As he found out, take-home exams probably have to be discontinued. Despite honor codes, some students will routinely turn to AI and others, time-pressed and knowing what others in the class are doing, themselves succumb to temptation. That temptation simply has to be removed by doing all exams in-class. For homework, including essays and other written assignments, I can see things getting really challenging. Tough times for professors and honest students winding up on the low end of grading curves.

Thank you.

Students are worried about AI replacing them in the job market... yet they are effectively replacing themselves when they're not learning how to do anything on their own.

A generation trained to value extrinsic measures over intrinsic values collides with readily available tech and yields widespread dishonor.

My daughter discovered that her professor was using AI for grading. That's equally horrible.

A well-designed and well-written standardized test is often an excellent way to determine mastery of some subject areas such as arithmetic, algebra, geometry, spelling, grammar, and vocabulary. I believe some tests have historically been fairly reliable for these areas: SAT, ACT, ERB/ISEE, Iowa Test of Basic Skills. Unfortunately, a number of standardized tests, such as the Texas STAAR test (for public schools) are quite unreliable. So it depends on the test and what you’re testing. Basic math skills absolutely should be tested more, as in, have the 3rd-8th grade students do a lot more basic arithmetic and do fewer application of arithmetic in strangely-worded word problems on their tests. The majority of students graduating from public schools these days seem to struggle with fractions, which is foundational to algebra.

Shouldn’t this be dealt with when a student takes placement exams? Offer remedial support for those that need it and keep the standards. Helping to close gaps doesn’t need to be at the detriment of offering bright students a more fair way of getting into the system.

Susan Wise Bauer I suspect that some of the "gap" here between your prior perspective, and the counter-arguments you find persuasive in this article, might be related to the significant differences between preparation for college in STEM fields (especially math preparation) vs humanities and social science (ie all the reading- and writing-centric disciplines.) You can think about: "What does a rising college freshman need to be prepared for a gen ed US History course?" vs. "What does a rising college freshman, planning a STEM major, need to be prepared for Calculus 1?" (or at least maybe a rigorous 1-semester Pre-calc.) For the history course you certainly want to see a reasonable baseline reading and writing level, adequate study skills, preferably a year of high school US history as foundation, and a developing ability to think critically and synthesize ideas (not just regurgitate information). But to me, it seems possible that a motivated student could succeed in a freshman history course even with some deficits in some of those areas (for example- maybe the writing skills have a long way to go, but the student is really brilliant in classroom discussion, and willing to get help to improve the papers. Or maybe reading comprehension needs work, but this kid is SUCH a history fanatic that their content knowledge helps to overcome that in their first semester.) An international student who didn't take US history in high school would certainly be at a disadvantage, but not an insurmountable one, if they're willing to put in the work and study hard. In contrast: what does a kid planning to be an engineer or computer programmer need to be successful in Calculus 1...? They need a fairly hefty pile of specific content: the concepts and skills of arithmetic/ algebra/ geometry/ trig that underlie Calculus. And the point is, there's really no way around that. Study skills and motivation are important, too, but on their own they can only go so far in making up for content deficits. This analogy has limitations- but you could almost think about high school/ undergrad math like climbing a ladder, whereas humanities disciplines are more like climbing a hill. To climb a ladder, even trying to skip a single rung can be dangerous or impossible; there is basically ONE way up that ladder, no alternatives or shortcuts. Conceivably there could be a lot more variation in how people find success in climbing the hill (those capable of short high-energy bursts might take a steeper shorter path, while those with more endurance might take the long way that rises more gradually.) So I would certainly agree that standardized tests like the SAT can't measure every important metric that predicts student success; it can't measure intellectual curiosity, motivation, outside-the-box thinking, or content knowledge (outside math and, arguably, vocabulary.) But in STEM, math content knowledge is a REALLY big deal (lots of students interested in bio or chem majors end up dropping out, because of the math requirements.) So I think that's where the UC professors are coming from.

