Adam Goodman | Profit in all the wrong places

In 2002, the College Board dropped "Score Choice" for SAT II: Subject Tests - that too-good-to-be-true policy which allowed college applicants to pick and choose which test scores they wanted universities to see.

High school students everywhere (including me) mourned. How dare the College Board rob us of our inalienable right to manipulate the standardized testing process and deceive universities?

But those killjoys over at America's most despised institution had a point. As the College Board explained at the time, score choice appeared to favor wealthier students, irked admissions officers, and generally compromised the integrity of the test.

"At the urging of our member schools and colleges," read a 2002 statement, "the College Board will eliminate Score Choice for SAT II: Subject Tests."

Well, either the universities changed their minds or the College Board did, because Score Choice is back and stronger than ever (hint: the culprit is probably the institution that has a financial interest in their test being taken as many times as possible).

Yes, a few weeks ago, the College Board quietly announced that Score Choice will not only be brought back for Subject Tests, but, for the first time, extended to the SAT I as well. Quietly, I suspect, because they're aware of how audaciously stupid Score Choice is.

There's a reason admissions offices weren't fans of Score Choice - there was no way to tell the difference between a student who earned a 700 on a Subject Test on his first try and one who scored similarly on his fifth. It was bad enough when this was only a problem for the relatively less-important SAT IIs. Now, the misguided policy will allow college-obsessed students to take the SAT as many times as they want until they are satisfied with their score.

The College Board might as well attach a note to their score reports: "Please take scores with a grain of salt."

There are enough systemic biases in the SAT without this ridiculous policy. As it is, the standardized prep-test industry puts low-income students who can't afford endless hours of tutoring and Princeton Review courses at a serious disadvantage. But, at least fee waivers for the $45 test (which can be claimed only twice) partially mitigated wealthier students' advantage, since no one in their right mind would take the SAT more than three times. Now they're a joke. If the College Board doesn't make fee waivers unlimited under Score Choice, they will be blatantly discriminating against low-income students.

So why are they doing it?

The College Board claims they are adopting Score Choice because the policy reduces the stress of taking the SAT and gives students more control.

I'm sure it will, but the SAT would also be less stressful if high school students could bring their $200-an-hour tutors to the test or sip chocolate milk while receiving massages from their proctors. Let's be honest: if the College Board were in the business of assuaging stress they'd shutter their God-forsaken doors forever and pay out reparations.

The truth is that the SAT is more embattled than it ever has been. The highly-touted new SAT, which was introduced in 2005, has had mixed results at best. In May, Wake Forest dropped its SAT requirement - the highest-ranked school to make such a move. The ACT, meanwhile, which has a long-standing score choice policy and doesn't penalize for guesses, continues to deplete the College Board's market share.

Here is an analogy to help you understand the situation and improve your standardized test-taking skills: COLLEGE BOARD is to SECURE as GEORGE W. BUSH is to POPULAR. That will be $100.

While the College Board has no backbone, admissions officers share the blame. Universities should have banded together to issue an ultimatum to the ACT: drop score choice or we'll drop you. Instead, most colleges claimed they had no preference between the two competing tests, effectively daring the College Board to resist powerful market forces.

Having dug their own grave, college admissions committees are stuck with a markedly less meaningful test. That's a shame, because the SAT, for all its shortcomings, is a necessary evil. Colleges do need a baseline by which to contextualize a GPA, particularly for students from lesser-known high schools. So much for that.

Congratulations, Class of 2013 and beyond: College admissions just became that much more of a crapshoot.

Adam Goodman is a rising College senior and former Daily Pennsylvanian editorial page editor from San Diego. His email address is goodman@dailypennsylvanian.com.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.