California Governor Gavin Newsom may be running for President in 2028. That’s not exactly breaking news. He is currently in the midst of a tour promoting his new book, “Young Man in a Hurry: A Memoir of Discovery.” Writing a book is always one of the bingo card squares for any politician considering a presidential bid.
I haven’t read the book, nor do I plan to. I’m guessing Newsom’s MAGAverse critics haven’t read it either, but that didn’t keep them from erupting in a furor over a comment Newsom made last week during an on-stage interview with Atlanta mayor Andre Dickens when the book tour made a stop in that city.
Reflecting on his struggles with dyslexia and how they require him to memorize speeches rather than read them, Newsom said, “I’m like you…I’m a 960 SAT guy.” Critics immediately seized on the comment as evidence of racism and bigotry. Fox News “personality” Sean Hannity posted on social media that “Newsom thinks a 960 SAT makes him ‘like’ Black Americans.” Rapper Nicki Minaj said in a post that Newsom’s “way of bonding with black ppl (sic) is to tell them how stupid he is.” South Carolina U.S. Senator Tim Scott, the sole Black Republican in the Senate, accused Newsom of the “bigotry of low expectations” and “using your mediocre academics as a way to patronize communities.”
Newsom responded that the outrage was selective, that many of those quick to accuse him of racism have been ironically unbothered by the President of the United States referring to female Black lawmakers as “low IQ persons” or posting memes on Truth Social during Black History Month depicting President and Michelle Obama as apes (Senator Scott did object to the memes). Other observers have pointed out that the criticism of Newsom’s comments seems to assume that they were made to an audience that was predominantly Black. Photos of the event published by TMZ call that assumption into question.
So much for the political (pardon my French) merde. ECA’s beat is college admission, and we are more interested in some of the questions raised by Newsom’s description of himself as a “960 SAT guy.” Do our SAT scores define us? Are SAT scores a measure of merit? Should we care about what an adult’s SAT scores were, and what would they tell us? And have we stumbled across the newest form of prejudice, SAT profiling?
Those questions are embedded in the mythology (and perhaps even the DNA) of standardized testing. And they are relevant today because the pendulum seems to be tipping back toward worship of SAT (and ACT) scores, even as many colleges and universities continue to have test-optional admission policies. Test scores for individual applicants are among the data being required by the federal government from colleges as part of ACTS (Admissions and Consumer Transparency Supplement). Most of the nation’s highly “rejective” universities have returned to requiring test scores, and a recent op-ed blamed the University of California’s adoption of test-free admission policies for the increase in the number of students at UC-San Diego needing remedial math courses.
What do SAT scores really tell us about an individual? Are high scores an indicator of merit? Originally the SAT was pitched as a measure of “aptitude,” whatever that means. How does that correlate to IQ, and is calling someone a “low SAT person” better or worse than calling them a “low IQ person”? And what should we make of the fact that the A in SAT no longer stands for aptitude, or for anything? The SAT today is a brand, a self-referential one at that.
The SAT was designed as an instrument to predict, in conjunction with high school grades, freshman year GPA in college. It may be legitimate to ask if grade inflation has rendered test scores as a more meaningful predictor, which seems to be the argument for reinstating test score requirements, but it was never designed to be more than that. But like Ozempic and other medications designed for one purpose but which ultimately found a more profitable use, the SAT has been appropriated for uses for which it is not intended, from scholarship cutoffs to college rankings to real estate prices.
Senator Scott’s dig at Governor Newsom’s “mediocre academic record” reflects a misunderstanding, perhaps even a misrepresentation, that SAT scores are a measure of academic merit. But the SAT is a three-hour data point that shouldn’t carry more weight than four years of high school. In my experience there was in most cases a correlation between test scores and academic performance for my students, but that doesn’t mean that SAT scores measure academic merit. They may measure nothing more than the ability to take tests.
The lure of SAT scores lies in the fact that they provide a numerical shortcut, summing up an individual with false precision. But paying too much attention to numbers is dangerous. How many of us understand that if drug prices were actually lowered 500%, then the government, Big Pharma, or Walgreens would be paying us to take our medications?
With any number, context is important. When my son was in high school and finally started to take his academic work seriously, he would come home and tell me that he got a 96 on a test. I would immediately respond, “Out of how many?” (Yes, I was that kind of dad.) So it is with test scores. Years ago one of my students bragged that he was going to get a 1500 on the SAT. I affirmed his confidence, because that happened to be the year the SAT expanded to three sections and a total possible score of 2400 rather than 1600.
Making sense of SAT scores requires understanding context. Gavin Newsom’s SAT score means something different if he has dyslexia than if he doesn’t. A score earned after hours of test prep doesn’t mean the same thing as an identical score with no prep. Identical scores have a different interpretation when one is based on a single administration and the other superscored after four attempts. And that doesn’t even begin to take into account factors like family background and school environment.
That raises a broader question. Do we measure the things we value, or do we value the things we can measure, or think we can measure? Whatever the SAT measure (a debate for another time), its scores are valued because we can assign a number to them. At the same time, the qualities that are far more important for an individual’s success, both in college and in life, things like work ethic, character, drive, empathy, and the ability to collaborate, are undervalued because we can’t place a number on them.
We also value the qualities that we possess. Those with high SAT scores are much more likely to see SAT scores as a measure of merit than those with lower scores. Similarly, individuals who lack traits like empathy and moral fiber either deny that those things are real or see them as weaknesses.
Gavin Newsom’s description of himself as a 960 SAT guy may turn out to be a stroke of genius or mistake politically. There is evidence that Americans tend to vote for the taller presidential candidate (which explains the shoe lifts employed by another governor with presidential ambitions). Does the same thing hold true for SAT scores?
Newsom’s admission sheds light on an underreported form of bigotry, SAT profiling. Do one’s SAT scores define them? There is danger in that view. Those with low scores may suffer from Tim Scott’s “bigotry of low expectations,” and those expectations can easily become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Those with high scores face their own challenges. Developing hubris and a sense of entitlement are the most common, but I also had a student complain how unfair it was that his teachers held his high scores against him, expecting his academic performance to match up. Call it the bigotry of high expectations.
SAT profiling is real. It is telling that the only files Donald Trump wants released less than the Epstein Files are those containing his SAT scores and school records, which is why he had Michael Cohen send letters to Fordham, Penn, and the College Board back in 2019 threatening them if they released transcripts or test scores. And on this issue, he’s right.
Our SAT scores do not define any of us, including Donald Trump and Gavin Newsom. True merit consists of qualities like integrity and compassion. Now if someone can only develop a way to measure those on a 1600 scale.