Written by Clara Heberling
One of my guilty pleasures is listening to Supreme Court oral arguments. I will often download the recording to my phone, pop in earbuds, and go for a run, watching the miles pass by as I analyze each side of America’s most pressing legal questions.
My favorite part of this activity is trying to see how many justices I can recognize solely by their voices. My second favorite part, though, is listening to the lawyers parse out the smallest intricacies of the case. Even when a justice asks a seemingly pointless question, the advocates are prepared to give a detailed answer and manage to relate it to their main argument. I find it satisfying how each small factor contributes to a deeper understanding of the case at hand, allowing the nine justices to propose a solution that respects the complexity of the problem.
As such, I’m always slightly disappointed when I finish my run, pause the recording, and return to the real world—a world in which people don’t usually inquire about the difference between grants and contracts in determining whether a charter school is constitutional, or question the percentage of funds from appropriated property when ruling on the rights of Hungarian Holocaust survivors to reclaim their property. It seems as if a world of gray snaps back into black and white.
People have always called me an overthinker, and, as I’ve grown older, I’ve started to wear this label with a sort of pride. However, it also means that I grow frustrated when people refuse to critically think through situations, and their first impressions immediately become doctrinal. In contrast, I don’t like to assert my opinion on an issue until I know both my and my opponent’s perspectives forwards and backwards, as well as being familiar with off-shoot, third party proposals that some would deem irrelevant. I can admit that this sometimes prevents me from taking a timely stand on issues. However, I think it overwhelmingly contributes to a more nuanced understanding of topical debates, as well as more sympathy for those with opposing viewpoints.
A particularly illustrative example of this phenomenon, in my opinion, is the recent campaign against standardized tests. Within the past five years, many universities have shifted away from using the ACT and SAT as markers of intelligence (though that trend is now starting to reverse). Many people rejoiced, pointing to the wide disparities between the scores of higher and lower-income students as evidence of the test’s ineptitude and as a justification for getting rid of it.
However, I think this was an easy way out. When I saw the difference between standardized test scores depending on economic class, my first thought was not that the ACT or SAT was inherently flawed. My first thought was not a conclusion at all. Rather, I just wondered why. Now, this isn’t a particularly complicated question to answer. It is hard to deny that there is significant inequity within education depending on social class and location. However, the questioning should then go further. What specific areas are lacking? How can we increase funding? Where can these funds go most effectively? By simply making test scores optional, the root of the issue is not addressed, and there is no real growth. We negate the scores, since it’s easier to do that than address the fundamental problem—the systemic inequality of our school systems. Further, it’s not as if the focus was shifted to equitable factors. Extracurricular activities will be better funded at wealthier schools, and children will have more options that interest them. Students will write better essays if they have teachers and counselors that aren’t overworked and can look them over. On that same note, those teachers and counselors will likely write better letters of recommendation. Nothing was solved by eliminating standardized test scores, but universities can act like they’ve succeeded in advancing educational equity, helping bolster their credibility when people criticize them for their lack of economic diversity.
To be clear, I’m not necessarily saying that standardized tests are the best thing that’s ever happened to college admissions. I do think that the practice of paying for tutors or paying to take the test numerous times is an unfair advantage available to wealthier students, and I’d like to see some changes. Specifically, I think applicants should be made to disclose if they worked with a tutor, as well as submit how many times they’ve taken the test and their scores on each attempt. While it certainly wouldn’t solve the problem, I do think this narrowly tailored approach could help alleviate some of the disparities between students.
Talking about the issue of standardized testing for so long has given me the instinct to end this essay with a call-to-action or a proposed solution. However, this would be a rather ironic piece if I didn’t have the humility to admit that I don’t have the perfect answer. All I can ask, really, is that we try a bit harder. We need to stop rationalizing the easy way out; it keeps leading us to dead ends. Rather, we can take a page out of the book of the Supreme Court: ask questions, do research, and dedicate yourself to understanding the complexity of an issue before we propose a solution. Then, perhaps, we’ll see some progress.
