In support of his proposal, Atkinson repeated several well-known criticisms of the SAT. It is not clear, he argued, what the test — which has for years been one of the chief ways in which colleges and universities decide who to admit to their undergraduate programs — actually measures. While it purports to be a test of native intelligence and acquired "aptitude", Atkinson pointed out that the SAT in fact tends to favor students from good schools whose parents can afford to put them through the battery of costly preparatory courses administered by Kaplan and other services. Atkinson also referred to the well-known disparity between the test scores of blacks and Latinos and students of other races. Following the 1996 passage of Proposition 209, a state-wide ballot initiative banning affirmative action in California’s public institutions, the admission of blacks and Latinos to the University of California sharply dropped (though the figures have since recovered, surpassing those for the last year before the Proposition’s implementation), a reflection of their relatively poor performance on the SATs. As Atkinson remarked in a February 17th interview with the Los Angeles Times, "Minority communities go off the deep end when they talk about the SAT ... I think they have good reason: it’s a mystery what the SAT measures and why their kids don’t do as well as other kids."

In fact, it’s not such a mystery. As John McWhorter, a Professor of Linguistics at UC, Berkeley, persuasively argues in his recently published discussion of the black academic experience, Losing the Race: Self-Sabotage in Black America, the persistent under-performance of black students on the SAT is a result of the deeply ingrained anti-intellectualism of African-American culture. For many black students, according to McWhorter, academic excellence is an inherently "white" virtue and, for that reason, just not cool. This rejection of intellectual rigor is reflected in their SAT performances, which, whatever else one may wish to say of the tests, are widely accepted as good predictors of student achievement in college. We know, in other words, why black students continue to perform so far beneath the standard set by their white and Asian classmates. If it remains a "mystery" for Atkinson, it is only because the truth is so inconvenient.

In place of the SAT, Atkinson recommended a more "holistic" approach to admissions, one that places greater weight on grades and teachers’ recommendations than on standardized tests. He also challenged test makers to come up with a new standardized exam that would do a better job than the SAT of reflecting students’ experiences in college preparatory courses.

It’s hard to shed tears over the demise of the SAT. Almost everyone who has attended an American college in recent years has memories of the SAT, most of them bitter: the aimless cramming, the anxiety leading up to test day, the sheer boredom of the exam itself. Under the present system, so much rides on such a brief performance: plenty of talented minds have been kept back by a poor score and just as many mediocrities advanced by a good one. And Atkinson is clearly right when he charges the SAT with favoring wealthier students over poorer ones: if there is any truth to the self-advertisements of Kaplan and the Princeton Review then anyone with the time, discipline, and money to sit through their courses (the cost of which normally exceeds $1000) stands to gain more than a few points come exam day.

But there remains something to be said for the SATs. Though the exam itself is flawed and the weight placed on it by colleges excessive, the SAT remains the only genuinely universal mode of assessment currently available to admissions’ committees. Every student is unique, a fact which makes comparison intrinsically difficult. Likewise, every school is unique. Some schools are nearly ideal learning places, with well-trained staff, fully stocked libraries and enthusiastic students. Others, to put it mildly, are not. The consequence is that what counts as an A at one school is often not the same as what counts as an A at another. What’s more, since grade inflation is an increasingly common feature of high school education across the country, it can be difficult to tell the difference between an A that is earned and one that isn’t. It is for all of these reasons imperative to submit students to a universal standard — and this is exactly what the SAT does. Though the SAT may be in some cases unfairly weighted in favor of certain students, doing away with it will result in a system that is even less fair. Without the SAT, there will no longer be a standard for judging all students equally, only the more or less arbitrary pretense of a standard based on grades and teachers impressions. According to Atkinson, the new standardized test which he has called upon testing services to invent will make up for this by substituting an improved and fairer test for the SAT. Yet it is important to note that, so far, no such test exists — for all we know, the SATs replacement will be even worse. In short, Atkinson’s proposal gets rid of the SAT without substituting anything better. If followed, it will deprive colleges of a flawed but necessary means for assessing student aptitude.

And this is precisely what Atkinson wants. For those outside of California, it may be difficult to appreciate the full significance of Atkinson’s recent announcement. Since the passage of Proposition 209 in 1996, the University of California has been embroiled in a bitter and constantly shifting debate over the fate of "underrepresented" minorities in the state system. The controversy is an ever-present feature of University life; everywhere, it divides people into hostile factions, from dorm room discussions all the way up to the Board of Regents, the body which makes policy for the entire system. One faction in the Regents, led by Ward Connerly, deeply opposes affirmative action and played an important role in the campaign for Proposition 209, which was overwhelmingly endorsed by the voters. A larger faction, of which Atkinson is a member, just as strongly supports it. Since 1996, the two camps have been locked in a fierce struggle over the future of the University’s admissions policies. Connerly’s camp has made great exertions to ensure that the University abide by the letter and spirit of 209. Atkinson’s camp, meanwhile, has done everything it can to get around 209. Their efforts range from inventing and then pumping many millions of dollars into the so-called "Outreach" program — really a state-wide drive to usher blacks and Latinos into the UC system — to consulting state and national databases of minority high school students in deciding admissions.

To fully understand Atkinson’s proposal, you have to understand the timing. Last December, the California State Supreme Court upheld Proposition 209 by finding that minority recruitment drives such as the UC’s Outreach program engage in illegal racial discrimination. And, just 10 days before Atkinson’s announcement before the American Council on Education, Ward Connerly filed a state ballot initiative to amend the state constitution to prevent public institutions from collecting information about a person’s race, ethnicity or national origin. In other words, affirmative action advocates in the University administration are now about to lose both of their best devices for getting around Proposition 209. University Regent William Bagley nicely summed up the by-any-means-necessary response of the University’s pro-affirmative action lobby to the bad news: "regardless of (state-mandated) affirmative action, the university must do everything it can to advance minorities."

And this is where Atkinson comes in. In the absence of affirmative action, Outreach, database consultation and similar devices, state admissions committees will soon have little choice but to judge all applicants by the same standard. Since blacks and Latinos consistently score well-below students of other races on the SATs, this means that fewer of them will gain admission than before. By substituting a vaguely defined "holistic" approach for the SAT, Atkinson seeks to avoid this outcome. With only grades and recommendations to go on, Atkinson’s proposal encourages admissions committees to ignore important differences in the quality of students’ education. Though all A’s are not equal, the university administration will now be allowed to pretend that they are.

There’s a sad irony to all this. When they were first introduced, the SATs were intended to ensure that merit, rather than money or family connections, would be the decisive factor in college admissions. Seventy years on, the very success of the SATs in distinguishing between better and worse students is seen as a reason for scrapping them. In short, Atkinson and his supporters have done more than propose substituting a worse system for a bad one. With a genuinely shocking cynicism, they have also shown themselves willing to sacrifice the ideals of merit and intellectual dessert upon which their university is founded in the interests of a set of ill-considered but tenaciously held political goals. Sadly, in today’s university climate, such sacrifices are only too common.

If Atkinson’s proposal is endorsed elsewhere in the nation, as seems likely, both our university system and our society will be compromised. It may be a good idea to change the SAT. But let’s change it because of its faults, not its virtues.