The standardized tests administered by third parties that most colleges consider for admission (ACT and SAT, for example) are an important discriminator for college admissions officers in determining preparedness for college study. Their importance has been downplayed over the years, however, as personal characteristics (including socioeconomic background and extenuating circumstances) and high school educational environment are given greater consideration (e.g., see the University of Michigan's evaluation guidelines).Although they are not a very robust predictor (even ACT, Inc., will say that a better predictor of college success is obtained when combining the ACT scores together with high school GPA), and they are only one piece of the admissions puzzle, the yearly numerical scores are easily analyzed, make for a good news story, and result in many diverse opinions.
In looking at the ACT test scores, you can find many correlations, such as lower average scores for children of single parents versus married or divorced parents, regional differences, and differences by race. This leads to many claims of unfairness in the design of the test, intentional or not. So the question is this: does the ACT provide a gateway to opportunity by identifying the best and the brightest to attend the "best" schools", or are they an artificial barrier to entry that can be used for political (or other) purposes by leaving the disadvantaged behind?





