INNOVA Research Journal, ISSN 2477-9024  
Junio, 2017). Vol. 2, No.6 pp. 94-99  
(
DOI: https://doi.org/10.33890/innova.v2.n6.2017.217  
URL: http://revistas.uide.edu.ec/index.php/innova/index  
Correo: innova@uide.edu.ec  
The oppressive nature of admission tests to public higher education  
La naturaleza opresiva de las pruebas de admisión a la educación superior  
pública  
Sandra Leonor Cabrera Moreno  
Universidad de Cuenca, Ecuador  
Autor por Correspondencia: sandra.cabreram09@ucuenca.edu.ec  
Fecha de recepción: 29 de Marzo de 2017 - Fecha de aceptación: 5 de Junio de 2017  
Resumen  
Las pruebas estandarizadas al igual que otros elementos de opresión nacen, se desarrollan y se  
mantienen en una matriz de dominio (Collins, 2009). Debido a que el uso de las pruebas  
estandarizadas reproduce las jerarquías sociales y la inequidad, en este artículo analizo cómo las  
tres funciones de la educación democrática propuestas por John Dewey (Bowles & Gintis, 2011)  
se contradicen y revelan la naturaleza anti-dialógica del proceso de admisión a la universidad  
pública. Para el desarrollo de este argumento, incluyo una breve revisión de los orígenes de la  
evaluación estandarizada y discuto cómo las funciones de integración, igualdad y desarrollo no  
se enlazan en el discurso del sistema nacional de evaluación.  
Palabras clave: pruebas estandarizadas; opresión; educación democrática; universidad pública  
Abstract  
Standardized tests, as other elements of oppression, “originate, develop and are contained” within  
a matrix of domination (Collins, 2009). Since the use of standardized tests reproduces social  
hierarchies and inequality, I analyze how the three functions of John Dewey’s democratic  
education (Bowles & Gintis, 2011) contradict one another and reveal the anti-dialogical nature of  
the process of admission to public higher education. To develop this argument, I provide a brief  
historical review of the origins of standardized testing. Then I discuss how the integrative,  
egalitarian and developmental functions of education have no relationship in the discourse of the  
national system of evaluation.  
Key words: standardized tests; oppression; democratic education; public university  
Revista de la Universidad Internacional del Ecuador. URL: https://www.uide.edu.ec/  
94  
INNOVA Research Journal 2017, Vol 2, No. 6, pp.94-99  
Introduction  
How standardized tests became a practice of oppression  
More than a century ago, Francis Galton, the founding father of eugenics, was greatly  
influenced by Darwin’s publication of The Origin of Species in 1859. To Galton, intellectual  
capacity was inherited and the preservation of races was a matter of selection (Alland, 2002).  
The idea that human beings were superior to other species spread new seeds of racism in Europe.  
Testing became a practice of oppression.  
The French anthropologist Paul Broca was convinced that small brains were the result of  
innate and social inferiority. These radical ideas about the intellectual differences between  
“inferior” and “superior races” were the cornerstone of “scientific racism” – an ideology that  
deviated IQ tests from their original objective (Gould, 1981). Back in the nineteen century, the  
Ministry of Education of France aimed to find a method that psychologists could use to  
determine the intellectual development of the child. By 1905, Binet had invented the first  
diagnostic evaluations after 10 years of trial and error. Contrary to the oppressive nature of  
standardized tests in the twenty-first century, Binet’s evaluations were never intended to  
emphasize stereotypes but to figure out a way to improve the learning process of children.  
Due to the impact of eugenics, the philanthropy embedded in Binet’s tests disappeared in  
America with Henry H. Goddard, the man responsible for translating the tests into English. The  
first recorded misuse of IQ tests took place in the USA around 1912 when tests were  
implemented to measure the intelligence of those who crossed the Atlantic to “enjoy” the  
benefits of the American dream (Gould, 1981). IQ tests became a symbol of oppression and  
reminded immigrants their place in America just the same way that standardized tests nowadays  
remind students that public higher education is the privilege of certain groups.  
