By Jesse Dolojan, Staff Writer 

I’m going to be graduating from Xavier soon, and I am reviewing the cost of grad school. Almost all of these programs require standardized test scores — something I loathe with my entire being. 

To understand the issues with standardized tests, one must look at how much they cost to take and do well on them. Many students who aim to score well on tests such as the MCAT and the LSAT are known to prepare for their exams rigorously. Such preparation requires a significant amount of time, but also for test takers to be able to afford their study materials.

Many practice tests and study resources are available for purchase, meaning students will pour considerable amounts of money and time into acquiring them. Such commitment is admirable, but can also drain your bank account if you aren’t careful. 

But is it really fair to judge a student based on their scores on one test? Many schools take a holistic approach by looking at applicants’ tests, grades, recommendations, essays and whatever else they deem necessary for proper evaluation. But still, with everything else available to evaluate a student, why is one test so important? 

If admissions offices truly view a student through a holistic lens, they should not need to look at their performance on a singular test. An applicant’s academic transcript shows a student’s performance throughout the entirety of their educational career. In addition, references allow for others to speak on the applicant’s behalf and attest to them as students and workers. Finally, an applicant’s personal statement will enable them to voice why they want to attend a university or program. 

With these application materials, why are test scores required? Do people really think that the one score for a test you take is the measuring stick for a student? I don’t think so. I believe that standardized testing is a barrier for some due to the financial cost required to perform well and take the test. 

According to the Law School Admission Council,  the LSAT costs $238 to take. That is enough groceries for two weeks for someone. You can get enough food for four weeks with that money if you shop at a cheaper store such as ALDI. I know that I would rather feed myself for weeks and have food on my table consistently than take a test. That number doesn’t even include fees for preparing for the exam.

The Princeton Law Review, an accredited LSAT prep course, costs between $800 and $4000. Those who want to do well must pour their money into a course like this and dedicate plenty of time to reviewing the materials. 

It is also necessary to note the time people spend preparing for tests. That time could be spent with family and friends or pursuing a hobby. Preparing for standardized testing is a daunting task that can drain people very easily and quickly. 

I would rather be judged holistically based on my performance as an undergraduate on my own professional experiences and academic performances instead of a test, especially when some people have to prioritize their families or themselves. Do these schools not realize how many brilliant applicants they ignore because the applicants would instead support themselves than pay hundreds of dollars for a test? 

My biggest gripe with standardized test taking is that some people may be interested in pursuing law school or med school but simply cannot afford it. They would rather buy groceries for themselves or their families than pursue a dream, which saddens me. Being able to access higher education should not be determined by how much you spend — it should be determined by your performance and how you set yourself apart during your time as an undergrad and as a person instead of an agonizingly long and challenging test.