Here at the University of Wisconsin, we are constantly seeking ways in which we can increase the diversity of our student body, and for good reason. A diverse educational experience provides students an opportunity to expand their limited worldview while also helping to alleviate the socioeconomic gap our education system continues to propagate. It may be painful to accept, but we are all worse off when coasties, sconnies, minority students and international students live in bubbled existences where they interact only with those who look and think like them and have similar backgrounds.

It seems the administration now understands this “enlightened” concept and is crafting ways in which we can increase the level of diverse applicants that get accepted to the university. One oft heard proposal, highlighted in a Badger Herald article last week (“De-emphasis on SATs, ACTs could increase campus diversity,” March 27), advocates decreasing the emphasis on standardized tests as a requirement for admission. The cited study shows a potential near 2 percent rise in admission of those from the lowest socioeconomic classes if this policy were to be enacted.

That is most definitely the end goal we should be working toward; we must ask, however, are these the best available means to get there?

Yes, problems with standardized testing are numerous, too much so to be elaborated in a short op-ed piece in a college newspaper. Success on the SAT or ACT can be seriously affected by a test-takers’ access to resources, both direct preparation outside of school as well as the quality of education within one’s school walls. In addition, as the No Child Left Behind Act both demonstrated and exacerbated, standardized testing seriously incentivizes “teaching to the test,” which comes with obvious drawbacks. Standardized tests also receive much due criticism because of the lack of breadth with which they measure intelligence and ability. It seems difficult to explain how a three-hour aptitude test can measure the range and quality of a potential college student’s knowledge.

However, we must understand that some sort of objective standardized manner in which we can judge applicants to our university is needed. It’s clear GPA is not the metric we should wholly rely on; it is simply too dependent on aspects outside the student’s control to adequately measure his or her potential for collegiate success. GPA is determined by such fickle characteristics as difficulty of school and difficulty of classes. Additionally, it is not a bad idea to have one’s admission to UW based on some sort of standard assessment. At such a large university as our own, success is determined by test-taking ability above all else. For most courses, grades are proportionally weighted so test results are the determining factor. Thus the claim that someone’s apprehension that unfair testing denied them entrance to our university is invalid. The university cannot accept students when they know their grades will be subpar.

Finding a way in which we can cure the ills of high school level standard examinations such as the SAT/ACT without ridding ourselves of some sort of objective assessment tool is difficult. One possible solution lies in a different form of standards that can serve to bridge the education gap. Kati Haycock, author of “Closing the Achievement Gap,” shows us how “clear and public standards for what students should learn at benchmark grade levels are a crucial part of solving the problem.” This policy, first put in place in Kentucky, has proven extremely successful and can serve as a possible framework from which objective data can be collected and used for the purpose of college admission. A similar system worked in El Paso, Texas, where the community set concrete and lofty standards for what all students should be able to do and took serious steps to ensure the kids could reach them. The city subsequently saw “increased achievement for all groups of students, with bigger increases among the groups that have historically been left behind.”

The solution thus does not lie in solving the problem entirely through the office of admissions. We will begin to address the issue not when we lower our standards for admission by neglecting standardized and objective assessments, but when we increase the ability for young students of all backgrounds to attain the qualities we are looking for in a UW student, perhaps by keeping in mind Haycock’s examples.

This is currently being attempted, quite nobly, by the Pre-College Enrichment Opportunity Program for Learning Excellence here at UW. PEOPLE is working with low-income kids at an early age so they can gain the requisite skills not only to be accepted in the UW but also to thrive here. This is the exact approach that will seriously begin to alter the status quo that is largely a uniform student body dominated by the majority class.

PEOPLE understands large-scale structural problems cannot be solved from the top down. We are currently and painfully learning the pitfalls of trickle-down economics — let’s not try a system of trickle-down equality as well. It is great that the university is seriously addressing the problem, and a focus on standardized testing is appropriate; the system does need changing. The fundamental change should take place, however, not by shifting our standards but by shifting the paradigm that does not allow those of the lower classes to achieve the requisite skills needed to succeed in college. It is in the ability of the university to reflect the diverse society that we want to cultivate, but, by itself, it cannot create it.

Ben White ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in political science.