The idea of genetic superiority was simply dehumanizing. In 1979, Leon Kamin reported  
what he called the great IQ fraud. According to Kamin, the psychologist Cyril Burt had falsified  
data to support his assumptions of selective education. To Kamin, Burt was a “pathologically  
disturbed scientist” who consciously falsified statistics to influence educational policies and  
maintain social hierarchies (Kamin, 1979).  
Another example of dehumanizing science was the American physicist William  
Shockley, who in 1956 obtained the Nobel Prize of Physics. Shockly firmly believed that the  
reason why African Americans scored lower on IQ tests was because of their genetic inferiority  
(DOC & Co, Films for the Humanities & Sciences (Firm), & Films Media Group, 2011).  
Shockley, a eugenicist and a defender of the white-cognitive elite, was convinced that IQ and  
race were linked. He affirmed that black inferiority was inherited and that IQ tests had  
demonstrated the fact (Alland, 2002).  
There is a cruel history behind the creation of IQ tests and, consequently, the origins of  
standardized testing are oppressive. Rebecca Zwick (2002) says that admission tests have long  
been viewed as a major barrier to higher education for people of color and other “minorities”.  
This relationship between the dominant and the subordinate is well explained by Tatum (1997)  
when she says that dominant groups own the power and know how to use it to structure the kind  
of society they want. The use of standardized tests does not promote social equality but inhibits  
Revista de la Universidad Internacional del Ecuador. URL: https://www.uide.edu.ec/  
95  
INNOVA Research Journal 2017, Vol 2, No. 6, pp.94-99  
the unification of the integrative, egalitarian and developmental functions of education proposed  
by John Dewey (Bowles & Gintis, 2011). In the next section, I analyze how the use of a  
standardized test for admission to public universities in Ecuador inhibits such unification. The  
analysis of the test itself is beyond the scope of this article.  
The anti-dialogical nature of admission tests to public higher education in Ecuador  
In 2010, the Ecuadorian government delegated The National Secretary of Higher  
Education, Science and Technology SENESCYT [For its acronym in Spanish] the responsibility  
to design a national test that would allow senior high school students selective access to public  
universities. The national admission test to higher education ENES [For its acronym in Spanish]  
was defined as an academic test capable of disclosing students’ abilities and skills through  
verbal, numerical and abstract reasoning. To the Ecuadorian government, ENES was a synonym  
for integration, equality of opportunities, and human development. However, a close analysis of  
the use of this admission test shows that the unification of the elements of democratic education  
is not possible by means of standardized testing.  
Figure 1. Admission tests inhibit the unification of the three elements of democratic  
The integrative nature of education  
A recurrent argument is that the integrative nature of public education has allowed  
thousands of people access to public universities. However, the assumption that a national test  
that entails verbal, numerical, and abstract reasoning allows integration and fair competition is  
questionable.  
Bowles and Gintis (2011) argue that schools reproduce inequality and thus the integration  
of new generations to the social order is not real. The meritocratic mechanisms of standardized  
testing enhance unequal economic positions. Consequently, the term meritocracy is a synonym  
for functional reproduction of economic patterns, one guaranteed through tests scores. “By the  
time most students terminate schooling, they have been put down enough to convince them of  
their inability to succeed at the next highest level. Through competition, success, and defeat in  
the classroom, students are reconciled to their social positions” (p. 106). Bearing this in mind,  
can we say that admission tests promote integration?  
Milton Luna, from Universidad Andina Simón Bolivar, analyzes the negative impact of  
the use of the ENES test and reports a decrease in access to public higher education from thirty-  
Revista de la Universidad Internacional del Ecuador. URL: https://www.uide.edu.ec/  
96  
INNOVA Research Journal 2017, Vol 2, No. 6, pp.94-99  
three percent (33%) in 2006 to twenty-nine point seven percent (29.7%) in 2014 (Luna, 2017).  
