For the better part of the last decade distaste for the role of standardized tests in the admissions process has been a popular topic of academic conversation. Do the tests really offer any predictive value? Are they stacking an advantage for the advantaged? Can they level the playing field for under-represented students or just present another hoop for them to jump through? The jury was still out, but unfortunately (or maybe fortunately) the pandemic forced the college world’s hand to full court press a test optional season that allowed for what has been characterized as a more “holistic” approach to admissions. It is true that this concept was starting to become at play prior to this movement, but the adoption really took off when the collegiate leaders took action.
How has test optional played out?
There’s no denying the option to apply without a test score was beneficial to some possessing a host of other qualifying components on their application. That was an inevitable perk to the test optional pathway. What was more unknown were the specific dynamics of picking one route over the other when it’s not clear and obvious. One surprising result of this environment was that the test optional policy has actually increased competition (students with lower scores were withholding, so naturally higher scores got in, thus increasing the score average) and boosted school popularity. The reality was/is that nobody holds scores back if they’re higher than the college’s score average. Withholding scores generally equates at best to an early decision application and paying the full cost, whereas score submission can enhance an application and yield opportunities for awards. So while it provided an alternative during a time when testing was restricted, its experimental nature with respect to being a better alternative to the standard procedure muddied the waters with a catch 22 for test takers and proved unconvincing.
This brings us to 2022 when we first started seeing a switch back to test required from MIT. Then, in early 2024, Dartmouth and Yale took the leap. Since then we’ve seen a domino effect leading all the way to Harvard reinstating their requirement last week.
“Harvard College will reinstate its standardized testing requirement in admissions beginning with the Class of 2029, a surprise reversal that could leave some students scrambling to take SAT or ACT tests ahead of application deadlines in the fall.”
- The Harvard Crimson
So why the change of course?
When Yale and Dartmouth reinstated their testing policies, both institutions referenced the predictive power of standardized testing as a key incentive for its return as a mandatory component of the admissions process.
Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences Hopi E. Hoekstra wrote in a statement that “standardized tests are a means for all students, regardless of their background and life experience, to provide information that is predictive of success in college and beyond.”
“More information, especially such strongly predictive information, is valuable for identifying talent from across the socioeconomic range,” she added. “With this change, we hope to strengthen our ability to identify these promising students.”
- The Harvard Crimson
What about testing as a whole? Is the additional predictive value worth the test prep industry machine that has grown up around it?
In research published last year, Harvard Professors Raj Chetty and David J. Deming and co-author John N. Friedman used data from more than 400 institutions and about 3.5 million undergrads per year to better understand socioeconomic diversity and admissions. Standardized tests emerged as an important tool to identify promising students at less-well-resourced high schools, particularly when paired with other academic credentials.
“Critics correctly note that standardized tests are not an unbiased measure of students’ qualifications, as students from higher-income families often have greater access to test prep and other resources,” said Chetty, the William A. Ackman Professor of Public Economics and director of Opportunity Insights. “But the data reveal that other measures — recommendation letters, extracurriculars, essays — are even more prone to such biases. Considering standardized test scores is likely to make the admissions process at Harvard more meritocratic while increasing socioeconomic diversity.”
“The virtue of standardized tests is their universality,” he said. “Not everyone can hire an expensive college coach to help them craft a personal essay. But everyone has the chance to ace the SAT or the ACT. While some barriers do exist, the widespread availability of the test provides, in my view, the fairest admissions policy for disadvantaged applicants.”
- The Harvard Gazette
Like it or not, tests have shown their resiliency and predictive value in a statistically significant way (hence Harvard reinstating their testing requirement). I think the answers to the following questions are why we won’t see them depart any time soon: Would there really be less net stress if the tests were gone? Everyone will still be looking for an edge. Will it go somewhere more helpful/meaningful?