My suggestion is that this isn't an either/or question, but a both/and one. The narrowing of the curriculum and the overemphasis on standardized testing have been deeply detrimental to education as a whole. So, in general, I'm in favor of greatly limiting testing in grade school, and removing the temptation to teach to the test. At the same time, many other factors have also contributed: the fragmentation of subjects, educational dogmas, declining school culture, inconsistent or damaging administrative leadership, a loss of meaningful parental involvement OR damaging parental involvement, declining executive functioning, rising rates of anxiety and special needs, and the profound (generally negative) influence of technology and smartphones. The whole scene is rather a mess! In spite of that, there will always be students who are well balanced and academically successful because they won the lottery of engaged parents who encouraged reading, outdoor play, curiosity, discipline, and consistent study habits, often coupled with excellent schools or homeschools, OR, the parental influence was enough to overcome the failures of the child's school. Unsurprisingly, many of those students also perform well on standardized tests. But there are also exceptionally bright, well-educated, intellectually curious students who simply do not test well. They possess the ability to flourish in college and in their chosen fields, but standardized exams fail to reflect their true capabilities. There are equally students who can ace the SAT, but who still fail to launch, because they never developed character, or never encountered challenges, or were so bright, they never actually learned to study, or were in a school system that failed to challenge them sufficiently. (I'm working with a wonderful young man with a stellar SAT score, who realized of his own accord that his school was giving him As on shallow work. He's learning how to go deeper, and how to think on a more profound level. It's beautiful to see this understanding and drive!) In other words, standardized tests CAN be a good measure, but often aren't. So why must admissions be treated as a one-size-fits-all process? What's wrong with some colleges or majors requiring standardized tests while others remain test-optional? Why not allow universities greater flexibility? For example, an institution might require a qualifying SAT or ACT score OR successful completion of a specified number of dual-enrollment college courses during high school, OR have a required summer study course, OR require a trial period. Colleges could incorporate supervised, in-person essay writing as part of the admissions process (something several universities already do for competitive scholarships) or invite applicants to summer academic programs where faculty can assess the potential students' readiness firsthand. There are outstanding students who succeed in demanding university programs because they were given an opportunity beyond a single test score. At the same time, admissions policies should be able to avoid applications from students who are genuinely unprepared for the academic demands of that college. I am well aware of the unbelievable numbers of applications colleges have had to process thanks to test optional admissions and the common app. That's also a ridiculous situation. Qualified candidates got lost in the pile, and admissions officers, facing impossible numbers to go through, had to make decisions based on scads of identical files. It's no better than a lottery at times. The goal should not be to abolish standards, but to recognize excellence and abilities through more than one measure. Students aren't widgets, or Lego pieces that can just be plugged in here or there. They are different, and have unique ways of learning. So are universities. There's a world of difference between Howard, Princeton, Rutgers, Susquehanna, Loyola, Caldwell, Christendom, FUS, or Wyoming. Why does there have to be a one-size-fits-all model for any of them? Even within a college, why not require one admissions bar for Engineering, and another for English? Both/and can work, it just takes flexibility and an openness to change.

Honestly, this is a big reason why we are dual enrolling our kid in college math and science courses in high school. We want the transcript evidence from higher ed that our kids are capable of doing the work. Test scores hide gaps too. If you are very good at test prep, and lack the foundational skills or critical thinking needed to thrive, the same result occurs.

A truly fair system sets clear standards and gives everyone the opportunity to prove themselves. It says: “Here is the standard. Here is the opportunity. Now compete on your own merits.” Tests, while they have their drawbacks, do that.

I think there's a difference between using the SAT/ACT as a baseline for admissions decisions vs using it as a placement test. I can understand the need for placement tests, but I believe there should be alternatives when it comes to admissions. There are plenty of kids for whom standardized testing does not do justice for whatever reason.

I find it so ironic, because 25 years ago I was a first-generation, low-income, female college applicant, and I felt that the SAT offered me a huge opportunity. My family did not have money for prestigious camps or lessons or travel. My school did not offer Model UN or Science Olympiad, and even if they had, I had to have a job after school. There were very few AP classes offered, in fact, even non-AP physics was only offered every other year at my small, rural high school, and never by a well-qualified teacher. I was valedictorian with a very high GPA, but the courses lacked rigor. The SAT, on the other hand, was very affordable and something I could study for independently with just a prep book from the library. My SAT score opened up doors and got me into MIT. I sympathize with students with test anxiety...a couple of my children struggle with it...and I absolutely think there should be alternative pathways for students for whom the SAT does not accurately capture their skill-level (submitting class math tests? affidavits from teachers verifying skills? academic interviews where they demonstrate skills?), but shifting emphasis from SAT testing to grades, course work, extracurriculars, and essays can significantly disadvantage all the first-generation, low-income, underrepresented students who do not have test anxiety and who do well on the SAT.

