Should the SAT remain timed? Some say the College Board should allow students as much time as they need to take the SAT. Others say more time wouldn't help. (opinion).

YES Earlier this year, the College Board announced that it would not flag the SAT scores' of students who take the test under special conditions that allow for extra testing time. Students who have been diagnosed as having one of several types of disabilities can qualify for the extra time. However, for the majority of students, extra time on the SAT will generally not lead to higher scores and may make the scores less useful in college admissions.

If there were no time limit for the SAT, then local conditions across the country would dictate how long students have for the test. In one school, students might be able to spend more time than in another, because of what facilities or proctors are available. It would be unfair for some students to have more time than others.

Most assignments and tests in college--indeed, most activities in life that matter--have time limits. And that's not a bad thing. Although the SAT has a time limit, it is expected that most students can finish the entire test. It is not intended to be a measure of a student's speed in answering questions. Similarly, most college courses are set up so that students can complete all of the required work in a certain time frame, usually in a semester.

Although the idea of unlimited time is appealing, it is unlikely that this would help most students. In fact, spending too much time obsessing over the answer to one question could actually be detrimental. Past research has shown that test takers with time to check their work are more likely to change a correct answer to a wrong answer than the other way around. Besides, for students without disabilities (the majority of test takers), studies have found that on many tests, having extra time does not markedly improve scores.

Until we find evidence that having a timed version of the SAT is detrimental to the performance of most examinees--or that an untimed version would help most students--we should continue to administer the SAT with a time limit.

--JOHN YOUNG
Associate Professor of
Educational Psychology
Rutgers University

NO The College Board's decision not to tell colleges and Universities which students, because of a disability, have been given extra time to complete the SAT is the right choice. Furthermore, I believe there is little rationale for timing the SAT at all.

The original thinking behind the SAT was that individuals possess different scholastic abilities. I believe that the point of the test is to see whether students can ultimately provide a correct answer, not how quickly they can do it. Therefore, if students are found to have any kind of disability, they ought to be provided with appropriate aid. Those who are blind get a version in Braille; those who are myopic get large print; those who have a good reason for needing more time should get it.

But why give a time exemption only to those who can make a case that they need one? Often, students with more financial means are the ones who benefit from such a loophole. Why not let anyone who wants extra time have it, no questions asked?

Nothing of consequence would be lost by getting rid of timed tests by the College Board or, indeed, by universities in general. Few tasks in life--and very few tasks in scholarship--actually depend on being able to read passages or solve math problems rapidly. As a teacher, I want my students to read, write, and think well; I don't care how much time they spend on their assignments. For those few jobs where speed is important, timed tests may be useful. But getting into college, or doing satisfactorily once there, is not in that category.

Indeed, by eliminating the timed component, the College Board would signal that background knowledge, seriousness of purpose, and effort--not speed and glibness--are the essentials of good scholarship. And if, in the future, students were allowed to bring dictionaries, or even to have access to the Web, so much the better. Such a change would far more accurately duplicate the conditions under which serious individuals at any level of expertise actually do their work.

--HOWARD GARDNER
Professor of Education
Harvard University