In conversation with Times Higher Education, Cambridge University Press & Assessment Press and Assessment chief Pamela Baxter notes that “[t]he increased use of poorly regulated tests does a disservice to students using them for university admission.”
This may be true. I’ve certainly seen some wacky decisions about which tests are accepted. It is worth noting (again and again and again) that some of the biggest challenges faced by higher-ed providers in recent months have been linked to the use of heavily regulated tests.
I’m referring, of course, to the IELTS test where nearly 63 thousand test takers received incorrect scores over the course of about two years. And to Pearson’s PTE test, where widespread cheating went unnoticed long enough for almost ten thousand test takers to receive fraudulent test scores. In both cases, higher-ed providers were left to deal with the reality of having accepted students who possibly lacked the English skills necessary to thrive in their academic lives.
I love the regulators like brothers, I really do. I even love the test makers. Having some regulations is much better than having no regulations. But ultimately score users need to remember that regulatory bodies can only do so much and only have so much value. Responsibility ultimately lies with the institutions themselves, and they must always take statements from test makers with a heaping grain of salt.