I think you can acknowledge the benefit of the SAT and ACT while remaining critical of benchmark tests starting in elementary school

Myth #1: Classically educated student can not acheive high test scores like other educated students. Yes, classically educated students can acheive top scores without teaching for the test.

Both things can be true! Overemphasis on standardized testing throughout the entirety of a student’s K-12 years is problematic for numerous reasons, but an aptitude test administered at a critical moment can ensure that students are prepared to enter higher education. A reduced curriculum that caters to yearly state tests IS one of the reasons that students aren’t adequately prepared for the complex thinking required for college.

I think there is a vast difference between high schoolers, especially juniors and seniors, taking a standardized test for college readiness vs the emphasis on elementary kids learning to the state year end tests. I'm a fan of standardized tests for college preparedness. The accuplacer for community college was a big help to my older kids, as it gave them the proper classes for DE. That was their first real test ever, and with a couple of days of going over how the test works and a few test taking strategies, they did fine.

I’m not a big fan of standardized testing at the grade levels, at least not the way that it’s been done post No Child Left Behind. However, I do feel that the SAT did a fairly good job of measuring college entry level knowledge. 

I agree. Standardized testing = standardized education

One of the largest problems we have in CA, related to this issue, is that standardized tests are not open to homeschoolers with disability accommodations. I'd be fine with reinstating testing, but they have to do it equitably. If the UCs and CSUs opened their doors to testing students with accommodations, it would go a long way towards solving the issue. The lawsuit that brought down the testing requirement focused on this inequity. Thus, the solution to our current dilemma should focus on resolving the underlying issues with testing in our state.

I'm one of those test failures. May I share a story? I got to W&M. it wasn't because of my standardized test score or my grades for that matter. I studied 6 months on my own (parents didn't push me - dad was a prof) because I wanted it. Six-months of self determination. My score from all that work? 1180. Hardly bragging rights. But someone at W&M digested my application - essays and background - and figured out who I was. I received a wait list, then acceptance about two week later. That year's incoming freshman classmates, 10% were valedictorian or salutatorian. Talk about being intimidated with barely a B honor roll in high school. I had zero "AP" classes and a public school education. The first semester I worked like a dog and clawed out a 1.8 GPA. I graduated W&M in four years, my last 3 semesters with A's and B's. I watched countless really smart students with high SAT and high school test scores fail out. They were not used to hard work, bouncing back from mediocre grades - simply they were really good at high school, and diversity (not the DEI one) was unfamiliar territory. I've been blessed to know many many successful people. I don't mean financially, though that's included. My boys were told, growing up "There are two qualities I've witnessed in every single successful person I've met: 1) they persevere; when they fall down, they get back up and keep going, 2) they figure out how to make lemonade out of lemons; life throws one plenty of lemons." When academia figures out how to discern those qualities with little pencil-scratched circles, I'll be excited to see how they did it. I hope this helps encourage someone not so "test smart" or the parent with a kid that maybe doesn't score so well.

My oldest TA's in the math department of a top 20 university (standardized test optional) as a PhD student. She has told us how unprepared many of their students are for college math. Even many of those who can do the work (pass the tests) don't understand why the math works, so struggle with application. They need to know what algorithm to follow for any type of problem instead of having the understanding and reasoning capability to use math in new situations. Across the board our math standards are pretty weak.

