Aptitude tests versus school exams as selection tools for higher education and the case for assessing educational achievement in context

Abstract

Advocates of using a US‐style SAT for university selection claim that it is fairer to applicants from disadvantaged backgrounds than achievement tests because it assesses potential, not achievement, and that it allows finer discrimination between top applicants than GCEs. The pros and cons of aptitude tests in principle are discussed, focusing on school‐proofness claims, concluding that it is invalid to assess suitability for university using measures purportedly immune to study, and unfair to allocate opportunities according to qualities acquired by chance. Considering empirical findings, aptitude tests’ claims to school‐proofness and their power to predict academic achievement – relative to achievement tests – are found wanting. Methods of evaluating pupils’ achievement within an educational context are discussed, including a national system for ranking university applicants that accounts for absolute achievement and educational context. Pupils’ ranks would form the basis of universities’ first sifts, allowing applicants from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds to compete fairly for university places.

Keywords:

• A‐levels
• aptitude tests
• deprivation
• higher education
• SAT
• university admissions

Notes

1. Note that ‘SAT’ is no longer used as an acronym, the most recent version of the test being called simply ‘SAT Reasoning Test’.

2. The word ‘school’ is used frequently in this article; it may be helpful to clarify some of its uses. ‘School exams’ refers to exams that assess curricula, and ‘school‐proof’ refers to schooling as the process of being educated formally. In the context of the US education system, ‘school’ is an institution for the instruction of people under college age, where ‘college’ is an institution of higher learning that grants bachelor’s degrees. In the context of the UK education system, ‘college’ often refers to institutions dedicated to post‐16 – further but not higher – education. However, ‘school’ may also include school sixth forms in which pupils study A‐levels. To avoid verbosity, ‘school’ is generally used in the more inclusive US sense.

3. Data obtained from Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) website: http://www.ucas.com/.

4. This study was commissioned by the Sutton Trust whose chairperson, Sir Peter Lampl, is a member of Professor Schwartz’s Admissions to Higher Education Steering Group.

5. It is perhaps worth noting that the national data available to measure educational context in post‐16 institutions – be they school sixth forms or colleges – are more limited than are those for secondary schools, described below. For example, the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) does not publish value‐added figures for post‐16 institutions, only mean attainment. There are several schemes in operation that measure value‐added post‐16, including A‐level Performance Systems (ALPS) by Alkemygold, Advanced Level Information System (ALIS) by the Curriculum, Evaluation and Management Centre based in Durham University, and the Learner Achievement Tracker (LAT), which is being developed by the Learning and Skills Council. However, none of these schemes provides comprehensive coverage of post‐16 institutions, and comparisons between institutions in the different schemes would be inappropriate given that their indices are calculated differently. The broader the index of context/deprivation – the less tied it is to a particular stage or scheme of assessment – the easier, and more valid, it is to apply it to school sixth forms and colleges as well as secondary schools.

6. Independent schools could be asked to return the necessary data in order for them to be indexed. If they were unwilling to participate, it might be reasonable to assume that they were concerned about being indexed as highly privileged and the consequences this might have for their pupils’ university applications. An incentive to cooperate would be to set a default index in the most privileged category for schools that decline to cooperate.

7. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister closed in May 2006; much of its remit transferred to the new Department for Communities and Local Government.

8. UCAS and the Joint Council for Qualifications have agreed that individual unit grades will be made available to those institutions that wish to receive them from 2007 entry onwards; there will be a pilot for 2006 entry (DfES 2005).