This story was published in print in April 2024.
For nearly a century, standardized testing has been at the forefront of the college admissions process. Educational institutions continually search for ways to quantify students’ academic progression and achievement, seeking equitable and accurate metrics to reflect students’ diverse backgrounds and experiences. Proponents of standardized testing argue that these assessments provide valuable insights into students’ readiness for college-level coursework. Skepticism remains, however, that certain inherent aspects of the tests enable financially privileged students to achieve significantly higher scores.
The COVID-19 pandemic prompted a significant shift in the standardized testing landscape. With widespread SAT and ACT cancellations disrupting the annual application process, many universities suspended the required submission of standardized test scores for first-year applicants in the 2020-2021 application cycle. The SAT and ACT became optional components of college applications, theoretically providing admissions officers the opportunity to focus more on other aspects of an application such as extracurricular activities, grades and essays.
Different tiers emerged among universities over the few years following the pandemic: “test-optional” schools allow students to choose whether they submit their scores, while “test-blind” or “test-free” schools will not consider students’ test scores whether submitted or otherwise. “Test-flexible” schools let students choose which tests they submit, including substituting AP or IB scores in place of SAT or ACT scores.
Policies that deemphasize standardized testing in admissions are not as inherently positive as proponents believe. College admissions offices should reintroduce test mandates to allow admissions officers to consider all students in the context of their educational opportunities.
Most test-optional or test-blind policies that emerged during the pandemic remain in place today, even among large networks of schools like the University of California college system. The policies aim to address lack of access to test preparation resources and the disparities in test results among marginalized groups and lower-income students, all factors exacerbated by the pandemic. The changes reflect a broader shift toward holistic admissions processes.
There is an undeniable and alarming correlation between race and standardized testing outcomes, with historically marginalized groups often facing systemic barriers that impact their performance on these exams. According to the College Board SAT Suite of Assessments Annual Report, 59% of white and 80% of Asian test takers met the college readiness math benchmark of 530, compared to less than 25% of Black students and 30% of Hispanic or Latino students. The National Education Association has characterized standardized tests as “instruments of racism and a biased system,” and Carl Brigham, the College Board’s lead architect behind the first SAT, was a eugenicist who intended the test to reinforce a racial hierarchy.
However, the transition to holistic admissions may not be as effective in improving admissions equity as advocates of test-optional policies believe.
While quality of teacher instruction, curricula and grading methods vary between schools, standardized tests provide a more objective benchmark for all applicants. Assessing students based on a test that offers a similar experience to all who take it minimizes the impact of the biases and subjectivity that affect other educational metrics provided in a student’s college application.
Researchers have found that standardized testing today represents one of the most accurate measurements to help admissions officers predict which students are most likely to succeed academically once they get to college. A National Center for Education Statistics study found that the graduation likelihood for low-income first-year college students who scored higher than 1200 on the SAT is 82%, compared to 58% for students who scored less than 1000.
While standardized testing should not act as the deciding factor for admissions decisions, considering test scores in conjunction with various other metrics allows admissions officers to gain a clearer picture of a student’s academic potential and college readiness.
In March 2022, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology made headlines after becoming one of the first institutions to reinstate the standardized testing requirement in its admissions process for the class of 2027.
MIT Dean of Admissions Stu Schmill wrote in a statement that he and the admissions office based their decision on the University of California Standardized Testing Task Force’s research findings, which suggested that considering standardized testing in admissions actually helps lower-income students rather than hurting them. The UC study stated that among students admitted with SAT scores below 700, 35% left their UC school after only one year and only 50% graduated within seven years. Among students admitted with SAT scores above 1400, 97% remained enrolled in college past their first year and 92% graduated within seven years.
Following MIT’s decision, major state schools have issued reversals of their test-optional policies, including the University of Texas and the University of Florida. Brown University, Dartmouth College, Yale University and Harvard University have also announced that their admissions offices will reinstate some form of standardized testing requirement for applicants for the fall 2025 application cycle. Like MIT, Dartmouth specifically cited studies that correlated test scores with accurate assessment of academic potential in students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds.
“Test scores represent an especially valuable tool to identify high-achieving applicants from low and middle-income backgrounds; who are first-generation college-bound; as well as students from urban and rural backgrounds,” Dartmouth Admis- sions wrote in a statement.
The push to reintegrate standardized testing into admissions criteria reflects a broader reassessment of the role of scores in evaluating applicants’ academic readiness and potential. Recent changes in the SAT, such as its adaptation to a digital format, have sought to make the test more equitable by making it more difficult to study for, decreasing the impact of access to private tutoring. By transitioning to a shorter test duration and reducing reliance on memorization and practice problems, the SAT aims to determine test success based on critical thinking and problem-solving skills rather than access to test preparation resources. In this way, the SAT’s evolution aligns with broader efforts to create a fairer and more inclusive educational system where all students have the opportunity to demonstrate their abilities.
Placing greater emphasis on college essays over SAT scores as a determinant for college admissions is not likely to address the obstacles lower-income applicants encounter either. Relying predominantly on admissions essays, for instance, perpetuates many of the same inequalities as standardized testing: the private tutors, specialized academic programs and extracurricular opportunities that higher-income students are more likely to access can enhance the depth and sophistication of their writing.
Higher-income students also often have more opportunities to contextualize their applications through participation in extracurricular activities and enrichment programs that require financial resources and time commitment. In contrast, students with significant family responsibilities may face barriers to participating in such activities due to financial constraints or the need to prioritize other obligations. The discrepancy in access to time and resources can result in disparities in the experiences presented in college applications, potentially impacting their overall competitiveness in the holistic review process.
Test-optional policies have also backfired by inflating the perceived average scores within a school. Each year, students consider whether submitting their scores will advance their application in a given school’s review process. Generally, students choose to submit scores if they fall at or above the 25th percentile of a university’s average scores for admitted students.
However, since fewer and fewer students submit scores each year, the benchmark averages that they use for reference will rise with each application cycle. In turn, talented students from low-income backgrounds may feel discouraged from submitting their scores or even applying to the school, believing themselves to be below the school’s standard.
There is no shortage of equity issues in the college admissions process, but the replacements for standardized testing often lead to worse outcomes for low-income students. Standardized testing serves as a valuable tool in the evaluation of student college preparedness. The standardized testing approach addresses inconsistencies commonly found in subjective comparison methods, offering a fairer way to evaluate student academic achievements and potential.
