Why Do We Educate?

Akil Bello's piece, "The Misguided War on Test Optional," exemplifies the debate raging as top schools, such as MIT, Brown, Yale, Dartmouth, and others, have reinstituted standardized tests as part of the selection process.

Bello, a proponent of test-optional admissions policies, suggests that the test perpetuates elitism and that supporters focus solely on the tests' ability to classify and rank individuals, overlooking the tests' limitations and the harm they may cause. According to Bello, these supporters believe colleges exist primarily to categorize society and that such tools should remain unchallenged indefinitely.

Those advocating for eliminating testing requirements, such as Bello, view the tests as unfair, irrelevant, and exacerbating social inequalities. They argue that the tests assess the wrong criteria or that no test should be in the admissions process. Concerns also revolve around demographic disparities in test scores, with some viewing these differences as definitive proof of the efficacy of testing. Critics question the overall value of the tests, considering both the financial and time investments required for preparation.

Bello challenges the dichotomy of "creating winners and losers" and questions whether it perpetuates social inequality. I find this part of his argument most interesting and have devoted time to trying to understand it. The question it raises is, "What is the purpose" of public education? What is it that we are trying to achieve? Only once our goals are clear can we answer Bello's questions.

Historically, public education aims to prepare students for the workforce by providing them with the knowledge and skills to pursue various careers. This includes vocational training, career readiness programs, and academic preparation. Over time, the recognition has come that education plays a crucial role in preparing students to be informed, engaged, and responsible citizens. This includes understanding civic rights and responsibilities, appreciating diversity, and participating effectively in democratic processes. I would add a third aim: to promote social cohesion by building a sense of community and shared values. This goal seems particularly important in this an election year.

The question becomes more complicated when we hold, as Bello does, that education is also a critical tool in promoting social mobility. He argues that education should level the playing field and reduce disparities, contributing to social equity. Yes, we all acknowledge the relationship between education and economic status - everyone should have access to secondary and tertiary education. But the context for this discussion is the elite schools and the specialized institutions for medicine, law, and engineering. What basis should we use to decide who gets access to these resources?

Bello argues that the criteria we use to determine who gets access are unfair or biased. That view is increasingly being challenged. Standardized tests like the SAT are now and will be a part of the university selection process. We still need to frame the broader question of how to decide who gets access to the advantages that these elite institutions confer. How do we balance competing demand? How do we consider the institution's own goals and aims?

There is much to consider.