The SAT and ACT are tests that every student is required to take before they can apply and be considered for college. Somehow, even after taking these tests multiple times, I find myself wondering why the SAT and ACT are such huge factors in determining if a student should be accepted into college. Should we place so much emphasis and weight on one test? I have had to go through countless private tutoring sessions for the SAT and ACT and had to take the tests multiple times, yet, I can honestly say that I am not any smarter, wiser, or more emotionally intelligent after my many attempts at studying for and taking these tests.  Colleges should base their acceptance decisions on things that give a complete view of the student such as grades, interviews, and extracurricular activities. By placing so much importance on SAT and ACT scores, colleges are limiting their students and assigning a numerical value to them instead of acknowledging the different talents and perspectives each student is capable of giving. These tests are not accurate indicators of a student's future success in college and should be disregarded altogether.

The article "Abolish the SAT" by Katherine Zhao is asking the reader to reevaluate the value that the SAT should have in their acceptance to college. With all of the private tutors and SAT prep classes, these tests are not accurate indicators of a student's future success because they no longer have the ability to test a student's raw ability. They also could discourage kids from applying to college when they are just as qualified as someone with a higher SAT score. The author values education and believes that it cannot be given a numerical value. Katherine Zhao is a contributing columnist for the Daily Princetonian as well as a student at Princeton. This might make her biased on the students' behalf and make her desire more equality in the education system.

In the article "Death to the SAT," Tobin Harshaw writes that the SAT is made for the economically fortunate and that instead of evening the playing field by showing the "diamond in the ruff," it is an indicator of how wealthy a student is or how much money that student has to invest in private tutors and prep courses. It can be far too disheartening for students who do not have the highest test scores and can make the ones with great test scores feel far too entitled. There is no way for a student to see what they actually are gifted at, so not succeeding on the standardized tests can be quite a blow, making people doubt their intellectual ability. This article is concerned with the students' mental state and thinks that the tests are far too discouraging for the students who are not blessed with the ability to prepare or pay however much money it takes to excel. Harshaw is worried about the gap between the "have's" and "have not's" widening due to the implications of this test. Tobin Harshaw is a writer for the Opinionator section of the New York Times, this could cause his opinions about education to be extremely liberal.

In the article "The Impact of Dropping the SAT," Scott Jaschik states that a change in the demographic would ensue if schools stopped looking at standardized test scores. The Scholars at Princeton University's Office of Population Research found that when schools do not look at SAT or ACT scores to determine who they will accept it leads to an increase in the diversity of race, ethnicity, and also an increase in socioeconomic diversity. It is not enough to ask schools to just allow the submission of standardized tests to be optional, because the students that did exceptionally well on the tests would still submit their scores, resulting in them reaping the benefits of their scores over the people who did not submit. This article focuses on evening the playing field for everyone to have equal opportunity for higher education. It is interested in creating diversity within the university and pointing out the bias within standardized testing. The author, Scott Jaschik is one of the three founders of Inside Higher Ed., and the editor for A Chronicle for Higher Education. He has worked as a mentor for many community fellows programs for higher education and has served as a judge for awards such as The Folio Editorial Excellence Awards, the Education Writers Association Awards, and others. This makes the author a qualified and respected opinion on the subject of education. He might be slanted toward helping others who are less fortunate be able to attend a university. 

The question of why the SAT and ACT are such huge factors in college admission and the debate of whether or not they are even accurate indicators of a student's future success are very controversial.  Some people think that the SAT and ACT are fine the way that they are, others think that they are not the best indicators but are better than the alternatives, while others do not think that they are good indicators but still are not completely in agreement on which alternatives to implement. Some sources do not think that the SAT and ACT should be considered at all while others think that they should be optional. These tests should not be used in college acceptance because they are extremely limiting to students and discriminate against students who think outside of the box and would otherwise excel in college due to this ability. They are biased in that they cater to one type of thinking, and frankly, no one wants to attend a college that only has one type of student. College is about broadening your mind and learning about different ways of thinking and different beliefs, it is ironic that the test that colleges focus on in their acceptance decisions discourages and even inhibits these different values.  It is time to rid the schooling system of antiquated and biased methods and embrace the future.

