A year ago it seemed like nothing could stem the damage done to the esteem of standardized tests. Liberal arts colleges were, and still are, heading an exodus of universities away from the SAT as the most traditional measurement for student success. The test caught flak again when the College Board incorrectly scored a portion of its new version of the SAT, which it overhauled in March 2005 following criticisms – some from ex-UC chief Robert C. Atkinson – charging that the examination was too categorical and unreflective of students’ abilities.

But a broader, more sweeping look at the standardized test validates its footing in graduate education; one study corroborates such a view so broadly that it is ensured to be a referential pivot point for supporters. The independently funded and multi-faceted report, recently published in Science, analyzed a gamut of tests and found they were better predictors for graduate and professional school aptitude than college grades. The study also disproved the widely used criticism that such tests are skewed against minorities. This board agrees – the blame for such skew belongs on societal disadvantages.

So while the usefulness of such tests is becoming questionable for secondary schools (which naturally have a broader educative focus), the study preserves their value at the collegiate level (when that focus begins to narrow). College students should be measured against discipline-specific tests if they are seeking admission to discipline-specific schools. And if the LSAT remains the best barometer for such capacity, why mess with a good thing?