When COVID struck worldwide in 2020, colleges nationwide moved to adopt test-optional policies. Test-optional is a college admissions policy that allows applicants to choose whether or not to submit standardized test scores as part of their application. Initially, colleges did so because of logistical reasons: test centers for the SAT and ACT closed worldwide and digital versions of these exams had not yet been developed.
But such policies were maintained after the pandemic had long concluded, all the way to today. According to the Common App, member schools requiring test scores decreased from 55% in 2019-2020 to 4% in 2023-2024, an all-time low. This figure rose very slightly to 5% this season, with an additional 1% now requiring scores. That 1% is right to do so.
The most prominent reason for retaining test-optional policies is equity. Schools such as William and Mary and Columbia University have chosen to keep their test-optional policies indefinitely, citing an increase in flexibility afforded by test-optional that boost accessibility for underrepresented and low-income students. Some schools, including the entire University of California system, have become test-blind, refusing to consider scores altogether.
However, this noble pursuit is misguided. It is certainly true that applicants from a more affluent household can pay for tutors and afford to retake standardized tests, allowing them to significantly raise their scores. Opportunity Insights, a Harvard research group, found that children of the wealthiest 1% of Americans were 13 times more likely than the children of low-income families to score 1300 or higher on the SAT.
Yet this wide gap is more pronounced for all the other factors which are part of a college application. Essays? A wealthy family can hire experienced consultants—whose fees may stretch into hundreds of dollars per hour—to craft an appealing narrative. Extracurriculars? Wealthy families have the money for their children to participate in sports like sailing or a “charitable” trip overseas. The reality is that virtually every aspect within college admissions is tied with wealth.
That is why the upshot of test-optional policies is inequity. Standardized test scores are one of the most objective avenues for an applicant to prove themselves, particularly when it comes to applicants from a low-income background. And because standardized tests are, by their very nature, standardized, colleges have a stable baseline to compare applicants against. Crucially, when test-optional policies are implemented, applicants are left with a decision that they often have limited information to decide.
According to a study conducted by Dartmouth College, some less-advantaged students who scored in the 1400s on the SAT chose not to submit their score, even though their chances of admission would have been increased by nearly fourfold if they did so. They did so, the study concluded, because they likely felt their score was below average at Dartmouth. But because their score would have been considered within the context of their community, a score of 1400 would have been more significant than if it came from an applicant in a higher-income community.
Importantly, such an analysis cannot be as granular if colleges only look at GPA—the other metric by which an applicant’s academic competency is assessed. Consider UVA as an example: According to its 2024-2025 Common Data Set, a standardized set of data reported by colleges, 90.5% of the incoming class had a high school GPA of 4.0. At this level of homogeneity, it is difficult for admissions officers to separate applicants from each other. This confounding effect is compounded by the existence of different grading systems and grade inflation, all of which distort an applicant’s true academic performance.
This ambiguity, combined with test-optional or test-blind policies, has led to a precipitous decline in students’ academic performance. At the University of California, San Diego, which is considered one of the nation’s top institutions, a workgroup discovered that the cohort of students whose math skills fall below high school level tripled between 2020 and 2025.
Of these students, 70% demonstrated math skills below middle school standards. The workgroup also discovered a mismatch between course rigor and actual performance: when it came to students that did not meet middle school levels, 42% had completed calculus or precalculus.
To ensure better equity within schools, the real solution is to make standardized testing itself more accessible. States can allocate more funds to programs such as SAT School Days, which allow students to take the SAT at no cost. College Board should also pursue more partnerships that are similar to the one it has with Khan Academy, which now provides free, personalized SAT preparation online.
Schools themselves can also play a greater role in expanding equity by implementing policies similar to Yale’s test-flexible policy. Such a policy still requires the submission of standardized test scores, but applicants can choose from a broader range of tests beyond the SAT and ACT, including AP and IB tests. This can permit applicants to put forth the best representation of their academic performance, particularly if they feel that the SAT or ACT is not right for them.
Standardized tests are by no means perfect. And the college application process often feels unfair and, at times, arbitrary. But when schools go test-optional, students become defined by their money, not merit.
