On Tutoring Companies, Part II: Stanley Kaplan's SAT

In this post I will pay my respects to the late Stanley Kaplan of the eponymous Kaplan Test Prep.  He was both the godfather and the midwife of test prep.  All of the countless books and classes out there - including my own - exist only because Kaplan blazed the trail.  He had a very particular view of what the SAT stood for.  Although I don't quite agree with him, I think that his perspective has a lot to teach us about the test.  (If you missed Part I of this series, you can catch it here.)


The SAT as an Engine of Opportunity

Stanley Kaplan, SAT insurgent.

In a fascinating article by Malcolm Gladwell, Kaplan emerges as an earnest, optimistic advocate for the underdog.  His guerrila-style assaults on the SAT's claims of uncoachability, carried out from the basement of his house in Brooklyn, make for a classic tale of American individual enterprise:

Kaplan would have "Thank Goodness It's Over" pizza parties after each S.A.T.  As his students talked about the questions they had faced, he and his staff would listen and take notes, trying to get a sense of how better to structure their coaching.  "Every night I stayed up past midnight writing new questions and study materials," he writes.  "I spent hours trying to understand the design of the test, trying to think like the test makers, anticipating the types of questions my students would face."

The most interesting aspect of Kaplan's crusade, to me, is that it was done not out of cynicism about the test, but out of deep respect.  Although Kaplan knew that the SAT's claim to measure innate ability was false, he also knew that the test provided an opportunity for disadvantaged students to get ahead by the sweat of their brows.  And when young Stanley was getting started, the "disadvantages" a student had to deal with might very well have a racial tinge.  In the 1940s several Ivy League colleges still had de facto Jewish quotas.  If you could do well enough on the new-fangled SAT, though, even those elite schools would have a hard time turning you down.  That is why

Stanley Kaplan was always pained by those who thought that what went on in his basement was somehow subversive. He loved the S.A.T. He thought that the test gave people like him the best chance of overcoming discrimination. As he saw it, he was simply giving the middle-class students of Brooklyn the same shot at a bright future that their counterparts in the private schools of Manhattan had.

Kaplan poopooed the SAT's claim to measure aptitude but idealized the test as an engine for social mobility.  His was a distinctly American vision: if you work hard enough (on the SAT), you'll get ahead.  As I explained in my most recent Monday Excerpt, it doesn't work that way anymore.  Those who do well on the SAT, nowadays, are almost exclusively those who are already pretty well off.


The Moral of the Story


Kaplan was wrong about the SAT's societal function.  His view nevertheless suggests that a national test might yet serve to help hard workers from all backgrounds shine.  Some have suggested using Subject Tests, and I am inclined to agree with them, at least in principle.  That is a matter for another post.  For now, let it suffice to say that Kaplan was decades ahead of his time in publicizing two important truths about the SAT: it doesn't measure innate ability, and it ought to help the little guy (or gal) get ahead.


Coming Up: Herr Professor Johannes Katzmann, Esq.

I had originally planned to talk about The Princeton Review's John Katzman in this same post.  As usual, I had too much to say.  Next time, I will deal with his very different take on the SAT.  Stay tuned!