I affirm the resolution, Resolved “
and value Morality defined by Oxford dictionary as
The criterion will be that of
defined by Thoughtco as

Saleem, Rakhshanda; Vaswani, Akansha; Wheeler, Emily; Maroney, Meredith; Pagan-Ortiz, Marta; and Brodt, Madeline (2016) "The Effects of Structural
Violence on the Well-being of Marginalized Communities in the United States," Journal of Pedagogy, Pluralism, and Practice: Vol. 8 : Iss. 1 , Article 10. Available at: https://digitalcommons.lesley.edu/jppp/vol8/iss1/10
embedded in social
institutional structures within societies that result in harm to individuals’ wellbeing (Galtung, 1969; Farmer, 2004). Using the structural violence framework, our research proposes to investigate its
on
through an intersectional analysis. Traditional academic scholarship in psychology demonstrates notable absence of voices and stories of individuals from such communities due to the lack of linguistic, class and other privileges that provide opportunities for research participation. Our data will come from interviewing members from three communities, “undocumented” Latinos (as) immigrants, Muslims (immigrants and non-immigrants), and LGBTQ+ persons who have experienced incarceration. This paper introduces background scholarship and methodology of our Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved research proposal. We conclude by commenting on the implications of research findings in creating a complex intersectional narrative of experiences of structural violence on minority groups to add to activist-scholarship on social justice issues to promote solidarity across struggles. We hypothesize that in addition to countering reductive stereotypes the results will contribute to expanding clinical and theoretical frameworks in psychology.

[James, Department of Psychology at Harvard Medical, Director for the Study of Center of Violence, Violence: Our Deadly Epide mic and Its Causes, p. 191-6]
You cannot work for one day with the violent people who fill our prisons and mental hospitals for the criminally insane without being forcibly and constantly reminded of the extreme poverty and discrimination that characterize their lives. Hearing about their lives, and about their families and friends, you are forced to recognize the truth in Gandhi’s observation that the deadliest form of violence is poverty. Not a day goes by without realizing that trying to understand them and their virulent behavior in purely individual terms is impossible and wrong-headed. Any theory of violence, especially a psychological theory, that evolves from the experience of men in maximum security prisons and hospitals for the criminally insane must begin with the recognition that these institutions are only microcosms. They are not where the major violence of our society takes place, and the perpetrators who fill them are far from being the main causes of most violent deaths. Any approach to a theory of violence needs to begin with a look at the structural violence of this country. Focusing merely on those relatively few men who commit what we define as murder could distract us from examining and learning from those structural causes of violent death that are far more significant from a numerical or public health, or human, standpoint By “structural violence” I mean the increased rates of death and disability suffered by those who occupy the bottom rungs of society, as contrasted with the relatively lower death rates experienced by those who are above them. Those excess deaths (or at least a demonstratably large portion of them) are a function of class structure; and that structure is itself a product of society’s collective human choices, concerning how to distribute the collective wealth of the society. These are not acts of God. I am contrasting “structural” with “behavioral violence,” by which I mean the non-natural deaths and injuries that are caused by specific behavioral actions of individuals against individuals, such as the deaths we attribute to homicide, suicide, soldiers in warfare, capital punishment, and so on. Structural violence differs from behavioral violence in at least three major respects The lethal effects of structural violence operate continuously rather than sporadically, whereas murders, suicides, executions, wars, and other forms of behavioral violence occur one at a time. Structural violence operates more or less independently of individual acs; independent of individuals and groups (politicians, political parties, voters) whose decisions may nevertheless have lethal consequences for others. Continues, page 195 The
Comparing this frequency of deaths from structural violence to the frequency of those caused by major military and political violence, such as
(an estimated 49 million military and civilian deaths,
those caused by
---or about eight million per year, 1939-1945), the Indonesian
of 1965-66 (perhaps 575,000 deaths), the Vietnam war (possibly two million, 1954-1973),
a hypothetical
between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. (232 million), it was clear that even war
begin to
In other words, every fifteen years, on the average, as many people die because of relative poverty as would be killed in a nuclear war that caused 232 million deaths, and
throughout the world
of the Jews over a six-year period. This is, in effect, the equivalent of an ongoing, unending, in fact accelerating, thermonuclear war, or genocide, perpetuated on the week and poor every year of every decade, throughout the world. Structural violence is also the main cause of behavioral violence on a socially and epidemiologically significant scale (from homicide and suicide to war and genocide). The question as to which of the two forms of violence—structural or behavioral—is more important, dangerous, or lethal is moot, for they are inextricably related to each other, as cause to effect.
Activist [“A Quiet and Deadly Violence” ( http://www.flashpoints.net/mQuietDeadlyViolence.html
)]
We live, equally immersed, and to a deeper degree, in a nation that condones and ignores wide-ranging "structural' violence, of a kind that destroys human life with a breathtaking ruthlessness. Former Massachusetts prison official and writer, Dr. James Gilligan observes; By "structural violence" I mean the increased rates of death and disability suffered by those who occupy the bottom rungs of society, as contrasted by those who are above them. Those excess deaths (or at least a demonstrably large proportion of them) are a function of the class structure; and that structure is itself a product of society's collective human choices, concerning how to distribute the collective wealth of the society. These are not acts of God. I am contrasting "structural" with "behavioral violence" by which I mean the non-natural deaths and injuries that are caused by specific behavioral actions of individuals against individuals, such as the deaths we attribute to homicide, suicide, soldiers in warfare, capital punishment, and so on. --(Gilligan, J., MD, Violence: Reflections On a National Epidemic (New York: Vintage, 1996), 192.) This form of violence, not covered by any of the majoritarian, corporate, ruling-class protected media, is invisible to us and because of its invisibility, all the more insidious. How dangerous is it--really?
on the average, as many
from poverty throughout the world
the Nazi
of the Jews
, in effect,
, in fact accelerating,
, or genocide on the weak and poor every year of every decade, throughout the world. [Gilligan, p. 196] x`

S. Taylor, Prof. of Anthropology, Univ. of Washington, 20
http://depts.washington.edu/ctcenter/taylor.shtml, “Explaining Difference: “Culture,â€
“Structural Violence,†and Medical Anthropology,†ACC. 11-8-10, JT
“Structure†sounds like a neutral term – it sounds like something that is just there, unquestionable, part of the way the world is. By juxtaposing this with the word “violence,†however,
deeply
the ordinary, taken-for-granted patterns of the way
ome important and very challenging insights. First, the same “structures†that render life predictable, secure, comfortable and pleasant for some of us, also mar the lives of others through
Second, these structures are neither natural nor neutral, but are instead the outcome of long histories of political, economic, and social struggle. Third, being nothing more (and nothing less!) than patterns of collective social action, these structures can and should be changed. “Structural violence†thus encourages us to look for differences within large-scale social structures – differences of power, wealth, privilege and health that are unjust and unacceptable. By the same token, “structural violence†encourages us to look for connections between what might be falsely perceived separate and distinct social worlds. “Structural violence†also encourages an attitude of moral outrage and critical engagement, in situations where the automatic response might be to passively accept systematic inequalities.
Thus
(Deborah DuNann Winter and Dana C. Leighton. Winter: Psychologist that specializes in Social Psych,
Counseling Psych, Historical and Contemporary Issues, Peace Psychology. Leighton: PhD graduate student in the Psychology Department at the University of Arkansas. Knowledgable in the fields of social psychology, peace psychology, and ustice and intergroup responses to transgressions of justice) (Peace, conflict, and violence: Peace psychology in the 21st century. Pg 4-5)
Finally, to recognize the operation of
forces us to ask questions about how and why we tolerate it, questions which often have painful answers for the privileged elite who unconsciously support it. A final question of this section is how and why we allow ourselves to be so oblivious to structural violence. Susan Opotow offers an intriguing set of answers, in her article Social Injustice. She argues that our normal perceptual/cognitive processes
in-groups and out-
our group lie outside our scope of justice. Injustice that would be instantaneously confronted if it occurred to someone we love or know is barely noticed if it occurs to strangers or those who are invisible or irrelevant. We do not seem to be able to open our minds and our hearts to everyone, so we draw conceptual lines between those who are in and out of our moral circle. Those who fall outside
either
, or demeaned in some way so that we do not have to acknowledge the injustice they suffer.
Moral exclusion is a human failing, but Opotow argues convincingly that it is an outcome of everyday social cognition. To reduce its nefarious effects, we must be vigilant in noticing and listening to oppressed, invisible, outsiders. Inclusionary thinking can be fostered by relationships, communication, and appreciation of diversity. Like Opotow, all the authors in this section point out that structural violence is not inevitable if we become aware of its operation, and build systematic ways to mitigate its effects. Learning about structural violence may be discouraging, overwhelming, or maddening, but these papers encourage us to step beyond guilt and anger, and begin to think about how to reduce structural violence. All the authors in this section note that the same structures (such as global communication and normal social cognition) which feed structural violence, can also be used to empower citizens to reduce it. groups chosen by each participant (α = .95). Participants were classified as having a more inclusive attitude towards the groups considered based on a higher MIEG score.

Shepherd, Keegan J., "Measuring Up: Standardized Testing and the Making of Postwar American Identities, 1940-2001" (2017). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/7086
All along the way,
For some 163 researchers, standardized test data provided a way to show that social attitudes toward proper feminine behavior made otherwise talented girls disinvest in mathematics during adolescence. For others, standardized testing data illustrated that girls were rewarded for behavior and obedience in the classroom rather than talent, and that boys naturally had a numerical edge among the most mathematically gifted youth.
Some held an ambivalent position between these two extremes—but argued that the blunt-force misuse of
scores by college admissions officer and scholarship organizations essentially
whatever
already existed
opportunities. None of these positions, however, seriously questioned the use of standardized testing in itself. Critics of the findings gathered through one standardized math test would instead use other standardized testing data to stake a competing claim. Standardized testing data thus became an increasingly valuable currency in the ongoing argument about what, exactly, limited girls’ mathematical achievement—an argument unlikely to go away anytime soon as educational policymakers and pundits consider how the United States can best develop experts in STEM fields.
,
Helen Johnson, 4-25-2019, "Gender bias in tests: Numbers themselves prove sexist” The Miscellany News of Vassar College, https://miscellanynews.org/2019/04/25/opinions/gender-bias-in-tests-numbers-themselves prove-sexist/ GirlsDebate-JRG
I remember sitting in my high school gym as a junior, surrounded by my classmates, with pencils sharpened and ready. We were about to take the PSAT. I also remember the days I took the SAT (twice) and the ACT. I remember taking practice test after practice test—all by myself, alone in my room, because there’s really no such thing as tutoring in my town. I remember the frustration and disappointment of two subpar SAT scores that no number of practice tests seemed to improve. I remember my bewilderment as to why I was not scoring highly on the math SAT when I had always excelled in math and had even been told by my teachers that I should consider going into a math-related career. I will never know exactly what factored into my scores on these high-stakes standardized tests—whether it was the temperature of the room, how much sleep I’d gotten, my brain’s test-taking ability or just some other, more systemic factor completely beyond my control. Regardless of my own experience, however, numerou s
have
n that
In their book “Still Failing at Fairness,” David Sadker and Karen Zittleman explain, “For decades, boys scored so much higher than girls [on the PSAT] that two out of three Merit semifinalists were male.”
This is a huge gap, and it has financial consequences.
in 1989,
District
alone to award scholarships (Sadker and Zittleman
, “Still Failing at Fairness,” 2009). The PSAT is only the beginning. While the PSAT can lead to important scholarships and honors, the SAT is used for college admissions, and
In 1967, boys scored 10 points higher [on the SAT] than girls in mathematics; by 1987, the boys’ lead grew to 24 points;
between 33 and
(Sadker and Zittleman, 2009). Reading these statistics, I couldn’t help but think: Is there something fundamentally flawed about this test that caused me—a girl who had always done exceptionally well in math—to get a score much lower than I had hoped? Despite the prevailing misconception, these tests are not accurate indicators of performance nor ability. Colleges use the SAT as a predictor of how well students will do in college; however, girls receive better grades in their first year of college (and in the following years, and in graduate school) than boys do. As Sadker and Zittleman state, “The SAT Reasoning Test (and the PSAT) consistently underpredicts female performance while over predicting male performance. In short, the PSAT and the SAT are broken” (Sadker and Zittleman, 2009). In fact, according to studies as early as 1926, the test has never accurately predicted performance in college
(Silverstein, “Standardized Tests: The Continuation of Gender Bias in Higher Education,” 2000). So if the SAT fails at its one job, we need to ask: Why? One possible explanation for the gender gap is that most high-stakes tests are composed almost entirely of multiple- choice questions due to cost and time restraints. According to the Stanford Graduate School of Education, “Girls perform better on standardized tests that have more open-ended questions while boys score higher when the tests include more multiple-choice” (Stanford Graduate School of Education, “Question format may impact how boys and girls score on standardized tests, Stanford study finds,” 03.29.2018).
mostly
on tests
the
that
topics or activities that are usually more
in practice such as sports and politics—though we wish such topics were not gendered, we must admit that, in society, they are; time constraints, as girls do better with more time because they are more likely to fully solve problems and think through multiple possible answers; and penalties for guessing—boys are more likely to guess, which, ironically, results in higher scores, whereas girls are more likely to heed the instructions of the test and leave the question blank, which loses them more points than if they had guessed (Sadker and Zittleman, 2009).
actually
in school, work and life,
, subsequently,
than boys. Despite the clear evidence that the gender gap on high-stakes tests like the SAT is due to flaws in the test itself rather the intellectual ability of girls, the score disparity it produces is still used as an excuse for sexist thinking and practices. Instead of questioning why these patterns may exist, or even acknowledging that SAT scores are not in line with the academic performance of girls in math not only in high school but also in college, Mark Perry in a 2016 article claims that these scores alone prove an inherent difference in mathematical ability. He states, [T]he scientific data about gender differences in math performance would seem to present a serious challenge to…frequent claims that there are no gender differences in math performance.” (American Enterprise Institute, “2016 SAT Test Results Confirm Pattern That’s Persisted for 50 Years—High School Boys are Better at Math Than Girls,” 09.27.2016). Statements like this are objectively harmful to girls as a group, but his next claim raises even more alarm: “If there are some inherent gender differences for mathematical ability, as the huge and persistent gender differences for the math SAT test suggests, closing the STEM gender degree and job gaps may be a futile attempt in socially engineering an unnatural and unachievable outcome” (American Enterprise Institute, 09.27.2016). So not only are these high-stakes tests benefiting boys and hurting girls when it comes to scholarships and college acceptances, but they are being used to bar women from access to entire fields. Perry’s claims are not only harmful, but also incorrect; the SAT consistently underpredicts women’s performance in college
math and physical science courses (American Physical Society, “Fighting the Gender Gap: Standardized Tests Are Poor Indicators of Ability in Physics,” 1996). This is an excuse to ignore the real, structural issues in a sexist system that prevent women from having equal representation across the STEM field. I am a woman at a prestigious liberal arts college, receiving a substantial amount of financial aid and on track to graduate with a degree in Political Science. I am luckier than most. I cannot pinpoint the reasons behind my test scores, nor do I know if they would have been different in a system that was not inherently sexist. I was lucky enough to get a
PSAT score that made me a National Merit Semifinalist and an ACT score that got me into Vassar. However, thousands of girls like me fall through the cracks every year. I have two incredibly bright, intelligent younger sisters who will be taking these tests in the years to come, and my own days of high-stakes testing are not over. I will likely have to take the GRE or the LSAT after I graduate, and standardized testing for graduate school exhibits the same trends and gender gaps as those for undergrad (Sadker and Zittleman, 2009).
misrepresentative and
they are
of higher education in the country to determine college acceptance and financial aid (The College Solution, “How a 1 Point Increase on the ACT can Equal $24,000,” 01.04.2013). It is time we stop using a system that produces extremely harmful consequences for girls, that has proven time and time again to be inaccurate and that reduces human beings to a single number. Vassar should join the growing number of higher education institutions that are choosing to opt out of requiring test scores for college
applications.
structurally and within our own institution, we don’t need yet another inequity working against us.
on campus over accepting qualified girls (The Miscellany News, “Vassar Admissions exhibits gender bias against women,” 04.10.2019).
Given the biases present both

