I'veseen it happen several times: a student works hard for four years, earning goodgrades. Then it's time to take the ACT. For whatever reason, this person simplydoes not do well on timed, standardized tests, and because of low scores, maylose out on scholarships. What makes this even more distressing is thatconversely, someone who fails to apply knowledge in the classroom but receivesgood scores on the ACT can receive those scholarships that are, in my opinion,better deserved by those who worked tirelessly in school.

ACTs and SATsare supposed to indicate how well a person will do in college, but in reality,success in college is derived from determination, a quality not measured bystandardized tests. Just because someone can spend a few hours on a Saturdaymorning filling in the correct bubbles with a number-two pencil does not meanthat he or she will successfully apply this knowledge in college. A student'shigh-school record shows a more accurate indication of the long-term dedicationand ability that will be carried over into college.

The criteriaused to select students for college scho-larships should rely less onstandardized test scores and more on performance in the high-school classroom.Standardized test scores are often a misleading representation of prospectivestudents' abilities.

Opponents of this view feel that standardized testsdetermine the true aptitude of a student in relation to others. They believe thetests create a uniform way to compare students. These tests, however, lack theability to show a student's dedication to school and higher education.

When judging college-bound students for admission and scholarships, moreattention should be given to grades and performance than to standardized testscores. Four years spent in high school is a better indication of a student'sability than four hours spent in a testing room.