The SAT: Getting Mediocre Rich Kids Into College Since 1926

Perhaps to settle all doubts whether they're the union's most rabidly prejudiced state, Arizona voters last week banned the use of affirmative action in college admissions because it discriminates against white people.

But for this fuzzy logic to pass muster, voters had to ignore or remain blissfully ignorant of the myriad ways the college admissions system is already skewed to favor kids who are rich, mediocre and white.

The SAT  is probably the system's most efficient instrument at creating an uneven playing field. I know this because back in high school I, a mediocre white student of privilege, was a beneficiary of the SAT.

I scored a little over 1200 the first time, but because my family could afford it, I took an SAT prep class,  studied some vocabulary lists, and with minimal effort improved my score by nearly 200 points.

Overnight, I transformed myself into a legit elite private school applicant, and, of course, it had nothing to do with my abilities as a student or my intelligence.

Rich kids have greater access to prep classes, prep books and tutoring than low-income and many minority students, and, thus, are more likely to do well. The College Board, the pseudo non-profit that designs and promotes the test, argues coaching doesn't make a difference, but then why does it sell SAT prep books for $25 a pop?

The College Board also wants us to believe the SAT is good predictor of how test-takers will do in college. But the research shows its far better at predicting a test-taker's income bracket than their ability to do well in college, and it also shows the SAT's questions and format are biased against minorities and women. These aren't just excuses dreamed up by bitter undergrads stuck at Eastern Illinois because of 420 verbal score.

Fortunately, higher ed is slowly moving away from the SAT. In 2008, the National Association of College Admissions Counselors released a report urging universities to test the validity of SAT test scores before using them to assess students.

And a lot of colleges, more than 850 now, have either dropped the SAT from admissions or made it optional for applicants to include their scores. Several of these schools have reported that limiting the SAT's influence has led to a more diverse and vibrant student body.

A significant factor in this shift has been the tireless of efforts of the non-profit National Center for Fair and Open Testing, which has advised numerous admissions deans, directors and other higher education leaders and been the leading advocate to de-emphasize standardized tests.

While FairTest's informational campaigns and consultations have helped higher ed institutions make the switch, many schools still require applicants take the exam despite all the evidence it's basically a worthless evaluation.

So why do college admissions departments continue to use it?

I suspect the SAT's ties to the US News and World Report's college rankings are at least partially responsible for its survival.

About 15 percent of a school's ranking is dependent on "student selectivity" , which is measured in part by SAT scores. Schools also benefit in the rankings if they have a high rate of rejection, and using the SAT makes it easier to process heavy loads of applications.

It's also assumed this is why large public institutions lag behind smaller liberal arts schools in making the switch to test-optional. However, one public flagship, the University of Rhode Island, has been studying the possibility of going SAT-optional for at least a few years but have yet to make the move.

Tell the  University of Rhode Island's president to make SAT and all standardized tests optional in admissions by signing this Change.org petition.

You can claim you want equality, but sometimes equality means the privileged will have to give something up. In this case, it's entrance to top universities they might not have deserved in the first place.