https://www.fairtest.org/sites/default/files/racial_justice_and_testing_12-10.pdf
0As Claude Steele and his colleagues have demonstrated, "
threat" increases the likelihood that
Stereotype threat means that
and gender
about their group’s intellectual ability
on standardized tests perceived to measure academic aptitude. In effect, the use of high-stakes over the test-takers.vi
overall
perpetuates that inequality through the emotional and psychological power of the tests
(Neil Binnie “The Racist Roots of the SAT render it ineffective” Daily Trojan March 26 2019) Luxus
A study published in 1923 by Carl Brigham,
one of the original tests, wrote that the so-called “American Intelligence
negro
test, more commonly known as the
used as a metric for admission by most colleges. While Brigham’s boilerplate
is one of the past, students of color continue to be discriminated against, even in the creation of test questions. Education Weekly writer
to look at trends among students of different races taking the test. “
significantly
[
composite score],” Gewertz found.
(John Rosales “The Racist Beginnings of Standardized Testing” National Education Association, 2018 http://www.nea.org/home/73288.htm
) Luxus
Biased Testing from the Start Brigham’s Ph.D. dissertation, written in 1916, “Variable Factors in the Binet Tests,” analyzed the work of the French psychologist Alfred Binet, who developed intelligence tests as diagnostic tools to detect learning disabilities. The Stanford psychologist Lewis Terman relied on Binet’s work to produce today’s standard
the Stanford-Binet
Intelligence Tests. During World War I,
helped
scientific yet they remained
, according to researchers and media reports. In 1917,
by the American Psychological Association
and a group intelligence scale. Army testing during World War I ignited the most rapid expansion of the school testing movement. By 1918, there were more than 100 standardized tests, developed by different researchers to measure achievement in the principal elementary and secondary school subjects. The U.S. Bureau of Education reported in 1925 that intelligence and achievement tests were increasingly used to classify students at all levels. The first SAT was administered in 1926 to more than 8,000 students, 40 percent of them female. The original test lasted 90 minutes and consisted of 315 questions focused on vocabulary and basic math. “Unlike the college boards, the SAT is designed primarily to assess aptitude for learning rather than mastery of subjects already learned,” according to Erik Jacobsen, a New Jersey writer and math-physics teacher based at Newark Academy in Livingston, N.J. “For some college officials, an aptitude test, which is presumed to measure intelligence, is appealing since at this time (1926) intelligence and ethnic origin are thought to be connected, and therefore the results of such a test could be used to limit the admissions of particularly undesirable ethnicities.” By 1930, multiple-choice tests were firmly entrenched in U.S. schools. The rapid spread of the SAT sparked debate along two lines. Some critics viewed the multiple-choice format as encouraging memorization and guessing. Others examined the content of the questions and reached the conclusion that the tests were racist. Eventually, Brigham adapted the Army test for use in college admissions, and his work began to interest interested administrators at Harvard University. Starting in 1934, Harvard adopted the SAT to select scholarship recipients at the school. Many institutions of higher learning soon followed suit.
of standardized testing,
, particularly those from low-income families,
in U.S. public schools. Decades of research demonstrate that
, as well as students from some Asian groups,
administered from early childhood through college.

Trafton, Anne, and MIT News Office. “Study Links Brain Anatomy, Academic Achievement, and Family Income.” MIT News , MIT, 17 Apr. 2015, news.mit.edu/2015/link-brain-to-anatomy-academic-achievement-family-income-0417 .
A new study led by
University
this so-called
“
”: After imaging the brains of high- and low-income students, they found that the
areas associated with visual perception and
Furthermore,
one measure of academic achievement —
“Just as you would expect,
We can see it not only in test scores, in educational attainment, but within the brains of these children,” says MIT’s John Gabrieli, the Grover M. Hermann Professor in Health Sciences and Technology, professor of brain and cognitive sciences, and one of the study’s authors. “To me, it’s a call to action. You want to boost the opportunities for those for whom it doesn’t come easily in their environment.” This study did not explore possible reasons for these differences in brain anatomy. However, previous studies have shown that
suffer from stress in early childhood,
more
and receive less exposure to spoken language early in life.
all

(Wayne, professor in the school of educational studies at the University of Washington Bothell, “Meritocracy 2.0: High-Stakes, Standardized Testing as a Racial Project of Neoliberal Multiculturalism”, published in the journal of Educational Policy in volume 30 in 2016, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0895904815614916 ) [Premier]
As the above quotation from DuBois illustrates, one of the things that Black educational leaders challenged was the bias behind standardized IQ testing— a challenge worth making based on the racialized and class-based test scores (Giordano, 2005; Gould, 1996; Tyack, 1974). However, despite these challenges, with the support of leading psychologists and popular opinion, such standardized testing was seen as providing an objective measure of intelligence and ability. In turn, this presumptive objectivity provided the foundation for the idea that standardized testing provided a fair and accurate measurement of individual effort, paving the way for psychologists, philanthropists, and educators to sort students using test scores and ultimately serving ideologically to deny structural inequalities (Au, 2013).
The logic of test-based structural denial works thusly:
for the
of individuals
,
objectively
and equal
at educational, social, and economic achievement
.
and class privilege
through testing. As Sacks (1999) notes, these logics were advanced in the early years of standardized testing, where such tests were seen as a means for challenging class privileges. This is the root of the idea that standardized testing, both historically and today, can be a means of challenging inequality, and it is the way that standardized testing helps uphold the ideology of meritocracy in the United States. The ideology of meritocracy asserts that, regardless of social position, economic class, gender, race, or culture (or any other form of socially or institutionally defined difference), everyone has an equal chance at becoming “successful” based purely on individual merit and hard work.
Consequently, the ideology of
also
n individual
(or individual group’s)
and hard work (Lemann, 1999; Sacks, 1999).
As a racial project,
personal,
, racial, or otherwise
one of the most recent
”
(Horn, 2012;
Thomas, 2014). This construction of standardized testing as an objective measure of merit was, as Karier (1972) explains, built by those in power who believed in the superiority of their own talents: Most testers refused to admit the possibility that they were, perhaps, servants of privilege, power and status, and preferred instead to believe and “hope” that what they were measuring was, in fact, true “merit.” This was also an act of faith,
the belief that somehow
, wealth, power status and violence
and virtue. This was a fundamental axiom in the liberal’s faith in meritocracy which emerged in twentieth century American education. (p. 169) In this way, and continuing to think through standardized testing as a racial project, we are reminded of the material construction of these tests. They were (and are) created, administered, interpreted, analyzed, reported on, and made sense of by actual people—people with social, cultural, racial, and economic locations, vested interests, questioned or unquestioned assumptions, biases, histories, and so forth. To understand standardized testing as a racial project (both the fundament of testing historically and its modern progeny in high-stakes, standardized testing), then, we have to understand the ways that testing was used to shape “what race means in a particular discursive or ideological practice and the ways in which both social structures and everyday experiences are racially organized, based on that meaning” (Omi & Winant, 2015, p. 125, emphasis in original). As such, with the empirical evidence provided by presumptively “objective” standardized tests,
Whites and
could
own structural
, deny the existence of systemic racism, justify racial hierarchies
less intelligent and
(Au, 2009b, 2013), all
among individuals (Bisseret, 1979) competing within a meritocratic framework. It is important to take a moment and note that test-based, racialized notions of IQ are not simply archaic ideas thrown to the dustbins of history. In the modern era for instance, using standardized test scores for their data,
and Murray (1996)
there was an intelligence hierarchy of races, where
, followed by Latinos, Whites, and Asian Americans who, according to the authors, were supposedly the most intelligent. As another example, Rushton and Jensen (2005) have more recently asserted that genetically based racial differences in IQ are real (Jensen is professor emeritus of educational psychology at University of California, Berkeley), and others such as Barrow and Rouse (2006), a senior economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago and a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton, respectively, explicitly rely on the work of Herrnstein and Murray (1996) as a baseline for their analysis of the relationship between race, education, and pay.
As such
-
and biological notions of
not
early 20th century but are instead still living among us in
discourse and in the academy.
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p60-252.pdf
DeNavas-Walt, Carmen and Bernadette D. Proctor, Income and Poverty in the United States: 2014, U.S. Census Bureau. Current Population Reports P60-252, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC,
The Census Bureau reports
for people aged 25 and older. In 2014, the overall poverty rate for people aged 25 and older
The poverty rates by work experience for that age group ranged from 5% to 29%.
attainment
how the distribution of people in
their
compares to that of the population as a whole. By that measure,

much greater degree.
.
Those with some college but no degree comprise a somewhat lesser share of the population in poverty than their share of the general population and those with a bachelor’s degree or higher are underrepresented to a

(Richard; 8/5/12; Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Canterbury, Professor of Peace Studies at the University of Otago, Director of the National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, former senior lecturer at the University of Manchester; Richard Jackson Terrorism Blog, “The Great Con of National Security,” https://richardjacksonterrorismblog.wordpress.com/2012/08/05/the-great-con-of-national-security/)
It may have once been the case that being attacked by another country was a major threat to the lives of ordinary people. It may also be true that there are still some pretty serious dangers out there associated with the spread of nuclear weapons. For the most part, however, most of what you’ve been told about
national security and
all the big
threats which can supposedly kill you
is one big con designed
to distract you from the things that can really hurt you, such as the poverty, inequality and
structural violence of capitalism, global warming, and the manufacture and proliferation of weapons – among others. The facts are simple and irrefutable: you’re far more likely to die from lack of health care provision than you are from terrorism; from stress and overwork than Iranian or North Korean nuclear missiles; from lack of road safety than from illegal immigrants; from mental illness and suicide than from computer hackers; from domestic violence than from asylum seekers; from the misuse of legal medicines and alcohol abuse than from international drug lords. And yet, politicians and the servile media spend most of
their time talking about
the threats posed by terrorism
, immigration, asylum seekers, the international drug trade, the nuclear programmes of Iran and North Korea, computer hackers, animal rights activism, the threat of
China
, and a host of other issues which are all about as equally unlikely to affect the health and well-being of you and your family.
Along with this
obsessive and perennial discussion of so-called
‘national security issues’, the state spends truly vast sums on
security measures which have virtually no impact on the actual risk of dying from these threats, and then engages in massive displays of ‘security theatre’ designed to show just how seriously the state takes these threats – such as the x-ray machines and security measures in every public building, surveillance cameras everywhere, missile launchers in urban areas, drones in Afghanistan, armed police in airports, and a thousand other things. This display is meant to convince you that these threats are really, really serious. And while all this is going on, the
rulers of society are
hop ing that you won’t notice that increasing social and economic
inequality in society leads to increased ill health for a growing underclass; that suicide and crime always rise when unemployment rises; that workplaces remain highly dangerous and kill and maim hundreds of people per year; that there are preventable diseases which plague the poorer sections of society; that domestic violence kills and injures thousands of women and children annually; and that globally, poverty and preventable disease kills tens of millions of people needlessly every year. In other words, they are hoping that you won’t notice how much structural violence there is in the world. More than this, they are hoping that you won’t notice that while literally trillions of dollars
are spent on military weapons
, foreign wars and security theatre ( which
also arguably do nothing to make any us any safer, and may even make us marginally less safe
), that domestic violence programmes struggle to provide even minimal support for women and children at risk of serious harm from their partners; that underfunded mental health programmes mean long waiting lists to receive basic care for at-risk individuals; that drug and alcohol rehabilitation programmes lack the funding to match the demand for help; that welfare measures aimed at reducing inequality have been inadequate for decades; that health and safety measures at many workplaces remain insufficiently resourced; and that measures to tackle global warming and developing alternative energy remain hopelessly inadequate. Of course, none of this is surprising.
Politicians are a part of the system; they don’t want to change it. For them, all the insecurity, death and ill-health caused by capitalist inequality are a price worth paying to keep the basic social structures as they are. A more egalitarian society based on equality, solidarity, and other non-materialist values would not suit their interests, or the special interests of the lobby groups they are indebted to. It is also true that dealing with economic and social inequality, improving public health, changing international structures of inequality, restructuring the military-industrial complex, and making the necessary economic and political changes to deal with global warming will be extremely difficult and will require long-term commitment and determination. For politicians looking towards the next election, it is clearly much easier to paint immigrants as a threat to social order or pontificate about the ongoing danger of terrorists. It is also more exciting for the media than stories about how poor people and people of colour are discriminated against and suffer worse health as a consequence. Viewed from this vantage point, national
security is one massive confidence trick
– misdirection on an epic scale. Its primary function is
to distract you from the structures
and inequalities in society which are the real threat to the health and wellbeing of you and your family, and to convince you to be permanently afraid so that you will acquiesce to all the security measures which keep you under state control and keep the military-industrial complex ticking along. Keep this in mind next time you hear a politician talking about the threat of uncontrolled immigration, the risk posed by asylum seekers or the threat of Iran, or the need to expand counter-terrorism powers. The question is: when politicians are talking about national security, what is that they don’t want you to think and talk about? What exactly is the misdirection they are engaged in? The truth is, if you think that terrorists or immigrants or asylum seekers or Iran are a greater threat to your safety than the capitalist system, you have been well and truly conned, my friend. Don’t believe the hype: you’re much more likely to die from any one of several forms of structural violence in society than you are from immigrants or terrorism. Somehow, we need to challenge the politicians on this fact.

