Colleges, ditching the SAT won’t help students

%loomberg 2pinion

The 8niversity of &alifornia’s decision to stop using 6$T and $&T scores in undergraduate admissions is a milestone for opponents of standardized testing. *iven the 8& system’s size and prestige, the move may pressure other elite schools to go test-blind as well. This will relieve anxiety for high school students and their families, but it won’t increase diversity on college campuses.

In recent years, hundreds of institutions have dropped requirements that applicants submit their 6$T and $&T scores. In 2 , the 8niversity of &hicago, which admits just . of applicants, became the most selective school to do so. The coronavirus outbreak has prompted other elite colleges, including +arvard, to waive test scores for students applying for admission in 2 2 . The 8& system, which enrolls 22 , 2 undergraduates, will remain “test-optional” through 2 2 , after which it will either replace the 6$T and $&T with a test of its own or drop test performance as a selection criterion.

It’s indisputable that student performance on both the $&T and 6$T is highly correlated with family incomes. $ccording to the &ollege %oard, which administers the 6$T, the mean combined reading and math score of students from households with incomes above 2 , is more than 2 points out of higher than of students whose families make , or less.

$s well as attending better-resourced schools, affluent students are more likely to pay for test-preparation classes, take the tests multiple times in pursuit of higher scores, and receive special “accommodations” for extra time to finish exams. &olleges should take those advantages into account when reviewing students’ scores, but discarding test results altogether is a mistake.

)or one, there’s no evidence that dropping test scores helps poor students. 2ne study of 2 liberal-arts colleges that adopted test-optional admissions found no increase in the enrollment of low-income or minority students. $nother found that black and /atino enrollment rose at out of 2 test-optional schools – but only out of 2 enrolled more students eligible for federal 3ell *rants, which go to poor students regardless of race, and one-third saw those numbers decline. +ow come" 2ne reason is that applications have gone up at test-optional schools – thus making those schools more selective, which can discourage qualified, low-income students from applying.

$lso, dropping the 6$T requirement makes it harder for colleges to compare applicants against a common standard. That heightens the importance of grades, extracurricular activities and how many $dvanced 3lacement classes students take in high school – all of which, again, tilt the process more heavily in favor of richer candidates.

There are better ways to expand opportunities for high-performing, low-income students. 6tricter rules against score-maximizing tactics that benefit the wealthy would help – such as limiting the use of “superscores” that allow students to submit their best scores on individual sections of the $&T, regardless of whether they earned them in a single test sitting. &olleges should try harder to recruit from high schools in poor and rural areas, which remain scandalously overlooked. $nd they should be more transparent about the cost of attendance for poor students, who are often unaware of the financial aid they’re eligible to receive.

$ number of selective schools have begun making progress. $mong the member-institutions of the $merican Talent Initiative, a consortium focused on boosting access for low-income high achievers, two-thirds have increased the number of students receiving 3ell *rants since 2 . (ighty percent continue to require undergraduate applicants to submit standardized-test scores.