Why did Temple ditch the SATs?

DID YOU grow up going to regattas? Did you have a mom and dad who knew all about the Dad Vail Regatta? Well, according to opponents of SATs, if you didn't have that type of background you couldn't do well on the SATs and thus not get into the college that would help you have a good future.

This criticism was on my mind because Temple University has become, as the Inquirer reported, the first national public research university in the Northeast to make standardized test scores optional for admission. The big question is: Why?

By all accounts Temple is succeeding at drawing students from the suburbs and students whose SAT scores are better with each succeeding class. Why is this a problem? This should be a cause of celebration. Temple has become a much safer campus and a place on the radar screen for accomplished students across the Philadelphia area.

Apparently, this resurgence by Temple is seen as a sign that they have abandoned their commitment to the city. William Hite, superintendent of the Philadelphia public schools, seems to think that something is wrong when top public-school students cannot qualify for Temple based on their SAT scores.

He was quoted as saying, "No one can convince me that the skills and abilities of those children are any less than those who may have had SAT and ACT courses." He obviously feels that the SAT and ACT are part of some income-inequality model.

I have taught SAT prep to a wide variety of students. I think taking courses can help, but the biggest problem is that many students who are near the top of their class in many Philadelphia public schools are not really achieving on the same level as their suburban counterparts. In other words, getting an A average at Lower Merion High School is not the same thing as getting it at Ben Franklin or Bartram high schools.

In fact, one of the major reasons the SATs were created was to give colleges a test that measured students' basic skills and were a good, objective standard that leveled out the vast differences in the standards and curricula of American high schools. They are not part of the income-inequality industrial complex.

So, if Temple has made SATs and ACTs optional, how will they judge applicants? They say that those who don't will have to answer written questions that are "designed to assess attributes such as leadership, self awareness, goal setting, determination and 'grit.' "

Ah, "grit." Doesn't that tell you all that you need to know about how subjective this process will be?

Wouldn't true grit be telling Philadelphia public-school students that they can succeed at the SATs and support them by offering a challenging curriculum, vocabulary instruction to improve their vocabulary and getting them SAT courses if they can't afford it? Shouldn't schools be focused on helping students prepare to do better on the SATs?

This dumbing down of admissions also plays into the debate over income inequality. Hite seems to feel that the essential fact is that fewer city students are getting into Temple and Temple seems to want to level the playing field.

Hai-Lung Dai, Temple's provost and senior vice president for academic affairs, told the Inquirer, "We cannot ignore the mounting evidence that standardized test scores inject socioeconomic bias into the admissions and financial-aid equations."

It's always been the case in the race of life in America that kids start at different places. However, that doesn't mean where you start is your destiny. This policy says that city kids can't compete without the "grit" essay.

We all know that the Temple motto is "I could have gone anywhere, but I chose Temple." Maybe the new motto should be: "I couldn't have gone anywhere, but I chose Temple . . . because they gave me a pass on taking the SATs."