Dr. Tommy J, Associate Professor of Philosophy, Affiliated Professor of Africana Studies, and a Ray A. Rothrock Fellow at Texas A&M University; first Black JV National Debate champion (for UMKC) and was half of the first all Black CEDA team to win the Pi Kappa Delta National Debate Tournament. “The Cost of a Thing: A Kingian Reformulation of a Living Wage Argument in the 21st Century.” 2014. IB
Despite the pronouncement of debate as an activity and intellectual exercise pointing to the real world consequences of dialogue, thinking, and (personal) politics
racism, sexism, economic
, global conflicts, and death,
of the
concerning these ongoing challenges to humanity
a paradigm which sees the adjudication of material disparities and sociological realities as the conquest of one
over the other. In “Ideal
Theory as Ideology,” Charles Mills outlines the problem contemporary theoretical-performance styles in policy debate and value-weighing in Lincoln-Douglass are confronted with in their attempts to get at the concrete problems in our societies. At the outset, Mills concedes that “ideal theory applies to moral theory as a whole (at least to normative eth ics as against metaethics); [s]ince ethics deals by definition with normative/prescriptive/evaluative issues, [it is set] against factual/descriptive issues.” At the most general level,
what emerges as
in the world
(e.g.: racism, sexism, poverty, disease, etc.)
—the assumptions and shared ideologies we depend upon for our problems to be heard and accepted as a worthy “problem” by an audience—
an anti-ethical paradigm, since such
as the basis of what can be considered normatively. Mills, however, describes this chasm as a problem of an ideal-as-descriptive model which argues that for any actual-empirical-observable social phenomenon (P), an ideal of (P) is necessarily a representation of that phenomenon. In the idealization of a social phenomenon (P), one “necessarily has to abstract away from certain features” of (P) that is observed before abstraction occurs.
between what is actual (in the world), and what is represented by theories and politics of debaters proposed in rounds
and the racist economic structures which necessitate tangible policies and reorienting changes in our value orientations. As Mills states: “What distinguishes ideal theory is the reliance on idealization to the exclusion, or at least marginalization, of the actual,” so what we are seeking to resolve on the basis of “thought” is in fact incomplete, incorrect, or ultimately irrelevant to the actual problems which our “theories” seek to address.
simply
— meaning
that
(which are constantly emerging and undisclosed beyond the effects we observe)
by any one set of theories
be it our most cherished notions of Afro-pessimism, feminism, Marxism, or the like. At best, theoretical endorsements make us aware of sets of actions to address ever developing problems in our empirical world, but even this awareness does not command us to only do X, but rather do X and the other ideas which compliment the material conditions addressed by the action X. As a whole, debate (policy and LD) neglects the need to do X in order to remedy our cast-away-ness among our ideological tendencies and politics.’ How then do we pull ourselves from this seeming ir-recoverability of thought in general and in our endorsement of socially actualizable values like that of the living wage? It is my position that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s thinking about the need for a living wage was a unique, and remains an underappreciated, resource in our attempts to impose value reorientation (be it through critique or normative gestures) upon the actual world. In other words, King aims to reformulate the values which deny the legitimacy of the living wage, and those values predicated on the flawed views of the worker, Blacks, and the colonized (dignity, justice, fairness, rights, etc.) used to currently justify the living wages in under our contemporary moral parameters.

, Mari, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Hawaii, “When the First Quail Calls: Multiple Consciousness as Jurisprudential Method”, 11 Women's Rts. L. Rep. 7 1989 // SHS JL
The multiple consciousness I urge lawyers to attain is not a random ability to see all points of view, but a deliberate choice to see the world from the standpoint of the oppressed.
That world is accessible to all of us. We should know it in its concrete particulars. We should know of our sister carrying buckets of water up five flights of stairs in a welfare hotel, our sister trembling at 3 a.m. in a shelter for battered women, our sisters holding bloodied children in their arms in Cape Town, on the West Bank, and in N icaragua. The jurisprudence of outsiders teaches that these details and the emotions they evoke are relevant and important as we set out on the road to justice. These details are accessible to all of us, of all genders and colors. We can choose to know the lives of others by reading, studying, listening, and venturing into different places. For lawyers, our pro bono work may be the most effective means of acquiring a broader consciousness of oppression
.
and detachment
the discomfort of direct
the ugliness of
Abstraction, criticized by both feminists and scholars of color, is the, method that allows
to
, property,
in the aspirational mode of liberalism
real people's
.
Much in our mainstream intellectual training values abstraction and denigrates nitty-gritty detail. Holding on to a multiple consciousness will allow us to operate both within the abstractions of standard jurisprudential discourse, and within the details of our own special knowledge. Whisperings at Yale and elsewhere about how deconstructionist heroes were closet fascists remind me of how important it is to stay close to oppressed communities. High talk about language, meaning, sign, process, and law can mask racist and sexist ugliness if we never stop to ask: "Exactly what are you talking about and what is the implication of what you are saying for my sis- ter who is carrying buckets of water up five flights of stairs in a welfare hotel? What do you propose to do for her today, not in some abstract future you are creating in your mind?" If you have been made to feel, as I have, that such inquiry is theoretically unsophisticated, and quaintly naive, resist! Read what Professor Williams, Professor Scales-Trent, and other feminists and people of color are writing.' The reality and detail of oppression are a starting point for these writers as they enter into mainstream debates about law and theory.

, Executive Director of the Open Philanthropy Project degree in Social Studies from Harvard University, 7/3/14, “The Moral Value of the Far Future” https://www.openphilanthropy.org/blog/moral-value-far-future MN
I broadly accept the idea that the bulk of our impact may come from effects on future generations, and this view causes me to be more interested in scientific research funding, global catastrophic risk mitigation, and other causes outside of aid to the developing-world poor. (If not for this view, I would likely favor the latter and would likely be far more interested in animal welfare as well.) However, I
the specific argument given by Nick Bostrom in Astronomical Waste - that
More I reject the idea that placing high value on the far future - no matter how high the value - makes it clear that one should focus on reducing the risks of catastrophes such as extreme climate change, pandemics, misuse of advanced artificial intelligence, etc. Even
who fully accepts the conclusions of “Astronomical Waste”
- including donating to GiveWell’s current top charities and reaping the associated flow-through effects. More I consider “global catastrophic risk reduction” to be a promising area for a philanthropist. As discussed previously, we are investigating this area actively. More Those interested in related materials may wish to look at two transcripts of recorded conversations I had on these topics: a conversation on flow-through effects with Carl Shulman, Robert Wiblin, Paul Christiano, and Nick Beckstead and a conversation on existential risk with Eliezer Yudkowsky and Luke Muehlhauser. The importance of the far future As discussed previously, I believe that
. It seems reasonable to state that the
. I believe it is reasonable to expect this basic dynamic to continue, and I believe that there remains huge room for further improvement (possibly dwarfing the improvements we’ve seen to date). I place some probability on global upside possibilities including breakthrough technology, space colonization, and widespread improvements in interconnectedness, empathy and altruism. Even if these don’t pan out, there remains a great deal of room for further reduction in poverty and in other causes of suffering. In Astronomical Waste, Nick Bostrom makes a more extreme and more specific claim: that the number of human lives possible under space colonization is so great that the mere possibility of a hugely populated future, when considered in an “expected value” framework, dwarfs all other moral considerations. I see no obvious analytical flaw in this claim, and give it some weight. However, because the argument relies heavily on specific predictions about a distant future, seemingly (as far as I can tell) backed by little other than speculation, I do not consider it “robust,” and so I do not consider it rational to let it play an overwhelming role in my belief system and actions. (More on my epistemology and method for handling non-robust arguments containing massive quantities here.) In addition, if I did fully accept the reasoning of “Astronomical Waste” and evaluate all actions by their far future consequences, it isn’t clear what implications this would have. As discussed below, given our uncertainty about the specifics of the far future and our reasons to believe that doing good in the present day can have substantial impacts on the future as well, it seems possible that “seeing a large amount of value in future generations” and “seeing an overwhelming amount of value in future generations” lead to similar consequences for our actions. Catastrophic risk reduction vs. doing tangible good Many people have cited “Astronomical Waste” to me as evidence that the greatest opportunities for doing good are in the form of reducing the risks of catastrophes such as extreme climate change, pandemics, problematic developments related to artificial intelligence, etc. Indeed, “Astronomical Waste” seems to argue something like this: For standard utilitarians, priority number one, two, three and four should consequently be to reduce existential risk. The utilitarian imperative “Maximize expected aggregate utility!” can be simplified to the maxim “Minimize existential risk!”. I have always found this inference flawed, and in my recent discussion with Eliezer Yudkowsky and Luke Muehlhauser, it was argued to me that the “Astronomical Waste” essay never meant to make this inference in the first place. The author’s definition of existential risk includes anything that stops humanity far short of realizing its full potential - including, presumably, stagnation in economic and technological progress leading to a long-lived but limited civilization. Under that definition, “Minimize existential risk!” would seem to potentially include any contribution to general human empowerment. I have often been challenged to explain how one could possibly reconcile (a) caring a great deal about the far future with (b) donating to one of GiveWell’s top charities. My general response is that in the face of sufficient uncertainty about one’s options, and lack of conviction that there are good (in the sense of high expected value) opportunities to make an enormous difference, it is rational to try to make a smaller but robustly positive difference, whether or not one can trace a specific causal pathway from doing this small amount of good to making a large impact on the far future. A few brief arguments in support of this position: I believe that the track record of “taking robustly strong opportunities to do
, and/or arguments about what is likely to happen in the far future.” This is true even when one evaluates track record only in terms of seeming impact on the far future. The developments that seem most positive in retrospect - from large ones like the development of the steam engine to small ones like the many economic contributions
- seem to have been driven by the former approach, and I’m not aware of many examples in which the latter approach has yielded great benefits. I see some sense in which the world’s overall civilizational ecosystem seems to have done a better job optimizing for the far future than any of the world’s individual minds. It’s often the case that
(especially when they did so with creativity, integrity, transparency, consensuality, and pursuit of gain via value creation rather than value transfer)
.
If this is correct, it seems to imply that one should be focused on “playing one’s role as well as possible” - on finding opportunities to “beat the broad market” (to do more good than people with similar goals would be able to) rather than pouring one’s resources into the areas that non-robust estimates have indicated as most important to the far future. The process of trying to accomplish tangible good can lead to a great deal of learning and unexpected positive developments, more so (in my view) than the process of putting resources into a low-feedback endeavor based on one’s current best-guess theory. In my conversation with Luke and Eliezer, the two of them hypothesized that the greatest positive benefit of supporting GiveWell’s top charities may have been to raise the profile, influence, and learning abilities of GiveWell. If this were true, I don’t believe it would be an inexplicable stroke of luck for donors to top charities; rather, it would be the sort of development (facilitating feedback loops that lead to learning, organizational development, growing influence, etc.) that is often associated with “doing something well” as opposed to “doing the most worthwhile thing poorly.” I see multiple reasons to believe that contributing to general human empowerment mitigates global catastrophic risks. I laid some of these out in a blog post and discussed them further in my conversation with Luke and Eliezer. For one who accepts these considerations, it seems to me that: It is not clear whether placing enormous value on the far future ought to change one’s actions from what they would be if one simply placed large value on the far future. In both cases,
If one sees few robustly good opportunities to “make a huge difference to the far future,”
One ought to be interested in “unusual, outstanding opportunities to do good” even if they don’t have a clear connection to improving the far future.
(Oliver; April 2008; Ph.D. in IR, Professor of Sociology at the University of Bielefeld, Professor of History and Theory of IR at the Faculty of Arts; Alternatives, Vol. 33, “From Insecurity to Uncertainty: Risk and the Paradox of Security Politics” p. 211-232)
The problem of the second method is that it is very difficult to "calculate" politically unacceptable losses. If the
of terrorism is
in traditional terms
probability and
, then the focus on dramatic terror attacks
the
. The reason is that
degree of
the measure of
. ^o The mathematical calculation of the risk of terrorism thus tends to overestimate and to dramatize the danger. This has consequences beyond the actual risk assessment for the formulation and execution of "risk policies":
If one factor of the risk calculation approaches infinity (e.g., if a case of nuclear terrorism is envisaged), then there is no balanced measure for antiterrorist efforts, and
a
endeavor
.
Under the historical condition of bipolarity, the "ultimate" threat with nuclear weapons could be balanced by a similar counterthreat, and new equilibria could be achieved, albeit on higher levels of nuclear overkill.
the new condition of
such
since knowledge about actors, their motives and capabilities, is largely absent. The second form of security policy that emerges when the deterrence model collapses mirrors the "social probability" approach. It

. In contrast to risk management framed in line with logical probability theory, the logic of catastrophe does not attempt to provide means of absorbing uncertainty. Rather, it takes uncertainty as constitutive for the logic itself; uncertainty is a crucial precondition for catastrophes. In particular, catastrophes happen at once, without a warning, but with major implications for the world polity. In this category, we find the impact of meteorites. Mars attacks, the tsunami in South East Asia, and 9/11. To conceive of terrorism as catastrophe has consequences for the formulation of an adequate security policy. Since
human
or inactivity,
possibly
.
Of course, there are precautions that can be taken, but the framing of terrorist attack as a catastrophe points to spatial and temporal characteristics that are beyond "rationality." Thus, political decision makers are exempted from the responsibility to provide security—as long as they at least try to preempt an attack. Interestingly enough, 9/11 was framed as catastrophe in various commissions dealing with the question of who was responsible and whether it could have been prevented. This makes clear that under the condition of uncertainty, there are no objective criteria that could serve as an anchor for measuring dangers and assessing the quality of political responses. For ex- ample, as much as one might object to certain measures by the US administration, it is almost impossible to "measure" the success of countermeasures. Of course, there might be a subjective assessment of specific shortcomings or failures, but there is no "common" currency to evaluate them. As a consequence, the framework of the security dilemma fails to capture the basic uncertainties. Pushing the door open for the security paradox, the main problem of security analysis then becomes the question how to integrate dangers in risk assessments and security policies about which simply nothing is known. In the mid 1990s, a Rand study entitled "New Challenges for Defense Planning" addressed this issue arguing that "most striking is the fact that we do not even know who or what will constitute
future
,
"^i In order to cope with this challenge it would be essential, another Rand researcher wrote, to break free from the "tyranny" of plausible scenario planning. The decisive step
be to
... in
audit
or storyline from current events"52 These nonstandard scenarios were later called "wild cards" and became important in the current US strategic discourse. They justified the transformation from a threat-based toward a capability- based defense planning strategy.53 The problem with this kind of risk assessment is, however, that
can
plausibility. By constructing
, improbable events are linked and brought into the realm of the possible, if not even the probable. "Although the
of the scenario
with each step,
residual
one of
. "54 This so-called Othello effect has been effective in the dawn of the recent war in Iraq. The connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda that the US government tried to prove was disputed from the very beginning. False evidence was again and again presented and refuted, but this did not prevent the administration from presenting as the main rationale for war the improbable yet possible connection between Iraq and the terrorist network and the improbable yet possible proliferation of an improbable yet possible nuclear weapon into the hands of Bin Laden. As Donald Rumsfeld famously said: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." This sentence indicates that under the condition of genuine uncertainty, different evidence criteria prevail than in situations where security problems can be assessed with relative certainty.

