*32 I. UNC's Nuanced View of Test Scores Does Not Hold Asian Americans to a Higher Academic Standard Than Underrepresented Minorities

 

SFFA asserts that UNC holds Asian Americans to a higher academic standard than underrepresented minorities because UNC considers context when evaluating standardized test scores. Because Asian Americans have higher average test scores than underrepresented minorities, SFFA assumes that this practice disadvantages Asian Americans.

But SFFA's argument is only as solid as the test scores upon which it is based. In fact, test scores are neither good indicators of academic ability nor race-neutral. The predictive limitations and inherent racial biases of standardized tests are well-documented by social scientists and have been acknowledged by the courts. UNC's use of test scores as part of a holistic review does not hold Asian Americans to a higher academic standard; it merely levels the playing field for underrepresented minorities who would otherwise be unfairly disadvantaged.

A. Standardized Test Scores Fail to Predict Academic Potential or Future Success

Numerous studies show that test scores fail to predict success beyond first-year college grades. For example, the leading study on U.S. graduation rates found that test scores have no statistically significant effect on college graduation rates--a far better measure of academic success than first-year grades. Another study of law school graduates determined that a combination of LSAT scores and undergraduate GPA failed to predict career success, as measured by income, satisfaction, and service contributions.

Additionally, some studies have found that SAT test scores' predictive value is limited even for first-year college grades. For example, analyses of the University of California system show that SAT scores explain less than two percent of the variance in first-year grades and are largely redundant of other information provided through the holistic application process. In short, overreliance on SAT scores to compare and rank similar students incorrectly predicts who will ultimately perform well in college and beyond, particularly for students of color.

B. Racial Biases Cause Disparities in Test Scores for Underrepresented Minorities Independent of Socioeconomic Disadvantage

On average, African American, Latino, Native American, and certain AAPI ethnic groups have lower standardized test scores than white students. Unfortunately, these test score gaps are continuing to grow as our school system resegregates. The racial disparities in standardized tests are often attributed to socioeconomic factors because students of color are disproportionately low-income and cannot afford expensive test-preparation courses that inflate scores for wealthier students. These students are also more likely to be taught by less-skilled or less-experienced teachers, attend schools in distressed neighborhoods or suburban areas where they are socially isolated, and be unfairly assigned to lower academic tracks throughout their elementary and high school years, all of which are factors that contribute to poor test-readiness and lower performance on standardized tests. However, socioeconomic disadvantage does not adequately explain the racial disparities in standardized testing on its own. Instead, ôrace has a large, independent, and growing statistical effect on students' SAT/ACT scores after controlling for other factors. Race matters as much as, if not more than, family income and parents' education in accounting for test-score difference.ö For example, one factor contributing to the role that race plays in creating the testing gap is ôstereotype threat,ö which artificially lowers test scores for students of color who internalize messages that they are intellectually inferior.

The significant effect of race on SAT/ACT scores reflect the inherent racial bias in the development of standardized tests. According to test expert Jay Rosner: Each individual SAT question ... is required to parallel the outcomes of the test overall. So, if high-scoring test-takers--who are more likely to be white (and male, and wealthy)--tend to answer the question correctly in pretesting, it's a worthy SAT question; if not, it's thrown out. Race and ethnicity are not considered explicitly, but racially disparate scores drive question selection, which in turn reproduces racially disparate test results in an internally reinforcing cycle.

*35 Because the very process of test construction favors test questions that white test-takers answer correctly more often than black test-takers, it is dangerous to take standardized test scores at face value without recognizing the racial context of those scores.

At bottom, ô[a] combined score of 1000 on the SATs is not always a 1000. When you look at a Striver [a student disadvantaged in the testing process by socioeconomic status, race, or other factors] who gets a 1000, you're looking at someone who really performs at a 1200.ö

C. UNC Considers the Context of Achievement on Standardized Tests to Provide a Fair Appraisal of Academic Potential

According to the National Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing developed by the American Educational Research Association, Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education, disparities between groups in test scores should ôtrigger heightened scrutiny for possible sources of test bias.ö These standards encourage universities to mitigate the adverse impact of biased tests, which often involves taking race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status into consideration when evaluating a student's test scores is precisely what UNC does.

UNC explicitly recognizes the limitations of standardized test scores. As a result, admissions officers consider test score gaps for underrepresented minorities, first-generation applicants, and students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds when reading applications. This accords with industry best practices.

By putting test scores in their proper place, UNC is able to consider a wider, more diverse range of candidates who have other characteristics that are better predictors of college and career success than test scores. Indeed, a growing body of empirical research shows that character skills rival cognition in predicting educational attainment. For example, a 2007 study found that a lower SAT score is associated with a greater degree of ôgrit,ö which in turn, is associated with a higher GPA at an elite institution. Another study concluded that conscientiousness and a willingness to work hard matter more than SAT scores and high school GPA in predicting college GPA. Thus, UNC's holistic race-conscious admissions process allows for the recognition of individual applicants' whole-human dignity and unique qualifications in a way that lifeless numbers could never do.

D. UNC's Consideration of Context to Evaluate Standardized Test Scores Does Not Harm Asian Americans

UNC's consideration of context to evaluate standardized test scores does not disadvantage anyone, including Asian Americans, because it merely cures ôestablished inaccuracies in predicting academic performance.ö A higher test score is a poor predictor of a person's ultimate capacity to be successful at UNC and does not--and should not--entitle anyone to admission at UNC or any other selective university. In fact, UNC explicitly rejects the notion that its goal is ôto maximize the average SAT score or the average eventual GPA of the entering class.ö Instead, UNC employs a holistic admissions process that ôconsider[s] each person as a unique and complex human beingö and seeks to enroll ôaccomplished and capable students who are diverse in all ways.ö

Under UNC's holistic admissions process, SAT scores by themselves explain less than twelve percent of admissions decisions. Therefore, the fact that Asian American admits to UNC have SAT scores that are higher than African American admits is immaterial. Even if UNC did not consider race when evaluating SAT scores, the test score gap would remain, as it did at UC Berkeley and UCLA after Proposition 209 banned the consideration of race in the admissions process. SFFA's own expert conceded that Asian Americans have the highest admission rate of any racial group for in-state residents, which is inconsistent with any suggestion that UNC's race-conscious admissions process disfavors Asian Americans