Not that we ever doubted our Academic Approach philosophy – that honest, intellectual enrichment will outperform test “gaming” techniques any day of the week – but still, it’s nice to find that our opinion is shared by such good company.
A few months ago, we moderated a couple of panels convened to reflect on the role standardized tests in undergraduate admissions (at St. John’s University, in Queens, NY and Western New England College, in Springfield, MA). The topic dealt with the recent findings in the Report of the National Association of College Admissions Counseling (NACAC).*
*For the full report, read “The NACAC Commission on the Use of Standardized Tests in Undergraduate Admissions.”
In its report, NACAC repeatedly suggests that “achievement” tests, which assess a student’s mastery of a particular academic subject matter, are better predictors than “aptitude” (reasoning) tests of a student’s college readiness. Institutions, the report continued, should adjust their application requirements and weigh standardized tests accordingly.
Of course, the shift away from aptitude tests in favor of achievement tests is already underway. In 2005, when the University of California system threatened to drop the SAT as an admissions yardstick, the College Board responded by making the Writing Subject test part of the “new” SAT. And while “logic” or “reasoning” questions remain, the new SAT measures students’ academic comprehension far more effectively than its previous (aptitude-focused) iteration.
It will surprise exactly no one to learn that we are delighted by this ongoing philosophical sea change. But we aren’t the only people who should be applauding the NACAC report: this is great news for students – especially those with strong academic records – who will now see a much clearer correlation between what they learn in class and what they need to know for the SAT and ACT tests.
This, we hope, predicts a moment when students’ academic lives will no longer be divided into two parallel worlds: learning subject matter vs. learning test-specific “skills.” Intellectual enrichment and standardized testing, in other words, may not always be at cross-purposes. We believe that philosophy, and it’s what we’ve been calling “Teaching Beyond the Test” since 2001.