SAT. Three letters that bring back bad memories, hours of cramming and endless anxiety. As a first-year here, I can clearly recall meticulously poring over every vocabulary word, practice exam and test-taking strategy in the hopes of getting that grade I needed. Which I did. But the question still lingers: Do the SAT and ACT have too much influence on the college admissions process?Members of the annual conference of the National Association for College Admission Counseling recently examined the roles of standardized admissions tests. Although no official decisions were made, several provocative points were raised and debated at the session, including whether colleges should be more transparent about how they utilize the scores of their applicants; the tests are used properly and fit in with the overall messages of different colleges; the SAT is a reliable indicator of one's grades in college; it would be better to make these assessments optional and have other factors, like GPA, play a greater role. Also, attendees noted that wealthier students, who have access to more tutoring and mentoring, have unfair advantages over those who can't afford such luxuries.

Brandeis, for instance, places a great emphasis on the SAT in particular. The common application to the school has no real supplements other than an optional interview, which means that the factors that are there, like standardized test scores, play a greater part in the procedure. This forces applicants to become much more competitive in building their credentials.

The students that I spoke to held mixed opinions on the importance of standardized examinations. Bryan Belok '12 supported the SAT, opining that you "can't BS" on the test. Additionally, he "like[s] that the SAT is different," but qualified that its overall function in the admissions process really "depends on the college."Nick Makowski '12 actually thought the SAT was "too easy," and that it's "not a good measure as to how smart you are."

I took the SAT twice. The first time, I received a 1920 total, the second, a 2050. Obviously, I'm happy that I'm here and that I had the grades to back it up. But what if I didn't take the test that extra time and therefore didn't get accepted? Additionally, what if, as the NACAC pointed out, I couldn't afford that extra instruction that was so imperative to my earning that number?

I am glad, though, that colleges have been starting to pay more attention to the ACT. Although I never took it, some kind of alternative was needed in place of the monopoly that the SAT held, especially for those students who were weak on reasoning skills.

But still, there ought to be options available for students within this system. For example, I think colleges should place more emphasis on interviewing and seeing the student not just as another statistic but as a human being. Furthermore, I believe that more attention should be paid to one's performance, participation and enrollment in AP courses. Like them or not, AP classes were excellent indicators of what was to come for us in the future.

If the Department of Education is resistant to changing anything about standardized testing, including exams like the LSAT and MCAT, then additional funding should at least be allocated to schools in order that they could offer free prep courses and tutelage on these tests.

Because even with all that studying and cramming, these tests are definitely no walk in the park.