The basic rationale for using standardized tests for college admission, credit, and placement is that they are relevant and reliable. Such tests require the student to demonstrate the kind of competence that schools teach--the kind of competence required to work effectively in the modern world, to develop fully the human potential, and to enjoy life. Opponents of standardized tests often suggest alternatives such as more systematic documentation of the learning process, more extensive displays of student papers and projects, more frequent communication with parents. But these alternatives focus more on the instructional process than on the learning product. They seldom provide means for quantifying the amount that has been learned or for measuring pupil achievement in learning; the essential element is missing. The alternatives proposed are not effective substitutes for tests. Standardized tests are not perfect, but the main reason why they are opposed is not because of their imperfections. It is because they are the tools of accountability that might be applied to many who feel more secure when not being held accountable. But if we seek quality education, we must hold educators accountable; there must be public assessment of student achievement. (Author/GDC)