Kaplan ranks test locations
"Kaplan has been preparing students for over 65 years," said Executive Director of Kaplan Justin Serrano, "and this project is the culmination of requests we've had from students coming to us with inquiries on where to take their tests. Our intention is to provide a service for test-sites to be more formally evaluated."
A total of 261 LSAT and 192 MCAT sites were evaluated for the August 2002 MCAT and the October 2002 LSAT dates. The electronic survey, which was sent out to over 2,140 MCAT and 5,000 LSAT Kaplan students the day of their test, asked students to rate the proctors, comfort level, overall experience and desk space provided at their test location.
The responses were tabulated and an overall score was calculated for each site by test administration date. A minimum of four student responses per test site were required to receive a ranking. Sites that failed to receive this quota were still included with comments and were designated as "low votes."
"Most of the test sites are adequate, but there are always extremes ... our long-term goal is to get rid of those outliers," said Serrano.
Serrano gave a few examples of negative feedback received, including complaints of proctors issuing 5 minute warnings when there were in fact 15 minutes left, of room temperatures so extreme that students were sweating enough to smudge their answer sheets and of students having to balance their booklet and test materials on their knees because the desk space was so small.
Three out of seven sites offered in Maryland were evaluated for the August MCAT and six out of nine for the October LSAT with varying results. While the University of Maryland at Rockville ranked 33rd out of 192 sites and was described as "lovely" and "recommendable to others even if not the closest location," the University of Maryland at College Park was rated a low 176 with complaints about room temperatures and proctoring.
"There is no systematic way to look at sites," said Serrano. "At least in Maryland you have options, and now students have a resource they can turn to in order to make the most informed decision."
While Mary Savage, Hopkins' pre-professional chief program coordinator and pre-law Advisor Chair, agreed that a good test environment is important, she feels that the survey is entirely missing the point.
"I am frankly confused as to why Kaplan wants to evaluate sites," said Savage. "It seems mediocre to me -- my thinking is, at least there is a site."
Savage says it is hard to be selective when there are not many choices, stating that the biggest concern at the moment is the scarcity of test locations. For example, there were reportedly no June LSAT test sites in Maryland, and students would have had to travel all the way to Pennsylvania had a Hopkins site not have been set up as a service.
"I have had students who have had to take cabs into D.C. just because there was nothing available in the area," said Savage. "Kaplan should be evaluating the needs of test takers instead of the site. I would rather see students preparing for the test than wasting time worrying about external factors that are pretty much uncontrollable," she said.
Edward Haggerty Jr., a media relations specialist at the Law School Admissions Council Headquarters in Newtown Pennsylvania agrees, pointing out that the study deals with only one exam date and targets pretty isolated issues, which when publicized can create a sort of "mistaken impression" on test-takers.
"There will always be occasional disruptions -- its impossible to control every single variable," said Haggerty.
Haggerty claimed that there is no significant dissatisfaction with the LSAT, as statistics show that less than one-half of one percent of test takers complain about LSAT test center conditions.
In a formal statement, the LSAC questioned the validity of the "2002 Test Site Rater" study conducted by Kaplan, Inc. stating, "the study, which Kaplan characterizes as "comprehensive,' only rates testing conditions at the October 2002 administration of the LSAT. Since the overwhelming majority of test center problems happen only once, the value of such ratings for future test takers is dubious."
While the two reviews received by Kaplan for Hopkins' October LSAT test site stated issues like "the center was too dark", "the flip over desks were too small" and "the physical constraints were a little disappointing," Savage argued that "the best way to evaluate the relationship between location and performance would be to have a controlled Hopkins test site ... we are still at the experimenting stage for having the LSAT administered in Bloomberg, Remsen and Mudd."
Savage says that Hodson is the next target, but financial constraints such as custodial fees and security issues must first be resolved.
There is no official MCAT site on campus, and therefore Hopkins students have been going to the Inn at the Colonnade across the street on University West Parkway. This test site was not included in any part of the Kaplan study.
Senior Raymond Chai, president and founder of the JHU Red Cross Corps, took the test there in August and felt that "the Colonnade was an ideal test center -- relatively quiet, large tables, good proctors. Most people were spread out in conference rooms of about 50-100 people."
When asked if he felt an on-campus MCAT site was needed, Chai replied, "I personally don't think that's necessary because the Colonnade is so close anyway, had these long rows of tables I doubt would be available at Homewood".
Senior and fellow biology major Jason Hallick agreed.
"I had a very positive experience at the Colonnade in August of 2002," said Hallick. "My peers had no rude habits and the room was also kept comfortably - I think that these characteristics gave a testing environment that was conducive to high scores."
Junior Namee Kim, a chemistry major, felt that the lighting was very dim, claiming that it gave her blurry vision.
"I know I probably had a legitimate complaint," said Kim, "but I didn't want to deal with all the hassles."