In an effort to ensure fair admissions to California universities, the president of the UC system, Richard Atkinson, has proposed eliminating the SAT from admission criteria. For over a decade, researchers have cautioned that the exam is plagued by race, class, and gender biases (by inadvertently posing questions from a certain background or understanding), and that it serves as a poor predictor of college success for the groups who consistently perform the most poorly on it. In his speech to over 1,000 college leaders, Atkinson supplemented these old criticisms with some new concerns. On top of the exam’s unfair prejudices, Atkinson argued that the importance placed upon the exam in college admissions is "distorting educational priorities."

Atkinson’s concern stems from the growing tendency among high school teachers to cater their instruction to help prepare students for the SAT rather than encouraging real academic achievement and intellectual passion.

I think most of us know that Atkinson is right. We’re fearful of admitting it, as our SAT scores serve as a sort of justification for our acceptance here, but that’s beside the point. The SAT is a game. It doesn’t measure innate intelligence or "aptitude," or even pretend to assess the quality of education we have received throughout high school. The SAT is an ill-defined quantifier centered upon two one-dimensional sections that are inappropriately used to objectively compare scholastic achievement.

The SAT is much less about how much one has learned in high school than it is about knowing how to take the test. Mastery of high school subject matter is not going to produce a solid analogy score. Familiarity with the exam is the best preparation, and preparation comes with a hefty cost. It is costing the educational system freedom to explore the avid pursuit of knowledge, while creating what Atkinson coins "the equivalent of a nuclear arms race" among students competing for acceptance to America’s universities.

The fact that the wealthy perform best on the SAT not only points to inequalities in the educational system; it confirms the criticism that test preparation is of more importance than academic achievement. If you are willing to shell out around 1,500 bucks, Princeton Review and Kaplan will guarantee a 100-point boost in your score. It’s also not astounding that most time allowances are made for upper-class white kids with professional psychologists to make a valid case for their inability to handle pressure.

However, the purpose of this article is not simply to address the partiality of determining higher level academic success by an arbitrary two-part test. If you are unfamiliar with the studies and arguments, I suggest you read Atkinson’s speech to the American Council on Education.

If the California university system does decide to adopt such measures (the proposal is to begin using only SAT IIs and other performance-based exams beginning in 2003), there will certainly be consequences for Pomona’s Admissions staff. If California schools stop requiring the SAT, Pomona will have to follow suit unless they are willing to bear a huge drop in the applicant pool.

At present, President Stanley is among group of college presidents who favor the maintenance of this out-dated quantifier.

He appeared on CBS Nightly News this past weekend to defend the SAT as one necessary, objective criterion among others. As the former president of the College Board (the company that owns, administers, and profits from the SAT), President Stanley has taken the traditional white-collar perspective.

As the president of an institution like Pomona that prides itself on diversity, intellectual passion, and leadership, Stanley should be taking a much more progressive stance on this issue. 300 other liberal arts colleges have already scrapped the SAT, and other schools are moving in that direction. President Stanley never speaks to the biases or the effects that emphasizing the SAT has on high school curriculum. Instead he balks. "We need an objective measure with which to compare prospective students blah, blah, blah."

In some respects, Stanley is correct: we do need a means to compare students and gauge their potential performance at Pomona. What seems to elude President Stanley, however, is that the SAT has repeatedly failed at doing precisely this.

And, when it does objectively measure intelligence, or aptitude, or whatever he thinks it assesses, it does so in a way that is wrought with unfairness and ambiguity. If he wants a true, objective measure, Stanley should back Atkinson’s efforts to produce a more holistic exam that tests students’ mastery of subject matter.

As a champion of the liberal arts and a proponent of an all-inclusive admissions process, Pomona should be among the leaders of this movement. Studies have shown that the SAT and GPA are no greater indicator of college success than the SAT II (which focuses on subject-based material) and GPA. In accordance, we should aid the search for a college entrance exam that tests a range of subject matter learned in high school in an unbiased manner, rather than backing a perversion of pedagogy that appeals to antiquated aptitude tests reminiscent of the old IQ test.

I urge President Stanley and all of you to consider the ramifications of supporting the traditional system. Not only does this reflect poorly upon our willingness to adopt modern standards, if our leader continues to stand behind a glorified IQ test that favors certain students, what does this say about our commitment to diversity? This sends a message that Pomona College is content with the status quo, and unconcerned with adopting admission methods that will enrich our student body and avail all equal opportunity. Rather than assessing the SAT through a myopic business lens, President Stanley and Pomona College ought to comply with the standards we profess. A liberal arts college should be the first to advocate an unbiased admission criterion and the and the possibility for enriched high school curriculum.