Short intro to a piece I'm working on that describes the things SATs can't test people on
| The SAT is one of the most important tests I’ve taken, as my scores are a direct representation of me as a person. My scores replace my name when colleges seek me out, or review my transcript. My scores characterize who I am and label me. My scores become my first impression on someone, my initial handshake, my first, “hello”. And the funny part is - they could never represent even half of who I am.
Sat scores are just a number. Yes, the number represents my intellectual ability on the skills that were assessed; but it fails to acknowledge outlying information that was not bound by two covers of a test booklet. The number provides a measurable way to compare me to everyone else who is seeking a college career and successful future, and, as such has an enormous responsibility. But does it adhere to that responsibility? Are the three core methods of assessment: critical reading, writing, and math enough to provide a true, holistic view on me as a person? The sat is responsible for conveying who I truly am as a person, but it fails to test me on anything that would actually do so.
Instead of representing the complete, entire me, my scores represent a small fraction of me, and could never amass to my entire worth. They could never test me on my values, opinions, and character. They could never uncover my interests, work ethic, and ability to work with others, and they certainly could never reveal my renounced knowledge of Harry Potter. Standardized tests only represent a small portion of my intellect, as they only test certain, select skills, while ignoring other important skills that are essential to fully recognizing what I know. But apparently that’s just a small flaw that is to be expected when converting a person to a mere statistic.