The use of the standardized test ENES does not promote the integrative element of democratic  
education, not only because of the decrease in access to public higher education but also due to  
the detachment between high school curriculum and the skills that the ENES test demands.  
The egalitarian nature of education, the pursuit of equality of opportunity.  
In the American context where standardized tests were born, Carl Brigham, one of the  
early test promoters, published a number of conclusions based on his analysis of tests results  
collected from Army recruits during World War I. Brigham affirmed that “immigrants were less  
intelligent than native-born Americans, and each succeeding wave of immigrants was less  
intelligent than the last” (Zwick, 2002, p. 5). Although much of the eugenicist thought has been  
reduced, the segregation entailed in testing remains. The oppressive nature of standardized tests  
inhibit integration and consequently the egalitarian element of democratic education is not  
promoted.  
In the Ecuadorian context, one of the problems with admission tests is that the skills they  
demand are not developed during the years of school. The oppressive nature of these  
standardized tests is evidenced when students must look for expensive extracurricular support,  
and their chances to access higher education are reduced due to socioeconomic factors.  
Admission to public universities evidences a segregating rather than an egalitarian  
element. For example, private training courses for the ENES test are not the privilege of  
socioeconomically disadvantaged groups. If students need to pay for expensive courses,  
education reproduces dominant practices and excludes the most vulnerable populations (Luna,  
2
017). This need to separate and categorize students’ performance contributes to self-  
depreciation – the unconscious acceptance of segregation as a suitable element of society (Freire,  
000). Those who can afford private universities seem to have more opportunities to enjoy the  
2
“egalitarian” nature of our education, since their chances to obtain a degree are higher.  
Technology is seen as an egalitarian tool in the admission process to public universities in  
Ecuador. However, based on conversations with senior high school students from rural  
communities, technology has not favored most of them. Since this process of admission is  
online, opportunities are reduced for those who do not have permanent access to a computer with  
internet connection. This enhances segregation and self-depreciation, not to mention those whose  
first language is not Spanish and who have been denied the opportunity to take the test in their  
language.  
The implications of the use of technology go beyond the process of registering for a test.  
Rebecca Zwick (2002), for example, mentions some issues concerning the reliability of the  
American testing industry and its influence around the world. Due to the ethical implications that  
standardized tests carry, principles for developing an appropriate test up to the release of scores  
have been established in the United States. One of the primary professional codes is the  
Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing of the American Educational Research  
Association. In Ecuador, we do not have any Association responsible for the reliability of  
Revista de la Universidad Internacional del Ecuador. URL: https://www.uide.edu.ec/  
97  
INNOVA Research Journal 2017, Vol 2, No. 6, pp.94-99  
admission tests, including the analysis of diversity, a topic that deserves great attention in our  
country.  
The overwhelming role of standardized tests in determining access to public higher  
education contradicts the egalitarian nature of democratic education. Elements of oppression in  
these tests are timing, test makers rationale, and the test content itself. Standardized testing is an  
unfair lottery which “does not reward academic excellence, unusual motivation, or hard work”  
(Zwick, 2002, p. 32). Since admissions are limited, public universities are forced to be selective,  
and this selection is justified by the rationale that standardized tests can predict academic  
performance and professional success.  
Luna (2017) reports a series of issues that are the result of a non-egalitarian process of  
admission to public universities in Ecuador: (a) policies are elitist; (b) the objectives of higher  
education are not clear; (c) the reliability of the ENES test is questionable; (d) private  
universities have increased their incomes while (e) there is a decrease in job opportunities for  
young people without higher education studies. This shows that inequality of opportunities  
inhibits the development of the egalitarian element of education.  
The developmental nature of education  
To the National Secretary of Higher Education, Science and Technology (SENESCYT),  
college admission tests reveal the learning potentials that students have. From this perspective,  
scores are indicators of how students’ development will be in college. But how can scores predict  
success?  
