The SAT, along with its counterpart, the ACT, has long played an integral role in college admissions. In recent years, however, there has been a slow push to eliminate these tests from admissions, with claims that they disadvantage low-income students and are racist. The push only sped up with COVID-19: many schools went test-optional to facilitate students who were unable to take the test. But the tests aren’t nearly as inequitable as activists say, and dropping the tests won’t do much to make college admissions fairer.
Prepandemic, millions of high school seniors would spend hours of their life preparing for the SAT or ACT, in hopes of getting a good score that would qualify them to apply to top-ranked colleges.
However, a push to eliminate test requirements from college admissions was garnering steam. Critics of the tests have argued that they disadvantaged Black and Hispanic students, low-income families who couldn’t afford tuition, students whose first language wasn’t English, and students whose parents did not attend college (also known as first-generation students).
Still, there was an unspoken rule that they were basically required for the vast majority of applicants because not taking them would put applicants at a disadvantage.
For example, when the University of Chicago went test-optional in 2018, the college’s website advised applicants: “We encourage students to take standardized tests like the SAT and ACT, and to share your scores with us if you think they are reflective of your ability and potential.” In fact, the website even stated that “[the university] anticipate[s] that the vast majority of students will still continue to take tests and may still submit their test scores to UChicago.” Plainly put, not submitting a test score would be indicating to the college that the student did badly on them, and this would put them at a disadvantage.
But COVID-19 changed the equation dramatically. In 2020, when schools were shut, cities locked down, and testing centers closed, colleges dropped the SAT requirement. According to FairTest, an organization that has advocated for the canceling of test-required policies, over 1,785 colleges, or three-fourths of all colleges nationally, went test-optional due to the pandemic. Some schools, like Caltech, the University of California system, and the California State University system, chose to pursue test-blind policies, meaning that scores wouldn’t even be accepted.
Since 2020, however, colleges have been rethinking their decisions regarding tests. While some colleges, like much of the Ivy League, have decided to stick with test-optional policies, others have already started to move back to the tests. Seniors who applied to the Georgia Institute of Technology, Georgetown University, or the University of Florida system to attend this fall were required to submit scores. And the Massachusetts Institute of Technology announced, to much fanfare, last month that they were reinstating their test policy for fall 2023 admissions. This has shown that claims of the SAT’s demise are greatly exaggerated, as many thought would be the case at the start of the pandemic.
Critics of standardized tests applauded colleges’ decisions to go test-optional. They said that this would allow for applicants to be evaluated on their merits alone, without being reduced down to a number coming from the College Board or the ACT. The College Board is the organization that administers the SAT.
But the evidence shows that claims that the SAT is severely disadvantageous to large groups of people and makes college admissions unfair and inequitable simply aren’t true.
For instance, at Georgia Tech, which was test-optional last fall but is test-required this fall, 19% of the class entering fall 2021 was Black or Hispanic. This year, that number increased to 21%, clearly refuting the claims that testing disadvantaged people of color. And if you think that’s just one isolated example, a study of 99 private colleges published in the American Educational Research Journal in April 2021 found that test-optional policies only resulted in a 1% change in the racial makeup of admitted students.
Another argument against the tests is that it allows high-income students who are able to afford tutoring and other such services to get higher scores, deepening income inequality in college admissions. But here is the million-dollar question: what other parts of college admissions are not inherently classist and benefit upper-income students?
Grades are the first factor that comes to mind. A 2017 study from the College Board showed that over a period of 18 years, the average GPA of SAT test-takers who attended private schools increased by 8%. Over the same period, the average GPA of test-takers from public schools only increased by 0.6%. This indicates that, as wealthier families typically send their children to private schools at a much higher rate than low-income families, there is an undeniable link between GPA and income. Should GPA be abolished as a factor in college admissions?
Another part of grades that correlates well with income is Advanced Placement test scores. AP classes are college-level classes that cover subjects from calculus and physics to art history and psychology, and AP exams are administered by the College Board. Not only are well-funded schools more likely and able to provide AP classes to students, but AP exams also cost nearly $100 to take. What’s more, a student from a high-income family would be vastly able to afford tuition to supplement their AP classes much more, and it is undeniable that this has a healthy impact on raising their AP score. How is it possible that AP classes that last for a full year and cover far more content than the SAT be less classist and racist than the SAT? If even AP exams are abolished, what would be left of a student’s transcript?
In fact, Khan Academy even offers an SAT prep course for free on their website. Yes, private tuition may help increase a test score more than a general online prep course, but if students are willing to put in the work, these prep services can work just as well.
Colleges also love to look at students’ extracurricular activities when deciding who to admit. The correlation here with income should not even need to be stated. Which set of schools are more likely to be able to provide extensive after-school activities for their students to participate in? Which students will be able to afford horseback riding lessons and sports classes? Which students would be more likely to be able to have time to volunteer at the animal shelter and be able to go to ballet recital every Friday evening? The answer, obviously, is upper-income students who are able to attend well-funded schools. The notion that extracurricular activities are not associated with income is laughable, and the fact that they tend to be ignored in the test-optional debate is ludicrous.
That’s not even to mention essay coaches and writing workshops upper-income families can afford for their children to help fine-tune their college essays, another big part of admissions.
So, who, then, actually benefits from test-optional policies? And why would colleges be so keen on going test-optional? The answer lies in marketing, money, and school image. Studies have shown consistently that one group of students benefits the most from going test-optional: “legacy” students. These students, often the sons and daughters of wealthy benefactors to the college, are disproportionately white and wealthy. Money is the real issue here: why wouldn’t colleges look for a way to allow their donors to be admitted more easily, thereby ensuring the donors keep the money flowing their way? Rather than focus on the tests, activists should instead look to get colleges to end legacy admissions.
Another benefit to colleges for going test-optional is dramatically increasing the number of applications they get. Practically every prestigious university has seen applications skyrocket, followed by a huge plummet in acceptance rates as the college rejects an ever-increasing number of unqualified students. A low acceptance rate indicates selectivity and prestige, which serves to increase a college’s ranking on the annual U.S. News and World Report college ranking. This essentially allows the college to rank higher without improving on their education standards — a preposterous farce.
What’s more, students may be lulled into a false sense of security that test-optional policies mean they don’t need to bother with the tests at all. But, as studies of admitted student data have shown, not submitting a score only serves to disadvantage a student. In most cases, “test-optional” means “test preferred.” At the University of Pennsylvania, for instance, 38% of early applicants last fall chose not to submit their scores, but just 24% of admitted students had no test scores.
All in all, it is undeniable that standardized tests do have a correlation with income. But so does every other part of the college application process. A test that tests students on basic algebra, proper English grammar, and reading comprehension — skills that all students in all schools learn — is still going to be fairer than vague metrics like extracurricular activities and AP test scores. Eliminating test score requirements does not help the vast majority of students. It hurts them.