In a previous article I brought up some of the issues with judging
schools based on standardized exam scores.
The obvious question is why we use them still. College readiness (highly suspect) and public
accountability are the two reasons most often given. The public wants their money’s worth, which is
totally appropriate, but individuals, seeing/hearing about the problems of the
national standardized testing movement/culture typically get that it’s a bad
idea. Yet we continue.
When I was teaching economics, one of the basic principles
instructed was that “people respond to incentives.” In other words, there are reasons (people)
that things are the way they are. I am
reminded of a photo I saw once. In it
was Sal Kahn (creator of Khan Academy), a high school leader, a Citibank
executive, and a high ranking exec from the College Board. So Kahn Academy, the College Board, Citibank,
and High Schools….which of these doesn’t fit?
It’s Citibank, correct? Three
educational institutions and a bank….we’ll come back to this.
Not long ago I saw a College Board presentation about the redesigned
the SAT. The logic was that they were concerned that too many students,
particularly minorities, were not "college ready. This made them re-examine the exam and realize
the test wasn’t aligned with what kids need to know in college. Nice they finally figured that out, but it’s sad
they put it on minority students, not the inappropriate use of these exams—which
they’ve peddled, pushed, and lobbied.
Thus, they redesigned it, “taking out words like ‘loquacious’
and replacing them with words like ‘dedicated.’” They also formed a partnership
with Khan Academy. Any student that takes the SAT is now automatically set up
with a Khan account that's customized with videos and practice where they need
it. This sounds well and good, especially
if you believe that high SAT scores = college readiness (they don’t).
Enter Citibank, a major underwriter of federal and private
student loans. The more kids go to
college, the more loans they make. Most important: student loans survive a
bankruptcy, so this is a largely risk-free market for them. They set it up like
that because 18 year old college bound kids don't exactly have the credit
profile that banks like to see...no history, no job.
SAT/ACT scores are therefore credit ratings as much they are
college readiness indicators. This
system will get kids further into student loan debt. And worse, since the College Board has been
quick to point out that they're specifically hoping to help minorities, one
should conclude that this increased student loan debt will be
disproportionately borne by students from those groups. It's unavoidable: Any
plan to increase "credit" is a plan to increase debt. This also will to
debt with no degree in many cases. If student
scores increase, but are void of real learning and a host of soft skills, we’ll
merely be pushing marginal students into postsecondary institutions where they
will not matriculate.
This is obviously cynical and not the intent. Sal Khan, whose goal is to make education accessible,
is not in Citi's board room scheming. And
of course, borrowing money to further an education is often wise. That said, the above are completely likely
outcomes and are even expected by the proponents: They want more low SES kids to go to college, but by
definition, they don't have the money and must borrow.
All the more reason we need to emphasize the importance of
understanding the relationship between the cost of college and their likely
future earnings. In my experience teaching personal finance, students' are in a
disadvantaged position when it comes to making decisions about massive loan
debt, etc., even if the law permits. Surely,
all of the advice we here about investing young making all the difference applies
in reverse to starting out with debt young.
The gains foregone are invisible, but they’re forgone nonetheless.