, Fellow at the Institute of Society and Ethics, 19
(Daniel, The Tyranny of Survival, Pages 91-93)
The value of survival could not be so readily abused were it not for its evocative power. But abused it has been. In the name of survival, all manner of social and political evils have been committed against the rights of individuals, including the right to life
.
The purported threat of Communist domination has for over two decades, fueled the drive of militarists for ever-larger defense budgets, no matter what the cost to other social needs. During World War II, native
Japanese Americans were herded
, without due process of law, into detention camps
. This policy was later upheld by the Supreme Court in Korematsu v. United States (1944) in a general consensus that a threat to national security can justify acts otherwise blatantly unjustifiable. The survival of the Aryan race was one of the official legitimizations of Nazism. Under the banner of survival, the go vernment of
South
Africa imposed a ruthless apartheid, heedless of the most elementary human rights. The Vietnamese war has been one of the greatest of the many
absurdities tolerated in the name of survival, the destruction of villages in order to save them
. But it is not only in a political setting that survival has been evokes as a final and unarguable value. The main rationale B.F. Skinner offers in Beyond Freedom and Dignity for the controlled and conditioned society is the need for survival. For Jaques Monod, in Chance and Necessity, survival requires that we overthrow almost all known religious, ethical, and political system. In genetics, the survival of the gene pool has been put forward as grounds for a forceful prohibition of bearers of offensive genetic traits from marrying and beating children
.
Some have suggested we do the cause of survival no good by our misguided medical efforts to find means to find means by which those suffering from such common genetically based diseases as diabetes can live a normal life and thus procreate more diabetics. In the field of population and environment, one can do no better than to cite Paul
Ehrlich
, whose works have shown
a high dedication to survival, and in its holy name a willingness to contemplate governmentally enforced abortions and a denial of food to starving populations of nations which have not enacted population-control policies For all these reasons, it is possible to counterpoise over against the need for survival a "tyranny of survival."
There seems to be no imaginable evil which some group is not willing to inflict on another for the sake of survival, no rights, liberties or dignities which it is not ready to suppress
. It is easy, of course, to recognize the danger when survival is falsely and manipulatively invoked
.
Dictators never talk about their aggressions, but only about the need to defend the father land, to save it from destruction at the hands of its enemies
.
But my point goes deeper than that. It is directed even at legitimate concern for survival, when that concern is allowed to reach an intensity which would ignore, suppress or destroy other fundamental human rights and values. The potential tyranny of survival as a value is that it is capable
, if not treated sanely, of wiping out all other values. Survival can become an obsession and a disease, provoking a destructive singlemindedness that will stop at nothing
.
We come here to the fundamental moral dilemma. If, both biologically and psychologically, the need for survival is basic to man, and if survival is the precondition for any and all human achievements
, and if no other rights make much sense without the premise of a right to life - then how will it be possible to honor and act upon the need for survival without
, in the process,
destroying everything in human beings which makes them worthy of survival
. To put it more strongly, if the price of survival is human degradation, then there is no moral reason why an effort should be make to ensure that survival.

