I think the point is that thanks to deceptive marketing, most people don't properly evaluate whether it is worthwhile to go.
As for a "generic career readiness test", that's probably pointless. On the other hand, some sort of standardized testing would be useful.
Take a student who got a B in calculus at Rutgers, and a similar student who got a B in calculus at NYU. Are they equally skilled at calculus (Hint: definitely not)? Given a standardized calculus test we could tell the difference.
There already are exams if you want to go on (e.g. that GRE link). But having all graduates take it regardless is quite useless, especially as a method to determine how "good" one program/class/graduate is to another.
We've already had to deal with standardized testing BS thanks to NCLB before college, and look at the mess now. Teachers only teach to the exam and that is really not a good thing.
I'm aware of the GRE math test (I took it many years ago). And if everyone took it and appropriate breakdowns were provided (e.g. "Students with SAT between 1300 and 1400 did scored 6 on the national"), that would be a good thing (at least to evaluate math majors). You look for your interval, and find a college that will do well by people like you.
Also, teaching to the test is fine if the test is good. If the test accurately measures knowledge of the subject (1), then teaching to the test means teaching the material. It's very rare for one of my students to do well on a test without knowing the material.
Regarding NCLB, the current mess is the same as the old mess. NCLB just gave teachers someone else to blame.
(1) Most calculus/physics/chemistry tests do a decent job of this for skill levels not too high. Most tests make good students indistinguishable from great ones, but that can be remedied by putting harder questions on. If someone gets a perfect score, the test is too easy.
I'm aware of the GRE math test (I took it many years ago). And if everyone took it and appropriate breakdowns were provided (e.g. "Students with SAT between 1300 and 1400 did scored 6 on the national"), that would be a good thing (at least to evaluate math majors).
Except that the GRE math test covers nothing that should even remotely be considered appropriate for a undergraduate mathematics curriculum. It is only tangentially related.
> Also, teaching to the test is fine if the test is good. If the test accurately measures knowledge of the subject (1), then teaching to the test means teaching the material. It's very rare for one of my students to do well on a test without knowing the material.
Sure, but do you really want the federal government to decide the appropriate curriculum across all colleges? "Sorry, we're dropping topology because it's not on the federal recommended list, and we're focusing on test readiness." Um, I'll pass on that.
The government wouldn't be deciding the appropriate curriculum. They would be creating a measuring stick to compare curricula. If, as you suggest, advanced courses were not on it, then it would simply be useless at the top: 80'th and 99'th percentile students would have the same score.
As for colleges cutting advanced classes, I just can't see it happening (1). If they can find students willing to take it, someone will teach topology (it's better than doing Calc 2 again).
Colleges don't suffer from the same institutional failings as public schools (they have their own unique institutional failings).
(1) Note: I have a few years of experience teaching in college, and a few more working in college math depts.
However, the original article was talking about standardized testing modeled after the test used in primary and secondary schools. This includes the government setting minimal, uniform standards, and has often led to cutting "advanced" or "peripheral" material to concentrate on teaching "fundamentals" (i.e. the stuff that bores the smart kids to tears). Schools that don't pull resources from other areas to concentrate on teaching to the test may see their funding cut, because their students don't do well enough on the tests.
When you talk about the positives of having standard tests, be careful what you wish for, because what shows up may not be what you had in mind.
As for a "generic career readiness test", that's probably pointless. On the other hand, some sort of standardized testing would be useful.
Take a student who got a B in calculus at Rutgers, and a similar student who got a B in calculus at NYU. Are they equally skilled at calculus (Hint: definitely not)? Given a standardized calculus test we could tell the difference.