In 2014, Maria del Pilar Troya, Sub-secretary of Education affirmed that senior high  
school students were familiar with the ENES exam. Troya underscored the importance of the  
admission test ENES as a suitable tool to select those who deserve access to higher education.  
However, a brief but significant discourse analysis of her words seems to emphasize what we  
have previously discussed about the non-integrative and non-egalitarian nature of the use of  
standardized tests.  
It is neither fair nor appropriate to think about human development when access to public  
universities reproduce elitist practices based on admission models of developed countries. This  
positivist point of view that verbal, numerical and abstract tasks in standardized tests are reliable  
indicators of students’ performance and success dehumanizes the individual. If the  
developmental nature of education involves liberation, assuming a passive role within an  
educational system that segregates is to accept that liberation is not worth pursuing.  
The “dialogical character of education as the practice of freedom” (Freire, 2000)  
disappears when we adapt to the system instead of analyzing and questioning its nature. The use  
of the standardized test ENES for admission to public universities has caused different reactions  
from teachers, students, parents, and the community. Several manifestos have been published in  
national newspapers to express disagreement to an educational system that seems to deny the  
rights expressed in the Constitution of the Republic – those regarding equality of opportunities  
and free access to public education.  
Revista de la Universidad Internacional del Ecuador. URL: https://www.uide.edu.ec/  
98  
INNOVA Research Journal 2017, Vol 2, No. 6, pp.94-99  
The national system of evaluation underscores selective education and considers that  
admission tests to public higher education are suitable. From this selective perspective, the  
developmental element of public education is reduced to test scores and the assumption that they  
reveal students’ potentials. Bearing this in mind, we must wonder how isolated verbal,  
numerical, and abstract tasks can predict students’ motivation, performance and success in  
college. Such selective consideration, according to Freire (2000) denies our historical  
development, our capacity to be reflective, our transformation and praxis. The idea that students’  
academic success and later professional development is reflected on a standardized test marks a  
segregating line between the chosen and the unchosen, being the latter deprived from the  
developmental character of education. The essence of anti-dialogical discourse is embedded in  
this contradiction – the right for free education requires a minimum score in a test.  
Conclusion  
The use of standardized tests has its origins in oppressive practices that inhibit the  
unification of the elements of democratic education proposed by John Dewey. The integrative,  
egalitarian and developmental elements are superficially entailed in the process of admission to  
public universities in Ecuador. Admission methods that segregate and oppose the rights stated in  
the Constitution of the Republic are part of an anti-dialogical system of evaluation, a system that  
gives power to elites and silence the voice of students and teachers that are seen as “minorities”.  
The use of standardized tests reproduces oppressive practices and serves the beliefs of historical  
racist groups. What Freire calls praxis is simply denied.  
Bibliography  
Alland, A. (2002). Race in mind: Race, IQ, and other racisms (1st ed.). New York: Palgrave.  
Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (2011). Schooling in capitalist America: Educational reform and the  
contradictions of economic life. New York: Basic Books.  
Collins, P. H. (2009). Black feminist thought (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.  
DOC & Co, Films for the Humanities & Sciences (Firm), & Films Media Group. (2011). IQ: A  
History of Deceit. New York, N.Y.: Films Media Group.  
Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th anniversary ed.). New York: Continuum.  
Gould, S. J. (1981). The mismeasure of man (1st ed.). New York: Norton.  
Luna Tamayo, M. (2017). Impactos del ENES: una mirada desde los estudiantes.  
Kamin, L. J. (1979). Cyril Burt: Psychologist. New Republic, 181(16).  
Tatum, B. D. (1997). "Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria?" and  
other conversations about race (Rev. ed.). New York: BasicBooks.  
Zwick, R. (2002). Fair game? : The use of standardized admissions tests in higher education.  
New York: RoutledgeFalmer.  
Revista de la Universidad Internacional del Ecuador. URL: https://www.uide.edu.ec/  
99