Matt Bardin’s op-ed about standardized tests.

It’s not surprising that many people seem repulsed by standardized testing. The idea that performance on a test can influence important events in one’s life feels wrong on a variety of levels. Criticism of admissions tests like the SAT and ACT has gotten so pronounced that even the makers of the tests have abandoned lofty claims for their elegant products. By measuring reading and thinking skills, however, standardized tests not only convey useful information about candidates for admission, they offer unique opportunities for learning and growth.

The criticisms go like this: the tests are unfair. They seek to “trick” test takers. Standardized tests are culturally biased. They favor the rich who can afford test prep. Test prep doesn’t work anyway. The only thing these tests really measure is the ability to take these tests. They predict nothing about academic skill or future academic performance. They cause inordinate anxiety in young people, sometimes leading to mental illness. Standardized tests, originally designed to inject merit into rigged admissions standards, have, in fact, made admissions less fair.

Some of these arguments are true. The tests are certainly not fair. Anyone who can confidently read, absorb and think critically about this article enjoys a distinct advantage. Standardized tests expect a level of rhetorical skill far more common in homes that have a lot of printed matter lying around, and such homes tend to belong to people with money. Some can afford to further enhance their children’s prospects with test prep.

None of this does anything to make life fairer or offset class disparities in our society. That’s why college admissions offices evaluate candidates from different backgrounds differently. When it comes to test scores, colleges hold children from affluent backgrounds to much higher standards.

But some of the arguments against testing are just false. Standardized tests do not measure “how to take tests.” They measure reading and reasoning skills. We think of tests as measuring knowledge. If a biology teacher asks you to explain the dark phase of photosynthesis, you either know the answer or you don’t. If you missed that class and forgot to study that chapter you’re out of luck. You can’t sit there during the test and figure out how plants turn sunlight into energy by thinking about it.

Standardized tests seek to do the opposite. They pose problems based on basic components that require test takers to confront new, unfamiliar situations and figure out a path – usually a series of steps – to reach the right answer. To succeed, a student must read accurately and think both flexibly and efficiently, sometimes taking more than one approach to find the solution within the allotted time.

Here’s an example: Four consecutive integers make up the digits of a four-digit positive integer. For how many such integers will the product of the digits be greater than zero and less than one hundred?

Though a select few may be able to look at this problem and instantly see the answer, most people who know basic arithmetic can get it right by processing each part. “Four consecutive integers” could mean 3, 4, 5, 6. The product of these four digits (you need to know that “product” implies multiplication) is well over 100. That false start, however, points you in the direction of smaller numbers. 2, 3, 4 and 5 still yield a product above 100. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are the only combination that works.

In demanding that students read carefully and think during the test, standardized tests pose particular challenges for kids who succeed in school by rote regurgitation with little understanding or intellectual self-confidence. Such students might try and solve the above problem using an algebraic formula with disastrous results.

If reading and thinking were linear, straight-forward matters like knowing the causes of World War I or the products of the Krebs Cycle, perhaps standardized tests would strike less fear and inspire less opprobrium. Unfortunately, our culture views intelligence as a fixed commodity, like height, and shrouds the process of thinking and problem solving in reverential mystery.

Having seen many, many students raise their scores hundreds of points by getting better at reading and thinking, I can say with certainty that intelligence as a personal attribute has more in common with weight or muscle tone than with height. By posing questions that challenge our abilities to read and think effectively, standardized tests offer workouts for our minds.

While today’s work environments demand fast, real time thinking, even the best educations present few comparable experiences. Great teachers work to craft challenging test questions - ones that demand intuitive leaps and not just memorization. Such questions, however, take much more time and effort to write. That’s why the professionals who write SAT and ACT tests devote entire careers to this art.

Instead of fearing and loathing standardized tests, we would better serve our children and our society by demystifying intelligence and thinking and making their improvement a goal of education. Students who get comfortable with the processes their minds use to solve problems experience far less anxiety than those who stay up all night cramming for an exam without ever grasping the broader significance of what they’ve learned.

I’m not saying every student can become Albert Einstein, but just because I’ll never run a four-minute mile doesn’t mean I shouldn’t exercise. Good standardized tests afford us an opportunity to sharpen abilities that complement academic achievements. It’s time to stop whining about standardized tests. We’ll be smarter, happier and less anxious if we embrace them.

Matt Bardin, co-author of Zen in the Art of the SAT, is President and founder of Veritas Tutors & Test Prep in New York City and co-creator of the iPhone app SmartVocab.