By: Hailey Jiang
In early 2020, many colleges changed their test policies. Many switched to test-optional policies to mitigate the effects of the pandemic, as many students were left without access to study and testing resources. However, colleges are now shifting back to test-mandatory policies. Why go test-optional for so many years, claiming it solves many issues regarding wealth inequality, only to suddenly switch back? Test optionality should benefit lower-income students, who are disadvantaged when preparing for standardized tests. In practice, those who submit scores are at an advantage, while those who do not submit still face a disadvantage. Test optionality is a fallacy that only perpetuates the societal inequalities colleges claim it solves.
It is no secret that the SAT and ACT have a troubled history. In 1963, the University of Mississippi required a minimum ACT score for admission. This cutoff was 3 points below the median score of white residents, but 8 points higher than the median score for Black residents. The creator of the SAT, Carl Brigham, was an American eugenist and in the 1900s, he created the SAT, designed to weed out people of color who would “lessen” overall American intelligence. Furthermore, Brigham purposely kept questions that white people scored well on and discarded those that black people generally scored better on. This phenomenon is still prevalent today. The College Board uses the last section of the SAT to experiment and test new questions for future tests. Questions that students perform well on are used in future tests, while those that students perform poorly on are discarded. However, those who perform well on questions are more likely to be wealthy, which means future tests contain mostly questions that students who are white and wealthy perform well on. Low-income students and students of color are inherently at a disadvantage when it comes to the SAT and ACT.
Standardized tests are only one factor of a student’s application. They do not account for special circumstances and reduce students to a single quantifiable statistic. For example, neurodivergent students, students who struggle with test anxiety, and students who only excel in one subject all struggle with taking standardized tests. Furthermore, international students and students whose first language is not English can struggle as well with the heavy emphasis on a comprehensive knowledge of the nuances of English.
In an ideal world, test-optional policies should only benefit these students. If they score poorly, they do not have to submit their score, and it will not hinder their chances of being accepted into a prestigious college. If students score well, they can still submit their scores and better their chances of acceptance. However, students who submit scores are still twice as likely to be accepted than non-submitters. Colleges themselves are rather vague and contradictory about what test-optionality means as well. One admissions officer said that, at her college, higher scores do not improve a student’s chance of admission because “we see scores like that all the time.” She claims that high scores merely reflect the better opportunities some students have.
However, this is true for other factors of the application as well. Extracurricular activities, AP exams, and letters of recommendation favor wealthier students as well. Not submitting test scores will only place more weight on those factors of the application which can be influenced by increased opportunity. Furthermore, if high test scores are merely seen as reflections of a student’s opportunities, then why require them at all? Why do colleges cause students to undergo so much stress over standardized tests when admission officers do not even consider them? The debates on test optionality are not as simple as whether the tests themselves are fair to all students. It is about larger issues within society regarding wealth inequality. Test optionality is an illusion created by colleges. It does nothing to solve the social inequalities that the tests perpetuate.