Arthur Coleman is a prominent member of the college board and the US board of Education with a background in education. “Understanding Holistic Review in Higher Education Admissions.”Collegeboard.org, College Board, professionals.collegeboard.org/pdf/understanding-holistic-review-he-admissions.pdf.
I. Introduction and Overview Individualized
cornerstone of admissions among institutions with varying levels of selectivity, embodying a rigorous evidence-based and data-informed exercise in expert human judgment that seeks to attain particular institutional goals. Broadly speaking, it is a
“
to the multiple ways in which applicants may prepare for and demonstrate suitability” as students at a particular institution.6 And, although no single definition can fully capture the legitimate variability among colleges and universities that manifest varied missions and admissions aims, the policy and practice landscape (informed by guiding federal court decisions) provide insight into key elements typical of effective practices. First, holistic review is mission aligned, meaning that the unique history, character, aims, vision, and educational and societal contributions of an institution set a critical stage for decision-making in admissions. Second, holistic review typically reflects a duality of institutional aims centered on judgments about particular students’ likely ability to succeed and thrive at a given institution and, as importantly, a student’s potential to contribute to the teaching and learning experience of their peers and ultimately to affect contributions of the institution to society. Third, to attain these aims, holistic review involves consideration of multiple, intersecting factors— academic, nonacademic, and contextual—that enter the mix and uniquely combine to define each individual applicant. A robust consideration of quantitative and qualitative factors, all considered in context of the applicant’s background and circumstances—and how they relate to one another in a particular applicant’s profile— shape admission decisions. With these key elements present, holistic review will most likely achieve its aims if it is integrated as part of the institution’s overall enrollment strategy, with connectivity among outreach, recruitment, admissions, and aid policies and practices; and its design reflects the strengths and needs associated with the educational experience, curricular and cocurricular, of the students who are admitted. PART ONE Key Features and Elements of Individualized Holistic Review 6. Ass ociation of American Medical
Colleges, Roadmap to Diversity: Integrating Holistic Review Principles into Medical School Admission Processes (AAMC, 2010), at 5, available at https://www.aamc.org/initiatives/holisticreview/resources/. II. Key Elements A. MISSION ALIGNMENT Higher education mission and related policy statements reflect the educational aims, and educational and societal roles central to an institution’s investment and action. As an institution’s “formal, public declaration of its purposes and its vision of excellence,” mission statements, or other policy statements expressing important aims and character of the institution (whatever their label), are “the necessary condition for many different individuals to pull together through a myriad of activities to achieve central shared purposes.”7 Well-developed mission and policy statements—particularly when institutional mission statements are carried forward to aligned department and unit statements—can have operational effects. They provide important clarity to inform decision-making among all actors toward the excellence the institution seeks, establishing coherence, alignment, and synergies among various units, schools, and departments within individual institutions. Mission statements are typically broad, so it is important to derive from mission statements or 7. Jerry Gaff and Jack Meacham, Learning Goals in Mission Statements: Implications for Educational Leadership, 92
Education (Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2006), https://www.aacu.org/publications-research/periodicals/ learning-goals-mission-statements-implications-educational. (To ensure that a mission statement is effective as a driver of institutional goals, it’s important to involve a range of stakeholders in its development, and that the mission statement be endorsed by the governing board and communicated broadly across the institution.) 8.
AAMC, supra 6, at 5. In a 2003 survey, the National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC) identified the strong interest that institutions of higher education have in broad student body diversity that includes but isn’t limited to race and ethnicity, including geography, socioeconomic status, gender, age, religion, first-generation students, international students, and special talents. This connection of mission to a broad diversity interest is captured in the amicus brief of the College Board in which the American Association of College Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO), the Law School Admission Council (LSAC), and NACAC joined, “To continue as academic, economic, and civic engines for excellence, colleges and universities must be able to define and pursue their education missions and education goals, within appropriate parameters. Admitting classes of students who are best able to contribute and succeed is a vital exercise of institutional identity and autonomy because mission is achieved through the student bodies that institutions admit and educate.” See Brief for the College Board, et al. as Amici Curiae
Supporting Respondents, Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, 579 US _ (2016) (no.14-981), available at http:// educationcounsel.com/?publication=fisher-v-university-of-texas-us-supreme-court-amicus-brief-2015). 9. See for example, North Carolina State University, Compl. 11-04- 2009 (U.S. Department of Education, November 27, 2012) (letter of resolution), available at https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ ocr/docs/investigations/11042009-a.pdf. The letter of resolution of the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights stated: “The manner in which race may be taken into account varies other statements of institutional vision/direction a clear set of goals and objectives, and the underlying rationales that support those aims. It is also important to be explicit about the relevance and importance of student body diversity to achieving such goals, with implications for the selection of entering students.8 In schools large and small, urban and rural, research, private, public, and land grant (and more), admission decisions are grounded in the unique history, character, aims, and vision that define an institution. Moreover, differences within institutions— between undergraduate and graduate/professional programs, and among schools within undergraduate institutions, for instance—also have distinct goals that affect admission.9 What works for one institution (or department or professional school within an institution) in light of its mission and processes won’t necessarily work for another.10 “There are almost as many different approaches to selection as there are institutions.”11 Institutions routinely adapt a holistic review to make it their own, as a natural extension of their institutional mission and a tool to achieve the institution’s educational and societal goals.12 from college to college within [North Carolina State] University. OCR considered that some colleges are less in demand than others and that virtually all who apply to those colleges are admitted. On the other hand, some colleges and programs within those colleges are very popular with applicants. Within those selective colleges, the procedures and factors considered in deciding whether to grant or deny admission to students who do not automatically qualify under the presumptive admit criteria vary. Consequently, diversity factors such as race also receive different emphasis. For example, a representative from the College of Management stressed the importance of preparing students to work in a global marketplace, including international settings, and placed greater emphasis on diversity factors than the College of Design, where students’ demonstrated design or artistic talents are of nearly exclusive importance. …
the College of Engineering and
, life experiences
rural
international experiences,
10. Specific considerations that drive admission judgments typically include the institution’s unique roles, mission characteristics and goals, academic approach and philosophy, nonacademic programs, financial resources, and the likely “yield” of admitted students, to name a few. Jerome A. Lucido, “How Admission Decisions Get Made,” in Handbook of Strategic Enrollment Management, 147–173 (2015) at 147-49; Melissa Clinedinst, State of College Admission (National Association for College Admission Counseling, 2015) at 31, available at http://www.nxtbook.com/ ygsreprints/NACAC/2014SoCA_nxtbk/. 11. Rigol, supra 1. 12. For example, Princeton Univ., Compl. No. 02-08- 6002 (U.S. Dep’t of Educ. Sept. 9, 2015) (compliance resolution), available at https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/ investigations/02086002-a.pdf; Rice Univ., Compl. No. 06-05- 2020 (U.S. Department of Education, Sept. 10, 2013) (compliance resolution), available at http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/ docs/investigations/06052020-a.html (last modified Jan. 14, 2015). 5 B. A FOCUS ON AN APPLICANT’S LIKELY SUCCESS AND CONTRIBUTION TO THE SCHOOL COMMUNITY
the institution seeks
to each applicant’s portfolio. They can do this by assessing how each applicant may contribute to, and benefit from, the learning environment of the institutions. … Ultimately, the committee must think about the range of criteria it needs in a class, not just in individual applicants, to achieve the institution’s mission and goals … One responsibility of the committee, then, is to weight and balance these different factors when screening, interviewing, and selecting applicants.16 C. MANY FACTORS THAT SHAPE THE ADMISSION DECISION Because institutions realize their mission-oriented goals through the wide range of intellectual and personal experiences and pursuits of their students, they take great care as they create entering classes. Although mission, resource limitations, and sometimes state constitutional and legislative charters influence admissions policies and goals, the goal of providing all students opportunities to engage in and out of the classroom with a diverse community of peers is broadly recognized as a critical element of excellence in higher education. As thenpresident Shirley Tilghman explained to Princeton’s class of 2009 on their first day, “Never again will you live with a group of peers that was expressly assembled to expand your horizons and open your eyes to the fascinating richness of the human condition.”13 In light of an applicant’s accomplishments, talents, experiences, and potential to succeed, as well as his or her potential to contribute to the institution’s community,14 the universally defining feature of
is its flexible framework that allows for the institution-specific consideration of a range of intersecting factors. As reflected here, “merit” for admission is not limited to any one factor and cannot be determined out of context of the barriers, advantages, and experiences in each applicant’s life journey. Flexibility to consider intersecting factors allows the institution to make individualized admissions decisions informed through a “dual lens”—those centered on the applicant and those reflecting broader institutional interests.15 The potential of students to contribute to the learning experience of their peers is a vital element in holistic review. As the American Association of Medical Colleges has explained: The examination of student qualifications includes a myriad of factors. To be sure, detailed applications submitted by students include transcripts, high school profiles, standardized test scores, essays, and letters of recommendation. But, academic factors represent only one dimension of qualification and, therefore, of the ultimate decision to admit. For example, considering the context in which the achievement took place is also important, as are personal qualities such as creativity, determination, teamwork, intercultural competence, and ethical behavior.17 “Intangible qualities are often apparent only when an applicant is given the opportunity to express his or her own personal story. The quality of our students would be immeasurably poorer if we were to select them ‘only on the numbers.’… [A]lso, our pedagogical responsibility as educators is to select an entering class which, when assembled together, will produce the best possible educational experience for our students.” —POST AND MINOW AMICUS BRIEF IN FISHER II DESCRIBING HARVARD AND
YALE LAW SCHOOL POLICIES 13. Princeton Univ., Compl. No. 02-08-6002, supra 12. 14. See for example, Brief for Amherst Coll. et al. as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondents, Gratz v. Bollinger, 539. U.S. 244 (No. 02-516), Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 309 (No. 02-241) at 9–12 (discussing the range of factors considered by small, highly selective schools and identifying 12 categories of factors relied upon by Amherst in its quest to “assess each student’s likely success and contribution”); Brief for Carnegie Mellon Univ. et al. as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondents, Gratz v. Bollinger, 539. U.S. 244 (No. 02- 516), Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 309 (No. 02-241) at 4a–5a. 15. Arthur L. Coleman, et al., A Diversity Action Blueprint: Policy Parameters and
Model Practices for Higher Education Institutions (College Board, 2010), at 15. 16. AAMC, supra 6, at 13. Not all students are equally able to contribute to the educational experience of their peers. 17. Lucido, supra, at 156–157. 6 Criteria generally fall into two overarching categories aimed at creating a comprehensive understanding of each applicant’s suitability for admission, each understood in the context of the applicant’s life story and opportunities (or lack thereof): (1) academic accomplishment and promise (not always the same criterion), and (2) personal attributes. ACADEMIC CRITERIA, APPROPRIATELY WEIGHTED IN RELATION TO MISSION Academic accomplishment and preparation are usually evaluated based on high school curriculum, grade point average (overall and in particular courses relevant to proposed major and program rigor), class rank, and standardized test scores, and/or other performance assessments (e.g., products of academic and creative endeavors). Intellectual capability and promise require a more nuanced assessment, considering quantitative measures, grade trends, and some understanding of an applicant’s opportunities and barriers relative to the context of their high school. The weight given to these quantitative academic measures should produce the outcomes sought by the institution to achieve its mission. (That assessment should involve consideration of whether a student has taken maximum advantage of the opportunities available to them, recognizing that not all students attend schools that provide the same opportunities.) Even for highly selective institutions, weighing these measures with an overreliance on the effect on national rankings can undermine other mission-critical goals. In considering and weighing grade point average (GPA) and class rank,
§ A student’s grade trajectory during his or her secondary education as well as the final average; § Knowledge of
rigor and
® /IB/honors
special
, calibrated in light of relevant context. In addition to standardized test scores and class rank,18 GPA is considered, either taken at face value from the transcript or restated after calibration to reflect the rigor of the high school academic program and grading. A good practice is to base the weight of each component within the overall academic index score on evidence-based predictions of college GPA, using data on the performance of enrolled students.19Although not a uniform or necessary practice at all institutions, some institutions establish a minimum threshold or guideline for an overall academic index score, below which the institution determines it is unlikely a student can successfully complete the academic work. Others conduct predictive success modeling on a highly individualized basis, considering the entire profile of each student; some combine minimum thresholds with individualized assessment. Among selective institutions, the number of applicants who are able to do the work exceeds the spaces available in a class, with that number typically increasing as selectivity increases.20 18. Standardized test scores have value when used with other indicia, but alone they aren’t a good measure of success in college or of merit for college admissions. See Steering Committee for the Workshop on
Higher Education Admissions, Myths and Tradeoffs: The Role of Tests in Undergraduate Admissions (Alexandra S. Beatty, Robert L. Linn, and M. R. C. Greenwood eds., 1999); Guidelines on the Uses of College Board Test Scores and Related Data (College Board, 2011); Brief for Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Leland Stanford Junior University, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and
Company, International Business Machine Corp., National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering, Inc. as Amicus Curiae Supporting Respondents, Grutter v. Bollinger 539 U.S. 306 (2003) (no. 02-241) and Gratz v. Bollinger 539 U.S. 244 (2003) (no. 02-516) at 20–21 and 44, 45 (“the use of standardized-test scores as the sole measure of merit is scientifically indefensible and the claim that a higher score should guarantee admission over another is not justifiable on empirical grounds”). 19. Rigol, supra 1, at 15. 20. Brief for Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Leland Stanford Junior University, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, International Business Machine Corp., National
Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering, Inc. as Amicus Curiae Supporting Respondents, Grutter v. Bollinger 539 U.S. 306 (2003) (no. 02-241) and Gratz v. Bollinger 539 U.S. 244 (2003) (no. 02-516). 7 PERSONAL CRITERIA Personal attributes and accomplishments are also considered to better understand an applicant’s promise and capacity to benefit from and contribute to the institution’s educational program and overall mission. While baseline academic data may establish minimum ability and preparation for success, whether an individual contributes significantly to the institution’s educational goals and actually succeeds—both in the academic program and in fulfilling other aspects of the institution’s mission—may depend to a significant extent on whether they exhibit desirable personal qualities evaluated in the process. Personal criteria may include: § Quality of leadership; § Record, authenticity, and depth of contributions to community; § Commitment to inclusion and helping others scale barriers; § Demonstrated intellectual curiosity and creativity; § Special talents (e.g., musical, athletic); § Life experiences, lessons learned, opportunities received, and whether they were used to maximum impact; § Socioeconomic status; § Burdensome job and family responsibilities balanced with school demands; § Geographical context; and § Experience associated with one’s own and others’ race, ethnicity, gender, etc. CONTEXT Students are often considered both on the face value of their achievements and the barriers they scaled or on the manner in which they took advantage of the opportunities presented to them. As one noted expert has opined: “Given unequal educational opportunity, it is incumbent upon admission [officers] to strive to understand the conditions under which each applicant has performed and to make judgments based on the context of those conditions.”21 Moreover, “[n]umbers without context say little about character. They do not reveal the drive or determination to become a leader or to use the advantages of one’s education to give back to society.”22 As Pomona College has explained, “We have different expectations for different students: the exam scores from a daughter of two college professors are viewed in a different context than the scores from a first-generation college student who attends an underfunded high school.”23 21. Lucido, supra, at 157. 22. Brief of Dean Robert Post and Dean Martha Minow as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents, in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin et al. 579 U.S. _ (2016) (no. 14-981), at http://www.scotusblog.com/wpcontent/uploads/2015/11/14-981_amicus_resp_DeanRobertPost .authcheckdam.pdf. 23. Brief for Amherst College, et al. supporting respondents, p. 14, Fisher v. Univ. of Texas at Austin et al., 579 U.S. ___ (2016). See also description of Princeton University admissions policy in Princeton Univ., Compl. No. 02-08- 6002 (U.S. Department of Education
Sept. 9, 2015) (compliance resolution), available at https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/ investigations/02086002-a.pdf. (University admissions staff reviewed applicants in the context of their secondary school in order to compare their accomplishments given the resources available to those of applicants from similar settings.) 8 The College Board’s Admissions Models
Project The College Board’s landmark Admissions Models Project, the product of summits of admissions deans in 1998 and 1999, identified nearly 30 academic factors and almost 70 nonacademic factors, including: Academic Achievement, Quality, and Potential § Direct Measures (e.g., class rank, core curriculum grades, test scores) § Caliber of High School (e.g., average SAT® scores, competitiveness of class, percentage attending four-year colleges) § Evaluative Measures (e.g., artistic talent, evidence of academic passion, intellectual curiosity, grasp of world events) Nonacademic Characteristics and Attributes § Geographic background (e.g., academically disadvantaged school, economically disadvantaged region, from far away, school with few or no previous applicants) § Personal background and attributes to understand the full context of each individual’s life and potential to benefit and contribute (e.g., cultural diversity, first generation to go to college from family, personal disadvantage, societal experience as and self-determined identity as a member of an underrepresented minority group or with individuals who are of a different Sources:
Gretchen W. Rigol, Admissions Decision-making Models (College Board, 2003), at Appendix D https:// research.collegeboard.org/publications/content/2012/05/ admissions-decision-making-models-how-us-institutionshigher-education. More recent studies affirm these conclusions. See for example, Lorelle Espinosa, Matthew Gaertner, and Gary Orfield, Race, Class, and College Access:
Achieving Diversity in a Shifting Legal Landscape (American Council on Education, 2015) at 31-32, available at https:// www.acenet.edu/news-room/Documents/Race-Classand-College-Access-Achieving-Diversity-in-a-ShiftingLegal-Landscape.pdf (reporting results of undergraduate admissions survey inquiring about 19 admission factors); American Association of Medical Colleges,
Roadmap to race than self, civic awareness, concern for others, creativity, determination/grit, evidence of persistence, maturity) § Extracurricular activities, service, and leadership (e.g., awards and honors, community service, work experience) § Extenuating circumstances (e.g., family problems, health challenges, frequent moves, responsibility for raising a family) A series of recent case studies conducted by the College Board builds on this body of work with the following observations: §
High school and
more
than other nonacademic factors
at our case study sites.
§ “The importance of nonacademic factors in college admissions, which are associated with institutional type and selectivity, varies widely.” § “Beyond academic and contextual factors, the additional types of nonacademic factors that are most frequently used are performance factors and attitudinal constructs.” Diversity: Integrating Holistic Review Principles into Medical School Admission Processes (AAMC, 2010), at 9-10, available at https://www.aamc.org/initiatives/holisticreview/ resources/ (describing an “Experiences, Attributes, and Metrics” model recommended for individual medical school policy development, with a collection of 26 factors that may be considered); and College Board, Insight into Nonacademic Factors and Practice, Future Admissions Tools and Models Initiative (College Board, 2018), at https://professionals. collegeboard.org/higher-ed/future-admissions-toolsand-models-initiative. See also Jerome A. Lucido, “How Admissions Decisions Get Made,” in Handbook of Strategic
Enrollment Management 147-173 (2015) at 151-156. THE INTERSECTIONALITY OF MULTIPLE FACTORS AS A KEY FACET OF DECISION-MAKING Importantly, various factors considered by admissions officers to advance institutional interests intersect or inform others, and they are not weighted separately or evaluated in isolation. For example, factors like character and perseverance are assessed based on multiple elements of an application.24 New measures pursued by some institutions further add depth to the traditional file, including assessments of “noncognitive” abilities.25 Moreover, background qualifications and personal information also aren’t considered in isolation. For example, a student who took one AP course at his or her elite, urban high school with dozens of AP options might well be considered differently than a student who took the only AP class available at his or her rural or underresourced school or produced an exceptional project on a complex issue in a school with no AP courses. Similarly, a U.S.-born student who did not work during high school and participated in international service ventures during summers, funded by parents, may be acknowledged for commitment to others, as well as travel, and possibly even multicultural, interests. However, that student might be seen differently than a U.S.-born student who had to work after school due to family responsibilities and couldn’t travel, but was able to demonstrate an even greater dedication to help others in need and a multicultural commitment through strong, sustained, and mature actions to guide younger siblings and help immigrant families in their church community. Differences may be weighed as equivalent in accomplishment (or not) depending on the context. The approach outlined here—with multiple, intersecting factors shaping professional judgment about whom to admit—is highly relevant to institutional efforts to assure the admission of an appropriately diverse class of students, both as a matter of policy and as a matter of federal law. (Indeed, the clear, authentic extension of holistic review principles to obtain beneficial educational experiences for all students is essential under prevailing federal nondiscrimination laws when race and ethnicity are considered.) What does this mean? Concretely, and as a matter of good policy design and legal compliance, it means that the effective application of holistic review principles to considerations of race and ethnicity is not singlefactor focused and requires that the decisions involving those factors are not overly mechanical or formulaic.26 Consideration of such factors should not reflect adoption of quotas, a “thumb on the scale,” or other types of categorical classifications. Rather, as recognized by the Association of American Medical Colleges, race should be “considered flexibly as just one of the many characteristics and pertinent elements of each individual’s background. Characteristics that make an individual particularly well suited for the medical profession, such as resilience or the ability to overcome challenges, may in some cases be intertwined with an individual’s race or ethnicity. When candidates have overcome great race-related challenges, obscuring or denying the realities of these challenges will hinder a full appreciation of their potential contributions.”27 24. See for example, Michelle Sandlin, “The ‘Insight Resume:’ Oregon State University’s Approach to Holistic
Assessment,” in College Admissions Officer’s Guide (Barbara Lauren ed., 2008) at 99–108 (describing Oregon State University’s application process that requires answers to six questions designed to measure eight “noncognitive variables” as part of its unique holistic review process); Brief for Amherst College, et al., supra 14, at 9–12. 25. See William E. Sedlacek, “Noncognitive
Measures for Higher Education Admissions,” in International Encyclopedia of Education, 845 (Penelope Peterson, et al., eds., 3rd ed., 2010), and portfolios of academic work starting in ninth grade, e.g., Press Release, Coalition for Access, Affordability, and Success, Diverse Group of Universities Form Coalition to Improve College Admission Process (Sept. 28, 2015), at 14, available at http://www.coalitionforcollegeaccess.org/ press-release.pdf; Lucido, supra, at 151–56; Rigol, supra 1, at 19–20. 26. Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003) (Striking down as unconstitutional the automatic and mechanical assignment of points to a student on the basis of race). 27. Brief for Association of American Medical Colleges et al. as Amicus Curiae Supporting Respondents, in
Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin et al. (“Fisher II”) 579 U.S. ___ (2016) (no. 14-981) at 26. https://www.aamc.org/download/447744/data/ aamcfilesamicusbriefinfishervutaustin.pdf 10 The intersectionality of contextual background factors reflected here has, in fact, been a hallmark of U.S. Supreme Court decisions that have affirmed the limited consideration of race or ethnicity in