As a public school educator with a concern with equitable education, I can't see a way around standardized testing as 1 of many monitors of education. I also believe that a college bound student who is a junior and senior in college needs to have one of their goal posts a standardized test. Standardized testing happens in most career fields. Currently I find that students don't know what they know. Access to devices and notes has watered down testing and grades. Standardized test scores should not be highest on the list for admissions, but definitely should be considered, if our goal is a good fit for a student. When I mentor my Seniors toward a next step I often look at their standardized test scores, and we have a conversation about how they learn- and how they like to learn. I have had students in the past have incredibly unrealistic goals for themselves. I have also seen many students who have 3.0-4.0 who took easier classes and have crazy low standardized testing. At this point we have swung so far from standardized testing, and focusing too much on GPAs which can by wildly subjective. I would like for students to take difficult classes even if they are going to get a lower grade. If you have gotten this far, here is my personal story. I took the SAT and ACT 4 times in high school. My scores were in 75-80% of those who took them. I am not good at recall, but loved the sciences. My Freshman year in college I intended to be a Chemical Engineer. But I watched the amount of work and memorization that my roommate was putting into Chem/Bio, I had to have an honest conversation with myself. I am not sure I could have hung in that class without giving up my social life. I knew my standardized test scores weren't stellar and I had significant struggles in my Calculus class in high school. I pivoted and took a ceramics class- because it was applied Chemistry where my creative skills were respected. I am now 30 years into an Art Education degree, and still love my job. -Standardized test scores helped me know what I was good at.

as someone who graduated from Berkeley, there are majors outside of STEM that require calculus. You must have that for business and economics majors for example. My semi-rural high school only had AP Calc at that time and certainly none of the extracurriculars in better resourced communities. SAT also opened the door for me as well. That being said I scored a 5 in AP Calc and it was tough going at Cal with Calc 2. Calc 1 was far deeper than AP Calc, and I was grateful I had the sense to take it. My grasp of Calc was not on par with my peers who had a deeper math background.

We should be teaching all the things AND doing standardized testing….and in my opinion, colleges should be doing placement tests for math and science. Grades are inflated and homeschool grades can be completely made up. Find out what the kid actually knows and start from there…or sent them away to beef up their basics before entering college. ACT and SAT are a good indicator of college readiness, but not all kids test well and that’s a little bit sad for us as parents….but we cannot just throw out the goal posts and hope that fixes that problem.

I didn’t see this linked in the comments, so in case anyone is interested, here is the web page the UC faculty signing the recent letter have written, with supporting information: ucstudentsuccess.org I’m in favor of large state universities requiring standardized testing. Not requiring these tests puts too much emphasis on students’ inflated high school grades. I know a number of young people who attend public schools, and they tell me that they are frequently permitted to retake math exams if they don’t like their grade. On the second version of the exam, only the numbers are usually changed. I recently had a high school student tell me that they thought their grade in high school math classes should be based on effort, rather than mastery of the material. In a situation where students who don’t have a good grasp of algebra are somehow able to get A’s in high school calculus classes, it seems only rational that colleges would turn to standardized testing to differentiate between students who have a solid understanding of math and those who do not.

It’s also wrong to ignore the impact of COVID. Our k-12 kids missed a full year of math and were expected to carry on as usual with no scaffolding. I Saw the impact on my then HS freshman in Algebra 2 as well as on my then 3rd grader who started 3rd grade in advanced math then proceeded to struggle in math throughout elementary & middle school. Finally started scoring higher in math again in 9th grade geometry. It takes time to fill in those gaps!

These things are changing super-fast! I think we are going to steer away from homework and to in-class essay writing and evaluation before too long. Testing is one thing that already is in person. Hopefully other methods of evaluation will come into play.

This has been known for at least a decade or more. Many of us did not agree with eliminating testing. We were made to feel we didn’t care about individuals who didn’t test well. It was done in a way that left little to no room to talk about nuance over throwing the baby out with the bath water. You simply didn’t care about others if you were for testing. We see this type of argument everywhere, not just in education.

Two points: 1. The article states, “The students most hurt are those the policy was supposed to help…” I disagree that this is who is most hurt. The trajectory of who were unprepared can- not go lower than it would have been without SAT/ACT, and for some it will rise. For those who were prepared but are being held back from learning the material they need in college classrooms because their professors are having to teach foundational skills instead will find this is to their detriment. Holding back prepared students rarely ends well. 2. SAT/ACT (not including various state standardized tests or standardized tests not specifically for college entrance) is kind of like democracy—the worst system, except for all the rest. Yes, there is inequality and inequity; yes, there are things akin to bad luck (whether someone is “just a bad test taker” or “just a good test taker”); but GPAs are subjective, class rank can be dependent on the rigor of the school and students’ experiences (such as moving from a better school to a worse one or vice versa), grades are being watered down, and AI is making it possible to do well enough academically without actually learning anything. A standardized preparation evaluation is essential. Until a “fair” or “equitable” evaluation is concocted, SAT/ACT is an essential metric.