Home » Opinion » War of the words: Standardized tests

War of the words: Standardized tests

Kaitlyn

Standardized tests—we’ve all experienced them, no one particularly enjoys them, but the fact of the matter is they are a part of life.

The reason for tests such as the LSAT, MCAT and all the other abbreviated test names is because it puts everyone on the same level, so no student has an advantage over another student. The tests are administered the same, contain the same questions and are graded in a consistent manner.

These tests are necessary because no student should have an advantage over another, especially when the stakes are as high as getting into law school or returning to your minimum wage job.

Every university is different, and for that matter, every professor is different. There’s no standardized grading system amongst universities so its impossible to base a student’s acceptance on their average alone.

Just because someone has an 85 per cent average at their university doesn’t mean they’re better qualified than a person applying with 80 per cent average from another university.

Standardized tests are a necessity to ensure that professional school admissions processes are equal and fair for all students applying.

Amber

How can professional schools weigh a test that you write in three hours equivalent to four years of a post-secondary education? Admission to professional schools should be fair to all applicants, but one test is not a good reflection of a person’s intelligence or academic capabilities.

Lack of consistency in marking between professors or among universities is an issue I’m sure professional schools are aware of and understand that an 80 per cent from the University of Toronto is very much different than an 80 per cent from the University of Ontario Institute of Technology.

Furthermore, the majority of students who are successful on standardized tests are those who can afford them and have time to take a prep course. Realistically people in the middle and upper classes have the advantage over others.

By making prep courses and success on standardized tests obtainable only to those who can afford them, it’s essentially allowing only those with wealth into the professional world, which is far from ideal.

Standardized tests are more detrimental to professional schools than they are helpful because they limit admissions to the wealthy.

Kaitlyn

Learning to test under pressure and perform is a life skill. If you can’t handle the pressure of the MCAT, how can you possibly do open-heart surgery?

A single test isn’t going to determine someone’s academic capabilities, but it will determine whether you can handle similar pressures that you’ll face in the prospective professional school.

Professional schools also take into account someone’s average, volunteer and work experience and personal essays, so your fate will never solely be determined by an illustrious test.

Also, I highly doubt it’s the cost of the test that is limiting the economically disadvantaged from applying to professional schools. The likely culprit is the rising undergraduate tuition fees, and the even higher professional school tuition fees that prevent many from attending these institutions.

The reason prep courses aren’t mandatory is because you don’t need them to succeed. Just because people attend doesn’t mean they receive a golden ticket to their desired school. Plenty of people take these courses and do poorly on the test, and plenty of people never take the course and do just fine.

For about $30 you can buy the LSAT prep book, and there’s nothing wrong with studying on your own the old fashioned way.

Amber 

Testing well under pressure is a life skill, but being able to write a logic test is very different from being able to perform open-heart surgery. If someone is paying $20,000 for an education, then performing under pressure is a skill they should be teaching.

You might not need a prep course to succeed on a standardized test, but these courses practically teach students how to scam the standardized testing system, demonstrating how many questions you should answer and what questions are the easiest to maximize your score.

Without a prep course the majority of people overexert themselves by attempting to answer every question, which is nearly impossible. These tests are mostly a multiple-choice endurance race rather than a reflection of a person’s intelligence.

Professional schools should be focusing on attributes that would make an applicant an asset to the profession. Professional schools should be more concerned about an applicant’s ability to construct a well-argued essay, rather than if they can figure out how a person can get from point A to point B.

A logic test is not a sufficient indicator of a person’s ability to be a lawyer or doctor. I’m sure if you gave a lawyer the LSAT right now they wouldn’t score in the 90th percentile.

Follow the Gazette on Facebook and Twitter.