In a 2014 article, Steven Pinker advocated for college admissions systems to prioritize test scores during the admissions process. Pinker makes two major claims: university spots should be granted to those who are best able to utilize the academic resources that colleges offer and aptitude-measuring standardized tests are the best way to predict professional success. There are several arguments against standardized testing that expose why tests are not actually accurate measures of aptitude, and Pinker responds to several of these arguments. While the merits of standardized tests as accurate measures has been discussed extensively, relatively little analysis has addressed the cultural and psychological impacts that a purely meritocratic admissions system could have. Even in a world where tests were able to accurately measure aptitude, there would still be reasons to reject Pinker’s proposal. An emphasis on standardized testing would force students to specialize prematurely, limit the benefits that come from a diverse college class, result in an under appreciation for social/interpersonal skills that are crucial for success, and dissuade high school students from exploring their extracurricular interests.
What Is College For?
In his proposal, Pinker underappreciates the value of non-academic opportunities available at undergraduate colleges, only noting that colleges offer students access to top-notch libraries, laboratories, and professors. He makes it clear that it is unproductive for colleges to accept unqualified students who will have access to these academic resources. However, colleges also offer students access to top-notch bands, debate teams, artists, business clubs, and culture groups. An admissions process that focuses solely on academics would ignore the fact that universities have these stellar non-academic resources. In the current system, colleges are able to select a class of students that will be most likely to fully utilize their diverse array of resources. Perhaps Harvard determines that, for its last 100 applicants, it has the resources capable to support 50 researchers, 30 musicians, and 20 athletes. It wouldn’t make sense for Harvard to accept all 100 applicants solely on the basis of academic talent; this would result in an excessive demand for research opportunities and an abundant supply of non-academic opportunities. It is also unrealistic to expect colleges to channel all their funding into academics. These different opportunities do not constitute a zero-sum game; there is certain revenue that colleges generate exclusively for music and other revenue that is generated exclusively for research. It is unlikely that donors to Harvard’s music department would be compelled to donate to its research department if Harvard decided to cut its music program. The other option in Pinker’s world is that it might make sense for a college to divide its resources so that students only have access to resources relevant to them. This system already exists, and we call it graduate school.
Undergraduate colleges, however, are meant to serve a different purpose. One crucial difference between a purely academic institution and an undergraduate college is that college involves exposure to different fields. To assume that colleges should only accept academics is to assume that high school students already know that they are academics. Most high school seniors don’t know what they want to pursue in the future until they are exposed to various fields in college. A second key difference is that colleges benefit immensely from creating a class of students with diverse interests. Undergraduate colleges champion the idea of diversity, because it allows for collaboration and personal growth. The computer science concentrator with an app idea may need to meet the psychology concentrator to incorporate appropriate user interface and the economics concentrator in order to successfully market the idea. More broadly, interactions between students in different fields enhance their interpersonal and communicative skills as they learn to explain concepts to people with different interests and different personalities. If colleges were meant to only accept students based on their academics, many of these diversity-dependent benefits would be lost. Holistic admissions processes may not be perfect, but they do allow for colleges to maximize the effect of their diverse array of resources while also constructing a diverse community of students.
Teach to the Test, Ditch the Rest
Another issue with a purely meritocratic admissions system is that aptitude-measuring standardized tests are not the only predictor of success or utility. Social, emotional, and communicative skills are just as valuable in the professional world. Until we have accurate tests that measure emotional skills, it is unlikely that these tests will truly select for the most talented students.
More notably, an emphasis on standardized testing may actually decrease the likelihood that students develop these skills. Extrinsically motivated high school students (and their parents) would be much less inclined to spend time and resources on valuable extracurricular activities and service programs in which students develop skills and discover passions through experience. The loss of motivation would not only affect students and parents; it would also shape the values of school districts. School boards that prioritize getting students into college would cut funding available for extracurricular activities—most notably music and arts programs. While Pinker may not see music and arts programs as academically relevant, various studies show that music and arts help kids develop higher IQs, better language skills, and increased spatial-temporal skills.
Even if this weren’t the case, students also receive a variety of non-academic benefits from non-academic extracurricular activities. For instance, music and arts programs allow students to find hobbies and interests that intrinsically motivate them. While students may still be extrinsically motivated while performing these extracurricular activities, it is more likely that they happen to discover a passion while playing for an orchestra than while studying for a test. Additionally, extracurricular activities rely on interactions between students—fostering the interpersonal and communicative skills that students eventually apply in their professional lives. Lastly, it would be negligent to ignore the impact that standardized testing can have on students’ mental health. While the current system surely has its flaws, at least students are able to learn that their worth is not solely determined based on their ability to perform well on tests. An increased emphasis on testing would not only increase the stress and pressure that students face but also push students away from their intrinsically enjoyable extracurricular activities
A meritocratic admissions system affects more than the students who attend college; it affects whom they interact with, what they do with their free time, when they decide to specialize, where they experience funding cuts, why they work towards their goals, and how they define their self-worth.