admissions. In its most recent pronouncement, in Fisher v. University of Texas [Fisher II], the Supreme Court upheld the University of Texas’s (UT) consideration of a student’s race or ethnicity as part of the holistic review process, which was at all times contextual. Under UT’s policy,
and characteristics
UT
if she could provide “an example [in the admissions process] where race would have some impact on an applicant’s personal achievement score,” the admissions director at UT responded: “To be honest, not really … [I]t’s impossible to say—to give you an example of a particular student because it’s all contextual.”29 Illustrations § Rice
8 In fact, when asked
applicant’s academic prowess, creativity, motivation, artistic talent, leadership potential, and life experiences.” § The California Institute of Technology has explained its process: “Instead of simply putting your grades and test scores into a computer to calculate admissibility, we read every application—and every essay—to get a sense of who you are and whether you would be a good fit at Caltech.” § Williams College “seeks students with strong intellectual skills who will benefit the most from the education offered at Williams and then, in turn, benefit society by filling leadership positions in local and national life.” § North Carolina State
University relies on a holistic review of all applicants, with “each admission decision individual to the specific circumstances of the applicant.” Sources: See Brief of California Institute of Technology, et al. as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents, in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin et al. 579 U.S. _ (2016) (no. 14-981) at 12; Brief of Amherst et al., Amici Curiae Supporting
Respondents, in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin et al. 579 U.S. _ (2016) (no. 14-981) at 12; North Carolina State University, Compl. 11-04-2009 (U.S. Department of Education, November 27, 2012) (letter of findings), available at https://www2. ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/investigations/11042009-a.pdf. III. Alignment and Coherence Within the Institution Ultimately, welldesigned holistic review admissions processes are most often part of a comprehensive, coordinated enrollment management process that includes recruitment and outreach, financial aid and scholarships, and transition to the first year (e.g., registration, orientation, first-year experiences). Correspondingly, they are also aligned with curricular, cocurricular, and experiential learning, mentoring, and community-building programs. It is a good practice for all enrollment management functions to work in concert toward a specific, coherent set of priorities and outcome-focused goals associated with the institution’s educational and societal mission. The goal is for admission criteria to correlate well with all students’ success and experiences at the institution and beyond, as reflected in positive educational outcomes including, but not limited to, retention rates, graduation rates, campus climate, and even alumni success and contributions to society. Assembly of multidisciplinary teams, reflective of the breadth of institutional knowledge and expertise, fosters this alignment and coherence of process and goals, and informs policy and practice judgments.30
28. Fisher v. Univ. of Texas at Austin, 579 U.S. ___ (2016), citing Appendix. 220a available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/ 14981_4g15.pdf (Alito, dissenting). 29. Id. At UT, as elsewhere in such a flexible, individualized process, white students may also be admitted because of their contribution to diversity. In OCR Case No. 11-04-2009, OCR found that North
Carolina State University favorably considered “lower scoring white applicants” who “could be admitted because of a contribution to diversity, such as having come from a low-socioeconomic status or first-generation college status.” 30. Particularly when race, ethnicity, and gender are considered as factors in the process, legal counsel should be engaged in an advisory role so that lawattentive design parameters can inform and support program design and execution. 11 PART TWO Process Management: Integrity and Accountability for Individualized Holistic Review I. Introduction and Overview Despite the wide variability with respect to institutional interests and points of focus associated with holistic review, one common and critical element of effective practice emerges across institutional type: a commitment to rigor and ongoing evaluation as part of process management. That focus helps assure sustained integrity of admissions decision-making and success regarding desired outcomes. At the core of a successful holistic review admissions program—or any admissions program—is rigor, consistency, and fairness. Because admissions touches so many stakeholders and is a foundational element of an institution’s educational quality and contributions, the overall integrity of the admissions program, as defined by consideration of valid criteria that are applied consistently, is essential. The vital role of professional judgment in a holistic review process does not obviate the importance of establishing, documenting, and reassessing over time the criteria to be considered in making admissions decisions through holistic review. Thus, emphasis and staff investments in the development and periodic evaluation of evidence regarding relative success in achieving mission-aligned goals are essential. Finally, institutional leaders should model integrity of the process, oversee its legitimacy in relation to goals, empower and appropriately resource those responsible for carrying out the process, and charter collaboration among relevant functions within the institution. 31. Brief for Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Leland Stanford Junior University, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, International Business Machine Corp., National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and
National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering, Inc. as Amicus Curiae Supporting Respondents, Grutter v. Bollinger 539 U.S. 306 (2003) (no. 02-241) and Gratz v. Bollinger 539 U.S. 244 (2003)(no. 02-516). (“Thus, to take a real life example, the design and construction of a solar-powered chili roaster by an applicant to meet the needs of his community of migrant farm workers in the Texas panhandle to cook II. Key Elements A. RIGOR, CONSISTENCY, AND FAIRNESS Consistent application of admissions criteria is an essential element of a holistic review process that is both fair and effective. This doesn’t mean mechanical application of criteria, but rather that the same baseline criteria and the same process should govern the review of each applicant’s file—even as particular criteria may apply differently in different circumstances. For example, an applicant’s leadership potential may be assessed differently depending on the opportunities (or lack thereof) provided by each applicant’s high school, family circumstances, and financial context; leadership respecting significant family obligations for one student may equate to another student’s service as president of the student body. And, exemplary “engineering creativity and problem-solving ability” may be evidenced by a national science medal for one student from a private prep school and by the ingenuity of a student who is the child of migrant workers creating a solar-powered chili roaster used in the fields to cook lunch.31 Similarly, if race is a consideration in holistic review, it is one of many considerations for every applicant and may benefit an applicant of any race; there isn’t a separate or additional criterion or review track or automatic plus based on the racial status of an individual. This aim for procedural consistency also extends to the establishing of baseline thresholds, such as bands of test scores that may trigger acceptance, rejection, or the need for further review with prospects for admission.32 chilies for lunch in the fields, may tell as much about his creative engineering drive and motivation to be of service, as a national science medal does for another applicant.”) 32. Reader rubrics are useful in helping assure that all readers understand the values of the admissions process and how each value may be evaluated.
However, rather than simply adding up the points from an admissions rubric to arrive at a decision, the rubric should instead be used to guide readers’ consistent application of thinking as they review applications and to queue them to institutional values. 12 Baselines of clear, mission-driven admissions criteria depend on an underlying rigor and fairness in process design—which is led by professionals in the field who “bring significant experience and expertise to the decisionmaking process.”33 That rigor and fairness is most often demonstrated through a process involving multiple reviews by different admissions personnel; clear protocols for decision-making; and ongoing professional development and process and performance assessment that address any issues of reader variability. Multiple reviews and clear protocols. Integrity of the process may be achieved differently, depending on the complexity and number of factors considered in holistic review, as well as practical considerations such as the volume of applications and resource constraints. In any event, a review by well-trained professionals and staff is a hallmark of effective holistic review practices. Applications often go through different phases of review, with a “preliminary recommendation to admit, defer, or deny,”34 followed by further review and ultimate decision-making, which may be done by additional readers or a committee (who are sometimes “blind” to earlier reviews).35 Such reviews may include a numerical assessment on multiple ratings scales and/or decision indices, along with written summaries of the applicant’s accomplishments, personal characteristics, and ability to contribute to the college community.36 Then, after each application is evaluated, anywhere from one to three times, to reach a preliminary individualized decision, admissions leaders start the final decision process. At this stage, the composition of the class and how it meets institutional goals play a significant role. In the end, teams of admissions leaders and senior managers must work through “a complex calculus” across a broad set of considerations that include academic quality, tuition revenue, heterogeneity in its many forms, and support for academic and nonacademic programs.37 All of this occurs in the context of the education and societal outcomes sought by the institution to achieve its mission. 33. Gretchen W. Rigol, Selection Through Individualized Review (College Board, 2004), at 17–18, 21–22, available at https://research .collegeboard.org/publications/content/2012/05/selection-throughindividualized-review. 34. Lucido, supra, at 162–163. 35. Id. 36. Id. Good practices for consistency in application of selection criteria also include reader protocols, which vary by institution. Availability of resources, the numbers of applications, and the selectivity of the institution factor into determining the application review approach that best suits an institution’s mission. Common Protocols Reflective of Good Practice § Multiple reviews of the same application by multiple readers, with further review if outcomes are significantly divergent; § Use of a first reader to make a recommendation on an application, and a second reader to make the final decision; § Use of two readers whose recommendations, if the same, are final, with a third reader making the final decision if the first two disagree; and § Use of two simultaneous readers to make a recommendation on an application, and a third reader or committee making the final decision. Variations on these basic models exist. Appendix B includes illustrations of such models. Sources: Gretchen W. Rigol, Admissions Decision-Making Models (College Board, 2003), at 40, https://research.collegeboard.org/ publications/content/2012/05/admissions-decision-makingmodels-how-us-institutions-higher-education; and Gretchen
W. Rigol, Selection Through Individualized Review (College Board, 2004), at 21, available at https://research.collegeboard.org/publications/ content/2012/05/selection-through-individualized-review. 37. Brief for the College Board, AACRAO, NACAC, and LSAC as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondents, Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, 579 US _ (2016) (no.14-981) at 16–17, available at http:// educationcounsel.com/?publication=fisher-v-university-of-texasu-s-supreme-court-amicus-brief-2015. 13 On the Horizon: Committee-Based Evaluation First implemented at the University of Pennsylvania in 2013 in response to the ballooning application volume in college admissions, committee-based evaluation (CBE) reflects an evolution of the traditional onereaderat-a-time model, which employs two readers for the first read. Over 30 institutions of higher education have embraced CBE as part of their holistic review process. The primary aims of this new evaluation model are excellence in alignment with institutional mission, efficiency, professional development and staff retention, context for evaluators, and fairness, as well as reducing the effects of any implicit bias. Process § CBE uses two simultaneous readers, a “driver” and a “passenger,” who sit together while focusing on different aspects of the applicant. § The driver is typically the geographic territory manager—having more intimate knowledge of the high school—who reviews the applicant’s academic credentials (e.g., transcript, test scores, recommendation, and course rigor). Professional development and reader training. Holistic review is strengthened when the process of review and decision-making is carried out with integrity by professionals in the field who have the requisite expertise, ethics, and training, and whose decisions are assessed and calibrated for effectiveness and consistency. As part of reader calibration, “interrater reliability” may be used. The aim of interrater reliability is not for every reader to have the same opinion about an application or § The passenger considers student voice or nonacademic factors (e.g., essays, interviews, and talents). § The two readers discuss and “contextualize the applicant’s achievements,” write brief notes (instead of the lengthier summaries/narratives in the traditional model), and make a recommendation for a final third reader or committee. CBE’s approach provides cross training when more experienced and less experienced readers are paired, enhances contextual knowledge when readers with different knowledge are paired, and reduces the time in the reading process (allowing more time for outreach) while deepening the understanding of applicants through dialogue. Sources: Korn, Melissa, “Some Elite Colleges Review an Application in 8 Minutes (or Less),” The Wall Street Journal (January 31, 2018), retrieved from https://www.wsj.com/articles/some-elite-colleges-review-an-applicationin-8-minutes-or-less-1517400001; “Working Smarter, Not Harder, in Admissions: A Team-Based Approach to Initial Reviews Can Often Save Time and May Allow for Better Evaluations,” The Chronicle of Higher Education (March 12, 2017). retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/article/WorkingSmarter-Not-Harder/239456?cid=cp99; Jaschik, Scott. “The New Way Colleges Review Applications,” Inside Higher Ed (June 12, 2017). retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2017/06/12/somecollegesadopt-new-committee-based-system-doing-first-review; “‘A Belief Change’ in Admissions,” The Chronicle of Higher Education (March 12, 2017), retrieved from http://www.chronicle.com/article/A-Belief-Change-in/239452. group of applications, but rather to ensure “composite reliability” (consistency overall) in review by different readers of the same group of files, ratings within an acceptable range among readers of the same file, and calibration of leniency or severity of different readers.38 Specific attention to calibration of reader severity or leniency in rating applications is important, particularly where only one reader is assigned to an application or where there is a significant divergence in ratings.39 38. Emily J. Shaw and Glenn B. Milewski, Consistency and
Reliability in the Individualized Review of College Applicants (College Board, 2004) at 1, available at https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED562634.pdf. 39. Rigol, supra 34, at 21. 14 B. DEVELOPMENT AND PERIODIC EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE REGARDING RELATIVE SUCCESS AS A FOUNDATION FOR CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT § Calibration of readers may be achieved by: Appropriately frequent meetings among readers of a cluster of applications to explore their ratings and rationales, to identify any significant differences of approach/valuation/opinion, and to enable policymaking on how the differences should be resolved;40 § Development and continuous, experience-based improvement of rules on how each component of an application
(transcript, essays, letters of recommendation, etc.) will be weighted, a good practice for any approach to reader protocols;41 and § Rigorous annual training prior to each admission cycle or ongoing at another appropriate time to support its effectiveness. An admissions approach is only valuable if it is successful in advancing desired institutional mission-associated outcomes.42
Documenting and evaluating process design up front and as it is implemented over time, on a periodic ongoing basis, to determine whether the intended outcomes are being achieved and if there are any unintended consequences are important in holistic review. Such documentation and evaluation “can help admission officers and committees assess whether the school’s admission process has changed or is needed, whether the school is genuinely using a holistic review process, and the extent to which the policies and process are aligned with the institutional mission and goals.”43 40. Shaw and Milewski, supra, at 4. 41. Shaw and Milewski, supra, at 2. 42. G. W. Rigol states, “it should be acknowledged that research and evaluation are an essential part of any admissions decision-making process. There can be many reasons why an institution has adopted a certain approach; however, it is ultimately valid only if it produces the desired results.” Rigol, supra 2, at 47. 43. AAMC, supra, at 23. To sustain an effective admissions process, it is important to establish and implement a formal, deliberative, periodic evaluation of the process with the objectives of: §
Examining and documenting outcomes in light of the institution’s mission, relevant strategic plans, and related admissions goals and objectives; § Determining the changing demographics, other environmental factors, and legal landscape that may portend a need to adjust goals or the means of achieving them; § Considering staffing levels, quality and consistency of performance, as well as adequacy of training and other resources to maximize performance; and § Determining and making any warranted changes in goals, processes, or resources to advance the institution’s mission, make the admissions process more successful in supporting such advancement, and fulfill requirements for legal compliance. Illustration Princeton University’s admission process involves application reviews by multiple readers at multiple stages. Each application is read by a “first reader” and then by a team coordinator (“second reader”), who then selects the most promising applications for consideration by regional admission committees and the dean or director of admission. Source: Princeton Univ., Compl. No. 02-08- 6002 (U.S. Department of Education, Sept. 9,
2015) (compliance resolution), available at https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/ investigations/02086002-a.pdf. 15 III. Engaged Leadership Committed, engaged, informed leadership, beginning with the president and the board of trustees and extending across the institution at every level, is key to the success of holistic admissions. Leaders are important to: § Empower and inspire commitment and collaboration across the enrollment management spectrum; § Align admissions with curricular and cocurricular programs, as well as legal design parameters; § Ensure implementation of a deliberative process, regular evaluation, and associated adjustments in the admissions program’s goals, processes, and documentation; § Make decisions and resource allocations that are evidence based; and § Maintain consistent messaging, internally and externally, about institutional mission and goals and how admission, holistic review, and broad-based diversity support them. An institution’s board of trustees is often keenly interested in admissions. Trustees receive inquiries from friends, associates, and members of the public at the front and back end of the process, raising questions about the nature and fairness of the process. While trustees should not be involved in administering the process or making specific admissions decisions, as members of the ultimate governance authority of the institution it is important for trustees to understand admissions ethics and the governing board’s role in maintaining high standards of integrity throughout the process. In their institutional oversight role, trustees also need a good grounding in the nature, complexity, fairness, and evidence-based decision-making that define the process: the connection of holistic admissions to institutional mission, the relative role of quantitative and qualitative factors, the considerable expertise that guides decision-making, the steps taken to ensure consistency and fairness, and the disciplined, evaluative process that ensures process corrections when needed for successful, mission-driven outcomes. Illustration Rice University’s Board of Trustees and Faculty Council separately adopted resolutions confirming the educational benefits of diversity, based on research and the experiences of Rice’s faculty. Both resolutions supported the necessity of continued efforts to foster diversity. Source: Rice Univ., Compl. No. 06-05-2020 (U.S. Department of Education, Sept. 10, 2013) (compliance resolution), available at http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/ investigations/06052020-a.html (last modified Jan. 14, 2015). 16 CONCLUSION Effective and sustainable holistic review policies and practices are dependent on clear, mission-driven factors that are important to consider when making judgments affecting student admissions. Processes that reflect integrity, rigor, fairness, and accountability for results in implementation also define effective holistic review. However, more than good design and implementation are required to engender stakeholder and public trust in admissions programs—and, more generally, in institutions of higher education. Any seasoned professional in the field of admissions knows the importance of having a well-developed communications and engagement strategy. No admissions cycle passes without disappointed students (and parents). By definition, admissions decisions result in acceptances and rejections; and such consequential decisions—viewed through a lens of immediate, short-term individual interest, rather than longer-term effects and interests—often generate claims of unfairness in the process. In some instances, those claims make their way to the public sphere, including in court litigation or agency investigation. Even without legal consequences, the perception of admission as a “black box” raises questions of process integrity and, at worst, can undermine public trust in higher education. To be sure, complete transparency to the public is impossible to achieve. Indeed, the real question is one of “how much” and “in what detail” to share information on the process and reasoning of decisions. There isn’t an easy answer, but in this time of cynicism and distrust,44 a broad imperative associated with better communications and engagement exists: Greater transparency would present important opportunities to better achieve the mission-driven objectives of admission by building public understanding of the broadly beneficial objectives and fairness of the process for all students and for society at large. With that increased understanding would come opportunities to build public support of higher education more generally. 44. There is considerable and increasing societal misperceptions of, distrust in, and devaluation of higher education in American society. See Peter Salovey, “How to Sway Higher Ed's Skeptics,” The Chronicle of Higher Education (February 2018), available at https://www.chronicle.com/article/How-to-Sway-Higher-Eds/242645?cid=wcontentgrid_40_2;
Pew Research Center, Sharp Partisan Divisions in Views of National Institutions (July 2017), That level of communications and engagement implicates new terrain for many, as postsecondary institutions have not consistently communicated the vision, rationale, and logic of their admission decisions to the public, to federal and state legislators, and even to the extended campus community of alumni and donors. Indeed, somewhat ironically, it is only within defensive litigation contexts that institutions have most effectively told their
ing design rationales,
, and the steadfast commitment of higher education professionals to student and institutional success.
and clearly
diversity and
admissions policies that are critical to economic, civic, and national security interests of the nation. Good policy counsels a broader approach—with proactive, collaborative, and sustained communication efforts meeting high standards of effectiveness. In sum, the public would be better positioned to support higher education’s judgment on admissions criteria and processes (and funding for higher education, for that matter) if the public had a clearer understanding of the basic objectives of the admissions process, what criteria and processes are used, and why the criteria and process are both fair and serve critical national and societal interests, as well as the interests of all students. The value of transparency and an effective communications strategy, focused on resonating with the campus community, the general public, and federal and state legislatures; and carried out in an ongoing collaboration among higher education, industry, and military sectors, cannot be understated. available at http://www.people-press.org/2017/07/10/sharppartisan-divisions-in-views-of-national-institutions/; and Molly Corbett Broad, “Educating the Public on the Value of a College Degree,” The Chronicle of Higher Education (May 2017), available at https://www.chronicle.com/article/Educating-the-Public-onthe/240005.

