Although we don't yet know all the results of the test-optional pandemic, evidence from the past year as well as previous studies on test-optional schools suggests that students and higher education are better off making entrance tests permanent. It increases the applicant pool, adds racial and ethnic diversity to campuses, and raises aspirations for students who live on the margins of American inequality. Institutions often claim that they are educating future citizens-leaders who will make a difference in society. However, standardized tests don't provide a good indicator of such behavior. Instead, they seek to reaffirm existing wealth and enhance structural advantages. Schools should encourage, not exclude, exceptional students who aren't wealthy or face barriers.What has the pandemic taught us? The Common Application allows students to submit one application to multiple schools and more than a million students apply annually to college. The Common Application saw less than half of applicants submit SAT or ACT scores in the 2020-21 admissions cycle. This is a decrease from the nearly 80 percent who did so the previous year. Students from underrepresented minorities benefited especially from test-optional policies. Only 40% of Black, African American, Latino or Alaska Native students, Native Hawaiian, or other Pacific Islander students submitted test score to large, selective schools. This compares with 61% of Asian and white students.It is not surprising that selective schools received a wider range of applicants. Data from the Common App shows that selective schools received significantly more applications from first-generation students (20 percent more than the previous year), students who were eligible for a waiver of application fees (22 percent more) and students from underrepresented minorities (24% more), while institutions with fewer applicants received fewer from these groups. This is consistent with previous research that Bates College, Mount Holyoke and Providence College found a significant increase in the number of applicants and diversification after making standardized test scores optional.Some early adopters of permanent, test-optional policies cited the desire to recruit underserved students to their campuses. Indeed, test-optional policies appear to increase diversity in student enrollments and applicants. Recently published data on 100 test-optional colleges' matriculation results prior to the pandemic showed a 10-12 percent increase in underrepresented minority enrollment, a 6-8 percent increase for women, and a 3-4 percent increase in Pell Grant recipients after the schools adopted test-optional policies.Are more applicants able to contribute to student success? It is too early to assess the effects of the pandemic on college performance and how it will impact students' lives in the future. A recent thorough investigation has shown that there is no significant difference in academic performance between students who are admitted without taking test scores. One researcher looked at data covering nearly 1,700 campuses from 2008 to 2016, comparing schools that adopted test-optional policies with schools that didn't. The switchers had slightly higher retention rates in the first year, which means that students admitted to test-optional schools were more likely than others to return as sophomores. However, six-year graduation rates at switcher schools have decreased slightly.Bates, Mount Holyoke, and Providence College all found no difference in academic quality, college performance, or graduation rates for students with SAT scores compared to those without. Research has also shown that a cumulative high school grade-point average is a better predictor for college success than test scores.These findings and the experiences of the last year raise important questions for universities and colleges going forward. What should be considered merit in admissions? In a country where disadvantage and advantage are often distributed along the lines of race, ethnicity, and zip code, how can we evaluate high school students fairly?Standardized tests are advocated because they provide a fair and objective measure of student achievement, given the differences in academic rigor and grading standards among high schools. However, the testing system once promoted as a way of increasing diversity on campus has had negative effects.Standardized test scores strongly correlate with the family's resources. This is likely to reflect the ability to pay tutors, test preparation and for high-opportunity education environments. Parents may cheat even further by finding psychologists who can help students pretend disability in order to get more time to take the tests. Students who are less well-off will be more likely to encounter inexperienced teachers, poor schools, outdated textbooks or technology and low expectations. They may also face inexperienced or unrelated teachers, high poverty schools, obsolete textbooks or technology, low standards, soul-destroying rote learning, violence in the neighborhood, or other learning barriers. The SAT and ACT have been used by the wealthy to accumulate the funds for selective higher education. This has led to social stratification. As college selectivity increases, students in the top half of the SAT/ACT score distribution have a higher chance of graduating college. Students who are not selected for selective programs end up in institutions with lower resources and more barriers to graduation.Institutions can be undermined by the mythology that tests scores are a sign of merit. Lani Guinier, a law professor, writes in support of dramatic reforms to admissions. She cites a study which followed three classes at Harvard College for 30 years. It measured their success in terms both of financial and professional satisfaction as well as their contributions to the community. According to the study, those who were most successful in their careers had low SAT scores and were from blue-collar families. Guinier also cites a University of Michigan Law School study that found graduates with higher LSAT scores were more likely to give less legal assistance and to serve as community leaders. It was also shown that affirmative action candidates who were admitted to the University of Michigan using a test-based approach did not predict their future success.It's not surprising that many students from disadvantaged backgrounds are pushing for alternative tests to standardized tests. A coalition of advocates and students from Compton, a Black and Latino school district in Los Angeles County sued the University of California system in 2019. They argued that the ACT/SAT was unconstitutionally discriminatory because it used the test in admissions. The UC system settled the case last month and said it would no longer use the SAT or ACT in admissions and scholarship decisions. However, it did reserve the right to use another test until the fall 2025.It was a turning point. It was a watershed moment. Now, one of the most prestigious public universities in America has agreed to stop using ACT and SAT to admit students. Other large public systems may feel similar pressure. California will soon be able offer lessons to the rest of the nation on how to assess merit in high-volume situations, and without the use of test scores. This momentum is only bolstered by the pandemic experiment.However, banning standard tests or making them mandatory is not the best way to address American inequality and disrupt the wealth advantage. Higher education institutions will have to address costs by adopting no loan policies and expanding partnerships and partnerships with organizations such as Questbridge, which are revolutionizing the way colleges identify and recruit underrepresented students.Even with all the disruptions caused by the Covid pandemic to American education, the fact that colleges have less dependence on standardized tests scores gives hope for a fairer and more inclusive system. Schools must now accelerate this process, and not return to old exclusion norms.
