Young Johnny goes to a public high school that does not offer many opportunities or ways to demonstrate talent. He comes from a low-income, underprivileged family but is the type of student who always makes the most of his time and resources. A hard-worker, Johnny studies for hours every evening to prepare for the SAT. A good score could earn him a ticket to a prestigious California college that would break the cycle of poverty in his family.
However, California decided to eliminate the SAT from its admission requirements. As a result, Johnny's record is compared to wealthy students who can highlight their extracurricular activities and other cultivated talents. Johnny is rejected by the University of California system.
California's decision to eliminate the SAT requirement from the UCs has proven especially detrimental to hard-working, low-income students. Colleges will inevitably find a replacement for the SAT, such as participation in sports or extracurricular activities — things that low-income students may not have access to as much as their higher-income peers.
Race could also be heavily considered (despite the recent ruling on affirmative action, race may be still considered through essays). For example, Harvard University has been accused of denying Asian applicants based on arbitrary personality scores in the name of diversity. The SAT provides a chance for bright students to better their situations through merit.
63 percent of Chinese Americans are foreign born, first-generation immigrants; of these people, only 44 percent can speak English fluently. Moreover, a study at the University of Maryland, College Park, finds that 40 percent of Black students take at least one preparatory class before college, compared to 36 percent of whites (regardless of the fact that the average white family has a net worth far greater in magnitude than the average Black family). In addition, 47 percent of low-income Korean American students took a preparatory class for the standardized tests.
Unfortunately, test prep does not always correlate with higher scores, and higher-achieving students are typically the ones who will actually gain significant benefit regardless of race. This is not to say that low-income students cannot gain benefit from the test prep courses. However, the fact that school systems have failed low-income students does not mean that they should eliminate the SAT.
Rather, one should address the issue of low-performing schools. It is known that there is an achievement gap present between the rich and the poor and between Blacks and whites in secondary school. Despite this fact, schools do not eliminate the GPA altogether. The SAT is a standardized marker of achievement that has to be taken into consideration based on the applicant's socioeconomic status and life context.
Success Academy is an example of a high-performing network of charter schools in New York City, and they have produced astounding results. 94 percent of the 17,000 students enrolled at these schools are either Black or Hispanic, and the median household income of students is $49,800. 99 percent passed state math exams, and 90 percent passed state English Language Arts exams.
Clearly, low-income minority students have enormous potential when provided with the resources to succeed. There are many factors that can contribute to performing well on standardized tests, such as socioeconomic status or level of educational opportunity. Race is not one of them.
Despite the disadvantages incurred by new immigrants, those who cannot speak fluent English, and low-income students, first-year Asian American students represented 34 percent of those offered admission to the University of California system in 2021; Asian Americans only account for 7 percent of the population of the United States. The elimination of standardized tests will hinder these students to even be considered for a top school.
The SAT enables a level playing field that applies to people from all backgrounds, races, ethnicities and income status. Everyone has a chance to prove their merit. However, critics of standardized tests assert that the test hurts Black and Hispanic students the most.
The central idea behind equity assumes that everyone should reach the same place if given the proper resources. Yet, it is not that simple.
Equity in the modern sense undermines equality under the law, meritocracy and the freedom to make your own decisions (which, of course, will mean that some people will do better than others), and it advocates for equality of outcome. Legally, equity defeats the rule of law and categorizes people as members of groups instead of as individuals with their own desires and goals, resulting in redistributionist policies.
However, equity is not irrelevant — society should strive to keep everyone above the poverty line. Providing that equal outcome is the goal of welfare programs that create a safety net for the most vulnerable. If the country is to advance, society needs to redefine how it views equity — not everyone should be accepted into a particular university or have the privilege of playing in the National Basketball Association (and society ought to recognize that not everyone even has the same aspirations of doing so), but we should strive for everyone to rise above the poverty line.
Equality of opportunity allows people to advance through merit. This means that low-income Blacks and Hispanics can advance as well, because this opportunity is something everyone can partake in. Organizations and society as a whole should promote opportunities in low-income schools to address racial and socioeconomic inequalities when students are of a younger age. These programs would allow minorities to compete and academically succeed when they apply to colleges. However, we should not tear down the systems of merit in pursuit of equity. Moreover, the goal of colleges should not be to encourage diversity of race through means such as equity.
Equality must be pursued so that everyone deserving of consideration, regardless of their race, can achieve their goals. After all, that is what makes this country the land of opportunity, not the land of equal outcomes.
No comments:
Post a Comment