Hernandez, Theresa (Higher Education Policy Scholar at USC). “Abolish Standardized Testing For College Admissions.” Huffington Post, 22 May 2018, https://www.huffpost.com/entry/abolish-standardized-testing-for-college-admissions_n_5b045869e4b003dc7e470ee3. [Premier]
Even if
perfectly
achievement
, they would be doing so on the basis of accumulated resources that have helped children from privileged
to reach the levels of success that they have by the time they take the test. These testing disparities do not represent students’ potential to learn and achieve.
As Jerome Karabel documented in The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, standardized tests played a devious role in the history of admissions at selective institutions.
Selection criteria like
and GRE
purposefully to exclude students
their
.
Add to that history generations of underfunded schools and a bevy of other racial and class -based discriminations that continue to hamper the achievements of racially minoritized and low-income students.
any
these
, even indirectly,
today
future generations of their
For the United States to live up to its highest potential, we have to stop turning away students from the possibilities of higher education just because their backgrounds have not afforded them the same opportunities or the resources needed to take advantage of earlier opportunities. To that end, researchers like Estela Bensimon highlight the responsibility of our educators and educational institutions to better serve marginalized students in order to support the success of all students.
Redford, Kyle. “Time to Dethrone the Standardized Test.” Huffington Post, 30 April 2014, https://www.huffpost.com/entry/time-to-rethink-standardi_b_4855988. [Premier]
Sometimes a study is published that has the promise of being a cultural game-changer. It carries the potential to reset the way a significant portion of the population thinks or behaves regarding an iss ue. Last week a study that raises questions about the value of standardized test scores as a predictor of college success was released. My hope is that the findings will launch a long-overdue cultural conversation about the “gatekeeper” role these tests play in the college admissions process.
at 33 test-optional public and private colleges and universities
high school
actually
college
than SAT or ACT scores. Not that shocking, right? Even correcting for potential grade inflation, it makes sense that
the course of
in high school
a
predictor of how they will fare over four years in college. The habits of mind and approaches to work that lead to success in college are difficult to demonstrate during a single Saturday spent filling in bubbles in a high school gym. There are many reasons these contrived tests are limited predictors, but one of the most glaring is that they do not reflect the way students make important intellectual decisions or fulfill academic work requirements. For example, the tests do not reward students for using an academic strength in one area to compensate for a weakness in another. If a student is a math wiz, but struggles with being a slow reader, it is not possible for her to take extra time from math section and apply it towards reading the verbal section at a slower pace. Outside of the testing process, students regularly leverage their strengths to offset their weaknesses. In fact, students who seamlessly compensate their weaknesses with strengths perform better in school overall. Additionally, the
o
the
an
o
o
work
.
There is the complex issue of Time. No one will argue with the tests’ ability to measure of a student’s test-taking speed. But when did our nations’ colleges actually decide that answering questions quickly was a valuable metric for measuring a student’s intellectual abilities? I’m unaware of research that supports the idea that educators learn anything additional about students’ depth or breadth of knowledge by measuring how quickly they can recall information or express what they have learned.
There are many things that contribute to a student’s test-taking speed, and it is not always influenced by lack of mastery.
Even in college, it rarely matters how long a student spends on a project — students are evaluated on the quality of their work. Did their work meet or exceed expectations? Did it meet the deadline? They will likely not be asked, “Did it take you two hours or four hours to prepare for that presentation, or to write that paper or research that problem?” As a teacher, I recognize that certain thinkers take more time to process information, even if I am not always sure of the underlying causes of the delay. What matters most is that the student finds a work style that allows them to produce timely quality projects. This new study is obviously big news for dyslexics, who rarely do well on standardized tests. But dyslexics are just one of many groups that are unfairly handicapped by the overemphasis on tests scores in the college admissions process. The accommodations offered to students with learning disabilities are made available in an inconsistent, and often random, manner. Both ACT and SAT tests use different measures for qualifying students for accommodations and both agencies’ rulings are idiosyncratic and impossible to predict.
Students with learning disabilities are commonly granted a time accommodation by one test agency, yet denied it by the other. Testing agencies determine who “deserves” extra time — and who doesn’t because apparently they don’t think that every student should be given the opportunity to express what they know. Even given that unfortunate reasoning, the agencies are deluding themselves if they think that everyone who is “deserving” of extra time is able to access the complex process of securing a time accommodation. There are a variety of reasons students who would benefit from extra time don’t get tested, including well-meaning adults’ resistance to labels and misunderstandings about how and why that kind of testing is needed. But most obstacles point to limited resources — a school’s or a family’s. In private schools, the learning evaluations needed to access accommodations are rarely offered internally. Families must bear the burden of the steep financial costs of independent evaluations. Meanwhile, public schools offer free internal screening for learning disabilities, but students have to be failing in school to qualify. According to
William Hiss, the lead author of the study, standardized tests were initially utilized to discover untapped talent, otherwise obscured by remote geography, poor access to good schools, or other obstacles related to socio-economic inequities. Ironically today, research done by Stanford University and College Board has shown that standardized test scores rise with parental wealth. There are many potential explanations for how or why the tests have strayed from serving the original objective of discovering talent among the less privileged. While factors like childhood circumstances, race and parental education clearly play complex roles, many also point to the expensive and sophisticated test preparation and multiple retakes that elude lower income students. In any case, all biases seem reason enough to make optional reporting of test scores a standard choice in every college admissions process.
genuinely
our
versities
meritocracies,
do well to question and
flawed
metrics that often obscure, rather than reveal, academic potential.
( R adhika, clinical associate professor in early child education with the college of education at Texas A&M University, “Postcolonial Technologies of Power: Standardized Testing and Representing Diverse Young Children”, published in the International Journal of Educational Policy, Research, & Practice:
Reconceptualizing Childhood Studies volume 7 in 2006, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ795112.pdf) [Premier]
Further, critiques have also shown how empty the logic behind the imposition of testing has been: tests supposedly represent the epitome of scientific progress, to measure the progress of children and schools and as such seem to be an affirmation of science and reason. Yet, the discourse that would support
this
.
Kornhaber and Orfield (2001) have explored the major reasons that they see as particularly influential in dictating public policy on testing: (1) testing enhances economic productivity; (2) testing motivates students; and (3) testing improves teaching and learning. Kornhaber and Orfield present evidence that dispels all three of those assumptions. As they point out,
European
of U.S. students
.
Furthermore
, even if one were to concede that these scores were predictors of future behavior, the connection between cognitive skills and economic productivity (Levin, 2001) is not particularly evident. As Kornhaber and Orfield point out,
kinds of
to job success (initiative, creativity and reliability to name a few). Postcolonial scholars such as Ferguson (2005) have also commented on how discourses on economic productivity have changed over the years. Around the time of the “end of the empire” (approximately around 1945, and the end of the Second World War), modernization theories began to set forward the idea that the more Western ideas, like industrial economy and a reliance on technology, spread across the world, the more likely the poor would overcome their poverty and participate more fully in the benefits of modernity. However, “globalization” as it is optimistically referred to has not always worked that way. For many people, modernization has not brought benefits, but only the hollow knowledge that desired goods exist and are available but not to them (Mbembe, 2002), which can result in violent efforts to seize what is desired. In such a situation, those who enjoy privileges often resort to policing their privileges: borders, walls and technologies of social exclusion become more and more common. This resonates with the concerns of many critics of standardized testing, who see it as a technology of social exclusion: a system designed to legitimate exclusion. (Cannella & Viruru, 2004; Pena, in press).

(Thomas, writer for the American Institute for Learning and Human Development, “15 Reasons Why Standardized Tests are Worthless”, published in the American Institute for Learning and Human Development on February 28, 2013, http://www.institute4learning.com/2013/02/28/15-reasons-whystandardized-tests-are-worthless-2/) [Premier]
1. Because
may
affect their future
lives, they do whatever they can to pass them,
including cheating and taking performance drugs
(e.g. psychostimulants
like Ritalin
“borrowed” from their friends). 2.
Because
teachers know that test scores may affect their
salaries and job security,
they also
cheat
(see the best-seller Freakonomics for some interesting statistics on this). 3.
Standardized tests don’t provide any
feedback on how to perform better. The results aren’t even given back to the teachers and students until months later, and there are no instructions provided by test companies on how to improve these test scores. 4.
Standardized tests don’t value creativity
.
A student who writes a more creative answer in the margins of such a test, doesn’t realize that a human being won’t even see this creative response; that machines grade these tests, and a creative response that doesn’t follow the format is a wrong response.
\
(Radhika, clinical associate professor in early child education with the college of education at Texas A&M University, “Postcolonial Technologies of Power: Standardized Testing and Representing Diverse Young Children”, published in the International Journal of Educational Policy, Research, & Practice:
Reconceptualizing Childhood Studies volume 7 in 2006, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ795112.pdf) [Premier]
The second major
assumption s behind the wide scale imposition of testing
is that it motivates students to do better
.
As Kornhaber and Orfield have commented “common wisdom, as well as behavioral psychology, holds that normal thinking beings strive to gain rewards and avoid painful consequences” (p. 7). According to Madaus and Clarke (2001) motivation is such a complex
phenomena that making generalizations
about it
is an extremely
risky process
.
Scholars such as Fordham and Ogbu (1986) have found that cultural factors play an extremely significant role in the area of motivation.
(Radhika, clinical associate professor in early child education with the college of education at Texas A&M University, “Postcolonial Technologies of Power: Standardized Testing and Representing Diverse Young Children”, published in the International Journal of Educational Policy, Research, & Practice:
Reconceptualizing Childhood Studies volume 7 in 2006, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ795112.pdf) [Premier]
The final assumption
,
that tests improve teaching and learning
, is also considered by Kornhaber and Orfield to be fallacious, as neither teaching nor learning are areas that necessarily operate in a rational and constructive way (p. 9). Some of the evidence in fact
contradicts it quite strongly
, such as McNeil and Valenzuela’s (2001) study of the impact of the standardized test, the TAAS, in Texas.
They found that especially for poor and minority children
, the curriculum ended up being more
limited
.
All teachers in schools who served these populations, regardless of their subject matter expertise, were expected to drill these students on math, reading and writing.
Another major
impact was that educational expenditures were significantly
impacted as “scarce instructional dollars” were diverted from enhancing the curriculum to test prep aration materials and other such test related items
.
The
Harvard
Civil Rights Project most recent report on the standardized testing mandated by NCLB had similar findings: 4 years after the law was enacted, their study
found that achievement levels for all
children had remained static, or, if anything, had
deteriorated slightly
.
There has been no closure of racial gaps in achievement. Despite the fact that the federal government is providing 412 million dollars a year towards testing, many states find that they still have to divert additional funding each year to meet the testing requirements imposed on them (Lee, 2006). The same study also found that in low performing schools, instruction declined in areas that were not tested and that it was difficult to attract and retain highly qualified teachers. Furthermore, with an increased emphasis on testing, the curriculum tended to suffer, as “there often is a tendency to move into highly formulaic and rigidly programmed curriculum, boring to both students and teachers, and, worse yet, to spend time not on teaching their subjects but on drilling on test-taking strategies” (Lee, 2006, p. 7).

James
, MA, Spring, 20
, MA Thesis Admitting Bias: A Review of the Test-Optional Admission Policy at George Mason University, http://digilib.gmu.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1920/8679/Moynihan_thesis_2014.pdf?sequence=1 DOA: 10-25-15
International students have also
become a major focus of enrollment offices. In the 2012-13 academic year a record, 819,644 foreign students studied in the U nited
S tates
. This is a 7.2% increase from the previous year, according to an annual report released by the Institute of International
Education, a nonprofit organization (2013).
These students are often required to submit bank statements in order to be considered for admission. These statements are included in their application material to demonstrate the capabilities to afford tuition, room and board at United States institutions.
These students certainly bring a level of diversity to college campuses but
in no way is that diversity related in socio economic status.

