.png)
By Clara Heberling
@2x.jpg)
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 over what the students submit. 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.
Clara Heberling is a McConnell Scholar at the University of Louisville in the class of 2028. She is studying political science and Spanish.