standard testing in US public universities Hardly brilliant

The New York Times reports today that expanding standardized testing to public universities is being investigated by the Bush administration. Charles Miller, a business executive appointed to run the commission, is quoted as saying:

He said he would like the commission to agree on the skills college students ought to be learning ? like writing, critical thinking and problem solving ? and to express that view forcefully. "What happens with reform," he said, "is that it rarely happens overnight, and it rarely happens with a mandate."

As a member of the faculty of a public university (University of Nebraska-Lincoln) in the music department, this immediately strikes me as yet another preposterously misguided idea of what higher education is. American public high school has transformed from a militaristic academy designed to turn out slightly-skilled labor for factories (early 20th century) to a mill for conformist anti-Commie scientists (mid-20th century) into a militaristic academy for churning out incredibly skilled test takers who have absolutely no creative ability to function in the real world.

A standardized test has no ability to measure what makes a person successful in the workforce. The personal connections we make and ability to absorb new ideas and communicate them are what make someone successful. Universities provide a unique opportunity to learn these unusual skills precisely because they don't focus on standardized fill-in-the-bubble tests. I remember one final examination from a music history class I had to take at Rice University as a music major consisted of one question:

Trace the history of opera from its inception to the end of the classical era.

This class, mind you, was not about opera, it was about the Baroque and Classical periods of music history, and so could have been about any of the subjects we studied. The point is, we did not know before the test was given what the question(s) could be.

Aside from the knowledge of opera, this test is the kind of thing that demonstrates:

1. the ability to put together a coherent sentence without any outside help
2. ability to assimilate historical information and organize it into structured paragraphs
3. ability to actually understand and provide insights about the material presented

You just can't do that kind of thing on a standardized test! In addition, how do you determine what a student should be learning Most college courses assume you've learned basic reading and writing skills in high school where you should be learning these things. If a college has to provide this, it is generally considered remedial or for foreign students, ESL (English as a Second Language) is provided to bridge the gap.

A college/university is not the place to be learning basic arithmetic, reading, and writing. These are skills best learned in high school, a community college, or through a GED program, all of which do a fine job of providing these services. Colleges/Universities require these basic skills in order to process advanced concepts.

In addition, unlike high school, universities have this thing called a "major field of study" that allows you to focus your studies on a particular specialty, so that you get a degree in that specialty. Should we expect all music performance majors to learn the same skills as organic chemistry majors I hope not, because I doubt any of the orgo majors would be comfortable playing a 70 minute solo program using the musical instrument of their choice demonstrating a wide range of the repertoire (and no, bunsen burners don't count as musical instruments).

Finally, there are already plenty of indicators out there for parents and prospective students to choose between different institutions of higher learning. Magazines, ratings guides, SAT scores on entrance, graduation rates, famous alumni/faculty, and so on. In the worst case, transferring to another institution is also an available option.

Standardized testing for colleges/universities is the stupidest idea I've heard in a long time. No, sorry, since last week's budget.

What the hell is up with these people Can't they come up with any useful ideas

"Oh I know, let's invade an oil-rich^M^M^M^M^M terrorist dictatorship"
"Let's take out those dangerous nukes with star wars^M^M^M^Mterrorists with warrantless wiretaps^M^M^Msocial security problems in 40 years by eliminating it now^M^M^M^Mweak-kneed Democrats by making everyone afraid of blowing up"
"Let's focus on international relations, particularly with arab countries and Europeans, so that we can gain support for the occupation of Iraq and remove the funding base for Al Qaeda. Then, let's balance the budget by repealing the tax burden against the poor and lower middle class passed in the first Bush term, and provide incentives for people to conserve energy so that they have more money to spend on consumer goods, hence increasing tax receipts and take-home pay in one fell swoop. Then, let's raise fuel economy standards, examine steps to nationalizing catastrophic health insurance, and see if we can't turn around the country in 10 years^M^M^M^M^M^MLet's attack Republicans for being mean and corrupt"

Hmm, I guess neither side has anything really useful to offer