Charles
Murray,
20
13
, Charles Murray is the W. H. Brady Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Washington, DC. He is a co-author (with Richard J. Herrnstein) of The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (1994). Soares, Joseph A. (2011-09-30). SAT Wars: The Case for
Test-Optional College Admissions, Teachers College Press. Kindle Edition, page number at the end of card
For most
high school students who want to attend an elite college, the SAT is more than a test. It is one of
life’s landmarks.
Waiting for the scores— one for Verbal, one for Math, and now one for Writing, with a possible 800 on each— is painfully suspenseful. The exact scores are commonly remembered forever after. So it has been for half a century.
But events of recent years have challenged the SAT’s position. In 2001
, Richard Atkinson (2001), president of the University of California, proposed dropping the SAT as a requirement for admission.
More and more prestigious small colleges, such as Middlebury and Bennington, are making the SAT optional.
The charge that the SAT is slanted in favor of privileged students—“ a wealth test,” as Harvard law professor Lani Guinier calls it— has been ubiquitous (Zwick, 2004). I have watched the attacks on the SAT with dismay. Back in 1961, the test helped get me into Harvard from a small Iowa town by giving me a way to show that I could compete with applicants from Exeter and Andover. Ever since, I have seen the SAT as the friend of the little guy, just as James Bryant Conant, president of Harvard, said it would be when he urged the SAT upon the nation in the 1940s.
Conant’s cause was as unambiguously liberal in the 1940s as income redistribution is today. Then, America’s elite colleges drew most of their students from a small set of elite secondary schools, concentrated in the northeastern United States, to which America’s wealthy sent their children.
The mission of the
SAT was to identify intellectual talent regardless of race
, color
, creed, money, or geography
, and give that talent a chance to blossom.
Students from small towns and from poor neighborhoods in big cities
were supposed to benefit
— as I thought I did, and as many others think they did. But data trump gratitude.
The evidence has become overwhelming that the SAT no longer serves a democratizing purpose. Worse, events have conspired to make the SAT a negative force in American life. And so I find myself arguing that the SAT should be abolished. Not just deemphasized, but no longer administered. Nothing important would be lost by so doing. Much would be gained. Soares, Joseph A. (2011-09-30). SAT Wars: The Case for Test-Optional
College Admissions (Kindle Locations 1490-1498). Teachers College Press. Kindle Edition.

Richard Atkinson & Saul
Geiser
, 20
13
, Saul Geiser is a Research Associate in the Center for Studies in Higher Education, University of California, Berkeley. He is former Director of Research for Admissions and Outreach for the University of California system, Richard C. Atkinson is President Emeritus of the University of California and
Professor Emeritus of Cognitive Science and Psychology at the University of California, San Diego. Soares, Joseph A. (2011-09-30). SAT Wars: The Case for Test-Optional College Admissions, Teachers College Press. Kindle Edition, page number at end of card
Yet the ACT still falls short of being a true
achievement test in several ways. Like the SAT, the ACT remains a norm-referenced test and is used by colleges and universities primarily to compare students against one another rather than to assess curriculum mastery. The ACT is scored in a manner that produces almost the same bell curve distribution as the SAT. It is true that the ACT also provides standards-based interpretations indicating the knowledge and skills that students at different score levels generally can be expected to have learned (ACT, 2009a). But those interpretations are only approximations and do not necessarily identify what an examinee actually knows. It is difficult to reconcile the ACT’s norm-referenced scoring with the idea of a criterion-referenced assessment or to understand how one test could serve both functions equally. The ACT lacks the depth of subject matter coverage that one finds in other achievement tests such as the
SAT Subject Tests or AP exams.
The ACT science section, for example, is intended to cover high school biology, chemistry, physics, and earth/ space science. But the actual test requires little knowledge in any of these disciplines, and
a student who is adept at reading charts and tables quickly to identify patterns and trends
can do well on this section
— section— unlike the SAT Subject Tests or AP exams in the sciences, which require intensive subject matter knowledge. In a curious twist, the ACT and SAT appear to have converged over time. Whereas the SAT has shed many of its trickier and more esoteric item types, such as verbal analogies and quantitative comparisons, the ACT has become more SAT-like in some ways, such as the premium it places on students’ time management skills. It is not surprising that almost all U.S. colleges and universities now accept both tests and treat ACT and SAT scores interchangeably. Finally, another fundamental problem for the ACT— or for any test that aspires to serve as the nation’s achievement test— is the absence of national curriculum standards in the United States. The ACT has tried to overcome this problem through its curriculum surveys, but the “average” curriculum does not necessarily reflect what students are expected to learn in any given state, district, or school. The lack of direct alignment between curriculum and assessment has led the National Association for College Admissions Counseling (NACAC, 2008) to criticize the practice followed by some states, such as Colorado, Illinois, and Michigan, of requiring all K– 12 students to take the ACT, whether or not they plan on attending college, and using the results as a measure of student achievement in the schools. This practice runs counter to the American Educational Research Association’s guidelines on testing: “Admission tests, whether they are intended to measure achievement or ability, are not directly linked to a particular instructional curriculum and, therefore, are not appropriate for detecting changes in middle school or high school performance” (American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education, 1999, p. 143).
Of course, using the ACT to assess achievement in high school is not the same as using it to assess readiness for college. But the same underlying problem— the loose alignment between curriculum and assessment— is evident in both contexts. It may be that no one test, however well designed, can ever be entirely satisfactory in a country with a strong tradition of federalism and local control over the schools. Developing an effective and robust single national achievement test may be impossible in the absence of a national curriculum. Soares, Joseph A. (2011-09-30). SAT Wars: The Case for Test-Optional College Admissions (Kindle Locations 684-690). Teachers College Press. Kindle Edition.
John Aubrey
Douglas, 2013
, Douglas is Fellow in the Center for Studies in Higher Education, University of California, Berkeley. He is the author of The Conditions for Admission: Access, Equity, and the Social Contract of Public Universities (2007). Soares, Joseph A. (2011-09-30). SAT Wars: The Case for Test-Optional College Admissions, Teachers
College Press. Kindle Edition, page number at the end of card
A follow-up study by the University of California also demonstrated that subject tests, like the ACT, are only marginally better than the SAT. That means that subject-based tests, including a second array of tests marketed by ETS as the SAT II, are only philosophically better as an admissions requirement for the premier public university system in the United States.
High school grades remain the best single
measure of demonstrated academic
achievement
— a pretty good philosophical trump card. Soares, Joseph A. (2011-09-30). SAT Wars: The Case for Test-
Optional College Admissions (Kindle Locations 1131-1133). Teachers College Press. Kindle Edition.

Richard Atkinson & Saul
Geiser
, 20
13
, Saul Geiser is a Research Associate in the Center for Studies in Higher Education, University of California, Berkeley. He is former Director of Research for Admissions and Outreach for the University of California system, Richard C. Atkinson is President Emeritus of the University of California and Professor Emeritus of
Cognitive Science and Psychology at the University of California, San Diego. Soares, Joseph A. (2011-09-30). SAT Wars: The Case for Test-Optional College Admissions, Teachers College Press. Kindle Edition, page number at end of card
Our ability to predict student performance in college on the basis of factors known at the point of admission remains relatively limited. After decades of predictive-validity studies, our best prediction models (using not only test scores but high school grades and other academic and socioeconomic factors) still account for only about 25– 30% of the variance in outcome measures such as college GPA. This means that some 70– 75% of the variance is unexplained. That should not be surprising in view of the many other factors that affect student performance after admission, such as social support, financial aid, and academic engagement in college. But it also means that the error bands around our predictions are quite broad.
Using test scores as a tiebreaker to choose between applicants who are otherwise equally qualified, as is sometimes done, is not necessarily a reliable guide, especially where score differences are small. Moreover, there is little difference among the major national tests in their ability to predict student performance in college. Although the
New SAT, ACT,
SAT
Subject Tests, and AP exams differ in design, content, and other respects, they tend to be highly correlated and thus largely interchangeable with respect to prediction. It is true that subject-specific tests (in particular the AP exams) do have a statistically significant predictive advantage (Bowen et al., 2009; Geiser & Santelices, 2006), but the statistical difference by itself is too small to be of practical significance or to dictate adoption of one test over another. The argument for achievement tests
is not so much that they are
better predictors than other kinds of tests but that they are no worse: “The benefits of achievement tests for college admissions— greater clarity in admissions standards, closer linkage to the high-school curriculum— can be realized without any sacrifice in the capacity to predict success in college” (Geiser, 2002, p. 25). Soares, Joseph A. (2011-09-30). SAT Wars: The Case for Test-Optional College Admissions (Kindle Locations 861-866). Teachers College Press. Kindle Edition.

Richard
Atkinson
& Saul Geiser, 20
13
, Saul Geiser is a Research Associate in the Center for Studies in Higher Education, University of California, Berkeley. He is former Director of Research for Admissions and Outreach for the University of California system, Richard C. Atkinson is President Emeritus of the University of California and Professor Emeritus of
Cognitive Science and Psychology at the University of California, San Diego. Soares, Joseph A. (2011-09-30). SAT Wars: The Case for Test-Optional College Admissions, Teachers College Press. Kindle Edition, page number at end of card
California
’s experience
illustrates a more general
problem likely to confront efforts to develop standards-based assessments that bridge the institutional divide
between state university and K–
12
school systems.
Standards for what is expected of entering freshmen at selective
colleges and universities are different and usually much
more rigorous than K– 12 curriculum standards. They overlap, to be sure, but they are not the same, and institutional
conflicts over standards and testing are probably
inevitable for this reason. College and university faculty are right to be skeptical about using K– 12 tests in admissions if it means relinquishing control over entrance standards. And it is understandable that secondary school educators are concerned that, in seeking to adapt and modify
K– 12 tests for use in admissions
, colleges and
universities may exert undue influence over curriculum standards for the schools. Soares, Joseph A. (2011-09-30). SAT Wars: The Case for Test-Optional College Admissions (Kindle Locations 806-811). Teachers College Press. Kindle Edition.

Charles
Murray
, 20
13,
Charles Murray is the W. H. Brady Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Washington, DC. He is a co-author (with Richard J. Herrnstein) of The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (1994). Soares, Joseph A. (2011-09-30). SAT Wars: The Case for Test-Optional College
Admissions, Teachers College Press. Kindle Edition, page number at the end of card
Getting rid of the SAT will destroy the coaching industry as we know it.
Coaching for the SAT is seen a s the teaching of
trick s and strategies—
a species of cheating
— not as supplementary education. The retooled coaching industry will focus on the achievement tests, but insofar as the offerings consist of cram courses for tests in topics such as U.S. history or chemistry, the taint will be reduced. A low-income student shut out of opportunity for an SAT coaching school has the sense of being shut out of mysteries. Being shut out of a cram course is less daunting. Students know that they can study for a history or chemistry exam on their own. A coaching industry that teaches content along with test-taking techniques will have the additional advantage of being much better pedagogically— at least the students who take the coaching courses will be spending some of their time learning history or chemistry. The substitution of achievement tests for the SAT will put a spotlight on the quality of the local high school’s curriculum. If achievement test scores are getting all of the parents’ attention in the college admissions process, the courses that prepare for those achievement tests will get more of their attention as well, and the pressure for those courses to improve will increase. Soares, Joseph A. (2011-09-30). SAT Wars: The Case for Test-Optional College Admissions (Kindle Locations 1687-1688). Teachers College Press. Kindle Edition.

Richard Atkinson & Saul
Geiser
, 20
13
, Saul Geiser is a Research Associate in the Center for Studies in Higher Education, University of California, Berkeley. He is former Director of Research for Admissions and Outreach for the University of California system, Richard C. Atkinson is President Emeritus of the University of California and Professor Emeritus of
Cognitive Science and Psychology at the University of California, San Diego. Soares, Joseph A. (2011-09-30). SAT Wars: The Case for Test-Optional College Admissions, Teachers College Press. Kindle Edition, page number at end of card
Nevertheless, as an admissions test,
the New SAT still
falls short in important respects. The New SAT has three sections: Writing, Mathematics, and a third called Critical Reading. Not surprisingly, given the University of California’s earlier findings, research by the College Board shows that writing is the most predictive of the three sections. Yet
College Board researchers also
find that, overall, the
New SAT is not statistically
superior to the old test
in predicting success in college
: “The results show that the
changes made to the SAT
did not substantially change how well the test predicts first-year college performance” (Kobrin et al., 2008, p. 1). This result was unexpected, given the strong contribution of the writing test and the fact that the New SAT is almost an hour longer than the old test. 8 A possible explanation is provided by a study by economists at the University of Georgia (Cornwell, Mustard, & Van Parys, 2008).
That study found that adding the writing section to
the New
SAT has
rendered the critical reading section almost entirely redundant
, so that it does not add significantly to the prediction. The critical reading section is essentially the same as the verbal reasoning section of the old SAT I. It appears that the College Board was trying to have the best of both worlds. The College
Board could and did tell admissions officers that the critical reading and math sections of the New SAT were comparable to the verbal and mathematical reasoning sections of the old SAT I. If admissions officers disliked the New SAT, they could ignore the writing exam and then for all practical purposes the old and New SATs would be equivalent. 9 Soares, Joseph A. (2011-09-30).
SAT Wars: The Case for Test-Optional College Admissions (Kindle Locations 617-629). Teachers College Press. Kindle Edition.

Charles
Murray
, 20
13
, Charles Murray is the W. H. Brady Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Washington, DC. He is a co-author (with Richard J. Herrnstein) of The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (1994). Soares, Joseph A. (2011-09-30). SAT Wars: The Case for Test-Optional College Admissions,
Teachers College Press. Kindle Edition, page number at the end of card
The College Board also administers 1-hour achievement tests in English literature, United States history, world history, biology, chemistry, physics, two levels of math, Chinese, French, German, Hebrew, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Latin, and Spanish. These are now called “subject tests” or SAT II (more labels I will ignore). I do not discuss the College Board’s advanced placement (AP) tests that can enable students to get college credit, because they cannot serve as a substitute for either the SAT or the achievement tests.
Not all schools offer AP courses, and the AP’s 5-point scoring system conveys limited information
. Soares, Joseph A. (2011-09-30). SAT Wars: The Case for Test-Optional College Admissions (Kindle Locations 1501-1505). Teachers College Press. Kindle Edition.
National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC). (2008). Report of the Commission on the Use of Standardized Tests in Undergraduate Admission. Arlington, VA: Author. Soares, Joseph A. (2011-09-30). SAT Wars: The Case for Test-Optional College Admissions (Kindle Locations 111-112). Teachers College Press. Kindle Edition.