Jared Brown

Crystal Bickford

11/30/18

Fundamentals of Writing

The Gender Bias of Standardized Tests

It is commonly required for today’s young adults to be forced into taking standardized tests by

which they are to be judged by. These tests lack the ability a personal experience and leaves colleges

with an emotionless, numerical representation of students. More specifically, this representation hurts

girls’ images as the test scores and scholarship recipient numbers suggest. Andrew Hacker’s article, “83

Seconds: How Fast-Paced Standardized Testing Has Created a New Glass Ceiling”, highlights the fact that

girls are hurt by gender biases in standardized testing, which therefore causes a glass ceiling before

these young women even join the workforce.

The author gives a background to the reader to show that he is qualified to speak on this issue

of gender bias. After being exposed to the author, the reader learns the women are set back by the fact

that they fail to perform as well in the mathematics sections in standardized testing. Hacker goes on to

justify why girls’ shortcomings in these sections are not due to a lack of capability but a lack of a level

playing field. This lack of a level playing field is shown to play a part in why girls receive fewer

scholarships then boys do. The reader is exposed to some further possible solutions that can be

implemented to help make these test fair for girls.

Hacker quickly gives the reader insight and clarity on today’s systems flaws through simple

comparisons. One of Hacker’s comparisons is when he states, “Computer-awarded scores are touted as

objective, whereas grades bestowed by teachers are seen as subjective if not tainted by biases” (Hacker
164). Hacker’s statement here is used to not only highlight how computer-awarded scores are favored,

but he also shows how today's teachers aren’t trusted enough to give the right grades. As this statement

is early in the author’s text it helps set the scene for more argumentation by acknowledging multiple

issues at once.

Furthermore, the audience’s strong exposure to statistics helps the article feel very academic

and factually driven. The author's strong use of relevant statistics is portrayed when it is proposed, “On

last year’s SAT, boys averaged 527 in mathematics sections against 496 for girls—a far wider gulf than

elsewhere in the test” (Hacker 164). It is not just that plenty of statistics are given that makes this

constructive to the rest of the article, but it is the relevance and timing of which they are used. Because

statistics are based on fact, Hacker uses the numeric data he provides to build his paragraphs off of. This

works exceptionally well as his voice is clear to the audience.

While very factually reinforced, Hackers fails to give proper insight into what his personal

studies and calculations consist of. This lack of insight is observed as the author mentions, “I did some

calculations to see what would happen if the SAT’s mathematics scores reflected classroom grades”

(Hacker 165). While the reader is exposed to Hacker’s findings, it is never mentioned what studies the

author uses or what methods are used to get to the results he proposes. This creates a disconnect with

the reader as this information feels like an opinion rather than insightful side-research.

Hacker’s notion that that women stray away from STEM fields because they are told they aren’t

good enough. His support of this is presented here, “Since mathematics is the first hurdle for STEM

fields, women are unlikely to sign on if they’ve already been told that they don’t measure up” (Hacker

164). Based upon what I saw in high school and now in college, I really do not think this is true. If

anything, I would say that people are encouraging women to explore fields which they have not
previously been exposed to before. One field this encouragement might go towards is STEM-based jobs

due to the predominantly male presence in these fields.

It is clear to me that tests need to pull away from having students make impulse decisions on

standardized testing because this takes away from students’ ability to show what they are capable of.

The author supports this when he posits, “But pausing to ponder can spell death in multiple-choice

testing, since speed is crucial for a high score” (Hacker 165). I personally take a long time to take tests in

order to reach my highest potential and it is clear to me that colleges would have a better idea of the

student taking the test if the test taker had the time needed to complete thoughts and finish questions.

More time would create a less stressful environment for students and would help to level out scores for

both genders because the time needed to properly complete tasks would be met for a wider audience.

The notion that standardized tests stop equal scholarships for both deserving men and women

is a bit skewed. Hacker references this by mentioning, “Here, the PSAT’s gender bias results in more

boys than girls receiving national recognition, not to mention money for college” (Hacker 166). The

author previously mentions how these scholarships are not considering what gender the recipients are,

which speaks to the unbiased nature of these awards. There is a five percent margin of received awards,

but because of this small number and the fact that awarding companies do not take gender into account

makes this argument seem unrealistic.

Altogether, the author proposes a very real issue that needs to be investigated more so that

equal opportunity can be one day achieved. Through the balance of tests perhaps girls will receive equal

scholarships and STEM college acceptances as today's boys do. Until then, it is clear that Hacker wants

his audience to keep learning on this subject so that soon the glass ceiling hampering women can be

shattered into history.