Opinion | Daryl Hall & John Oats Have Three Hits, One of Them Being Out of Touch

After countless decades of standardized testing, we’ve evolved to a point of disconnection. 

By Carlos Soto-Angulo 

For years, students have sat in silent classrooms, pencils poised over nightmarish Scantron sheets, their futures seemingly reduced to a series of bubbles. The standardized test has long been hailed as the great equalizer, an objective measure of intelligence. But in reality, it’s a relic of an outdated system–one that potentially measures privilege more than potential. 

The numbers don’t lie. A report by the College Board found that students from families earning over $200,000 scored an average of 388 points higher on the SAT than students from families earning under $20,000. This is not an accident. It’s a product of an industry that may thrive on inequity, where those with wealth can afford tutors, prep courses and multiple retakes, while those without are expected to rise above on sheer willpower alone. We don’t measure Olympic sprinters by making some people run with weights strapped to their ankles–so why do we measure students this way?

And let’s talk about the biggest potential myth of all: that these tests predict success. A 2020 study from the University of Chicago found that high school GPA is five times more predictive of college graduation rates than standardized test scores. Why is that? Well, because success isn’t about a single test–it’s about resilience, consistency and the ability to adapt. The students who pulled all-nighters to master calculus, who wrote ten drafts of their history paper, who showed up every day despite the challenges life threw at them–those are students who will thrive in college. 

But standardized tests don’t measure that.

Instead, they can breed anxiety. The American Test Anxiety Association reports that 16-20 percent of students experience severe test anxiety, while another 18 percent deal with moderate levels. That means a significant portion of test-takers are fighting their own minds before they even fill in the first bubble. And, for what? A number that will capture their perseverance, their passion or their potential? Some argue that they create a fair baseline, a way for colleges to compare students from different schools. They worry that without them, the admissions process will become even more subjective, favoring students from well-funded schools with inflated GPAs. And there’s some truth in that.

But the reality is, we’ve already seen the alternative. According to the Harvard Graduate School of Education, ironically, over 80 percent of colleges in the U.S. have adopted test-optional policies, and studies show that students admitted without test scores perform just as well as those who submit them. The sky hasn’t fallen. If anything, a more holistic approach to admissions is allowing schools to find students who might have been overlooked by an outdated system. 

The truth is, standardized tests are not a measure of intelligence; they can be seen as a measure of who can afford the right strategies. And in a world that increasingly values innovation, collaboration and adaptability, isn’t it time we let go of an archaic and out-of-touch test that tells us so little about what truly matters?