Although the SAT is frequently questioned in regard to its effectiveness, it has recently sparked debate for a markedly different reason—revelations about high-profile cheating on the exam. The still-unfolding scandal involves an Emory University student allegedly using forged IDs to pose as high school students, taking the test in their stead. He was identified when officials compared the handwriting on six answer sheets, deducing the styles were identical. Despite earlier belief that this constituted an isolated incident, tensions have flared anew amidst the possibility that this is only a part of a larger, systemic issue.

With such emphasis placed on a single test, it seems inevitable that such a situation would transpire. However, the culprit is not the exam itself but the environment surrounding it. The SAT is currently one of the few options for standardizing what are incalculable disparities in educational quality across the country; we challenge those who condemn the exam to propose a comparable alternative that neither suffers from similar weaknesses nor falls victim to the discrepancies between rigor among America’s secondary schools.

The SAT fills the inescapable vacuum caused by the widespread lack of uniform educational standards and does its best to provide a level playing field in an environment that, despite what many may say or believe, is far from equitable. The SAT is not perfect, but it is the best option we currently have. Therefore, although the systemic problems responsible for the high-stakes nature of the SAT may persist, we should strive to do what we can to make taking the exam a fair experience for every student.

Primarily, the consequences for cheating on the SAT need to be reexamined. As it stands, students who cheat generally go unpunished—often the only result is a cancelled score. It borders on absurdity to deny that when provided a strong incentive to cheat and virtually no disincentives to cheat, some students will attempt to do so. The College Board must improve its security measures if it seriously aims to tackle cheating on the SAT.

Indeed, the current policy of the Advanced Placement Exams provides a viable model—students are heavily discouraged from cheating, as not only are schools notified, but also all test takers in the room have their scores invalidated, among other sanctions. Excessive? Perhaps, but it is certainly effective. Furthermore, test center security should be increased so it is not feasible to pose as six different individuals, including one of the opposite gender, in the same school district. With its ballooning revenues and student fees, the College Board has no excuse not to improve the security of its testing centers. It is an insult that students pay so much only to lack an equal opportunity at succeeding on this exam.

A fact one would be remiss to ignore is that the accused students paid up to $2500 for this individual’s services. Indeed, many parents pay significantly more for SAT tutoring designed to help students “game” the exam, despite the SAT’s stated goal to be an evaluation of aptitude, not subjective levels of preparation. Is there a significant difference between paying for either service? We leave such judgments to the reader. However, this incident illustrates the salient point that high-profile cheating, like many expensive tutoring services, are options exclusive to a certain socioeconomic level. One should not ignore the reality that there are ways to pay for a higher score, however illicit.

As it stands, we lack viable alternatives to the SAT; that does not mean that we should blindly accept all of its imperfections. If the College Board truly believes in leveling the academic playing field, it should not make it laughably easy to do otherwise.