The administration made a mistake when it announced that it would make the submission of SAT (and ACT) scores optional.’
This new policy is not in the long-term interest of alumni or current and future students. In the first place the SAT, though certainly not a pleasurable test to take, is America’s best indicator of a student’s aptitude.
We don’t have a national education system, like England, and the quality of an education varies district by district. Fairfield now says that they’ll be able to look at grades in high school more, but that’s the problem: American high school grades are all relative. A student with a 3.7 GPA in a high school in Massachusetts, which has the best education system in the nation, is probably smarter than a student with a 3.7 GPA in Alabama, which ranks 49th in public education. The only proven thing that would distinguish these two students from one another would be their SAT scores. Under Fairfield’s new policy, the student from Alabama is now just as bright as the student from Massachusetts and is just as likely to be accepted.
It is doubtful that the additional essay, hailed by Fairfield as the penicillin to the SAT disease, will sort out the differences.’
There are exceptions: I spoke with a friend who was a good student in high school but performed poorly on the SAT. Students like him show that the SAT should not be the only thing taken into consideration, but it should be considered. Although the SAT is by no means a universal definition of intelligence, it is the best way of ensuring that Fairfield accepts qualified students.’ Its defenestration will, over time, lower our standards.
Going the SAT-optional route hurts the reputation of Fairfield and therefore hurts all students, particularly those going into cut-throat competitive fields like biotechnology and business.
In order to get into medical school, Fairfield’s pre-med students need to show that they have attended a highly competitive and rigorous undergraduate institution which has prepared them for their many more years of schooling that lie ahead. As a business student, I have seen first-hand how hard it is to get a good job, particularly in today’s labor market.
I’ve sat in offices in Manhattan waiting to go into an interview, and seen that the students around me vying for the same position go to Columbia, MIT and Yale.
It’s hard enough that Fairfield students in business have to compete against these students; why should our administration do anything to weaken its University’s prestige?
This policy is not the end of the world; some other high-ranked schools have chosen to make the SAT-optional, including George Mason and Holy Cross. An education at Fairfield is still a sound investment given its brilliant faculty, commitment to diversity and its strong core values that are a part of the Jesuit identity. The administration’s action will not strengthen this investment.’
In his e-mail to students announcing the change, University President Jeffrey von Arx stated that he hoped that eliminating the SAT requirement would ‘make’ a’ Fairfield’ education’ available’ to’ as’ many
talented’ students’ as’ possible.’
If Fairfield wishes to broaden the scope of applicants, it should focus on adopting a policy of fiscal responsibility by not charging the equivalent of a Cadillac Escalade every year for tuition.’ Watering down our acceptance standards will only water down Fairfield’s long-term future.
Leave a Reply