news-record.com

Autumn is that angst-ridden season when high school students are making pilgrimages to look at colleges.

Riding on their admission hopes is the SAT, that dreaded four-hour test known to induce hives, nausea, intestinal distress and other hypertensive reactions.

Many years ago I took the SAT and later got a rejection letter from my first-choice college. My reaction ranged from disbelief to anger. But the story has a nice ending. I was immensely happy at my second-choice college, meaning there is life after you've bombed on the SAT, dear students.

Last month, Guilford County Schools Superintendent Terry Grier announced that SAT scores in math and reading had taken a dip from the previous year. Guilford's scores mirror a nationwide trend. The College Board, the nonprofit organization that administers the SAT, attributed the decline to the huge turnout of test-takers and the diversity of their ethnic and educational backgrounds.

But now comes a radical idea: Abolish the SAT. Brown University, a linchpin of the Ivy Leagues, has made the SAT optional. The president of the University of California has proposed sacking the SAT.

Why? Because some universities think the test unfairly tilts toward students from educated backgrounds. Some well-heeled high schools even offer free SAT prep courses while poorer schools barely mention the SAT. Students from affluent families can afford expensive SAT prep classes while poorer families cannot.

Charles Murray, the social scientist who had been a major SAT cheerleader for decades, is now rattling the cage. Murray, the author of several controversial books, including "The Bell Curve," says the SAT should be shelved.

Murray has monitored students' success at the University of California and elsewhere since 2001. He concluded that high school grades plus scores on standardized subject tests (English, history, math, etc.) are just as good a predictor of college success as the SAT.

Most colleges require the SAT, which supposedly measures critical thinking, logic and now writing skills. The SAT is supposed to help predict success in the first year of college.

But few colleges, except for the Ivy Leagues, require subject tests, too. Like the SAT, subject tests are administered by the College Board.

In his recent article, "Abolish the SAT," published in The American magazine, Murray argues that the SAT is a waste. In years past, Murray praised the SAT for having opened the door to Harvard for him. He had gone to a small, obscure high school in the Midwest, and he said his high SAT scores compelled Harvard to notice him.

High school grades, the SAT and extracurricular activities are the factors weighed by most admissions offices. But Ivy League schools require three standardized subject tests.

William R. Fitzsimmons, dean of admissions at Harvard, told The New York Times this month that "subject tests were the best predictor of good grades at Harvard, high school grade point average was second and the SAT was third." Fitzsimmons also said that Murray's article ("Abolish the SAT") was "a hot topic" in college admissions offices.

Some college administrators have muttered for years that the SAT was overrated. Mastering meaty subjects (English, math, science, history) would ultimately serve students better in life, they said.

As one who bombed on the SAT years ago, I heartily agree.

Rosemary Roberts writes a Friday column. E-mail: rmroberts@triad.rr.com.