Social inequalities have been thrown into sharp relief during the COVID-19 pandemic. From access to healthcare to job security, along lines of ethnicity or income, existing injustices have only become more flagrant in the past year. The disparity between well-off and underprivileged students is just one of the many societal inequities exacerbated by the pandemic, but it is one that comes with huge consequences for the future.
It’s not exactly a bombshell to say that college is expensive. For decades the trend in rising tuition costs and its corresponding amount of student loan debt has become a glaring issue. Education is called the “great equalizer” by many, but the intimidating price to pay for it is clearly unfair to the less affluent.
Proponents of the modern college system say that although, yes, it is expensive, there are a plethora of scholarships available to balance the playing field. While there are many scholarships and grants out there that do provide substantial aid, this year’s National Merit Scholarship is not one of them. In fact, it only further disadvantages the people who would benefit the most.
In a typical year, all East juniors would take the Preliminary SAT (PSAT) around the end of January, automatically qualifying them for the National Merit Scholarship (NMS), which is a yearly national competition based on achievement from the PSAT scores. This year, the school district decided to cancel the PSAT administration, due to obvious circumstances. Then in lieu of the automatic entry for all juniors, the email CHCCS sent included the “alternate entry” option for the NMS.
This “alternate entry” is remarkably inequitable, even for a competition already based on standardized test scores. The so-called “way to apply for a National Merit Scholarship without taking the PSAT test” is, wait for it, by taking the SAT test. No less, the SAT test between “August of 2020 to June of 2021” according to the NMS, so squarely during the pandemic.
This raises many questions, one of which is how much this scholarship could truly help those who need this kind of merit-based aid. If somebody is already able to take the SAT voluntarily during this time, it indicates a certain amount of luck or privilege. As social distancing measures were implemented and case numbers rose, spots in standardized tests such as SAT and ACT became increasingly more difficult to reserve. Testing locations were sparsely spread across the state. Some of my friends who took it during the pandemic drove an hour-plus, roundtrip on a weekend morning to end up sitting for a four-hour exam. This is clearly not accessible for many people.
In addition, while typically entry into the competition would be free because the school would pay for the PSAT, now it is pay-to-play. The SAT costs $52, which while for some is worth it for the test scores, is not easily expendable for the sake of a voluntary test, especially given the difficulties to take it. This scholarship claims to reward academic merit (very debatable), but now it is rewarding familial wealth. Is this not explicitly unfair?
This also touches on more general critiques of prizing standardized test scores. The College Board emphasizes that you can get a higher score with practice; meaning, with the books it sells, with the numerous courses and tutoring services people offer, with taking the test again and again. When the value of a test score is equivalent to what colleges you can get into, of course people want to use these resources to get a better mark. But not everyone has the same access to those; with time, money or so many other factors. Over and over research has found that on tests such as the SAT, scores directly correlate with family income. According to a 2014 Washington Post article, “students from families earning more than $200,000 a year average a combined score of 1,714, while students from families earning under $20,000 a year average a combined score of 1,326.” This data comes from the older version of the SAT with 2400 points, but the distinction remains the same. Such heavy emphasis on such a misrepresentative measure of talent is already unfair enough, but coupled with effects of the pandemic disproportionately affecting communities with fewer resources to begin with, it is especially inequitable this year.
If the National Merit Scholarship could find a way to highlight actual merit and not wealth, many students could potentially benefit much more and it could even aid to bridge the divide. But as the Scholarship stands now, it only widens the gap further.
Photo by Caroline Chen/The ECHO.
