test is a better history student then one with a 750? Yes we can, and it requires no subjective judgment. If the College Entrance Exam Board is worth the national recognition it is given for producing statistically valid tests, we should be right just about every time. I'm not going to waste my time breaking down the logical construction my opponent set up here because it's nothing more than an attempt to nitpick. I am obviously arguing that tests should be given more weight at the expense of grades. As I said above, I don't accept one since I wasn't being literal. I never mentioned subjective factors such as extracurriculars so there's no reason to say I "must be arguing that." Grades and test scores are objective, that's why they're being compared. Test scores are a much more valid guage of student ability. The End.