JAN 23, 2025 | OPINION | By Fiona Frankel
In less than two months, the regular decision pool of the Colorado College Class of 2029 applicants will open their status portal to see if they have been accepted. This will be the college’s second admissions round since Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, the landmark June 2023 Supreme Court case that overturned race-based affirmative action.
According to a study by Opportunity Insights, children from families in the top 1% income bracket are twice as likely to attend an Ivy Plus or other highly selective universities. This discrepancy causes these schools, as well as other prestigious universities, to have an overwhelmingly White, Asian and/or wealthy population that does not mirror the more diverse demographics of the applicant pool. The Fair Admissions decision only exacerbates this inconsistency, yet the steps schools have taken since then may be misguided and ultimately detrimental.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, access to standardized tests, namely the SAT and ACT, decreased dramatically, prompting many schools to make the 2020-2021 admissions round test optional. From this action, greater conversation began around the equity of requiring standardized test scores, or lack thereof. Many argue that wealthier applicants can boost their scores through private tutoring, which is financially unattainable for lower-income students. Data supports this theory: there are clear score gaps by race and socioeconomic status, with average scores for White, Asian, and upper-income students outperforming those of Black, Hispanic and lower-income students. Test takers from families in the top 20% income bracket were seven times more likely than those from the bottom 20% to score at least 1300 on the SAT.
In 2019, Colorado College joined the majority of US academic institutions in becoming test-optional. Only two years prior, the school was ranked second to Washington University in St. Louis on a New York Times list of colleges with more students from the top 1% than from the bottom 60% of the income scale. Nearly one-quarter of the CC student body comes from families making over $630,000 annually.
Without admissions taking standardized test scores into account, there is a greater reliance on other parts of an application; grade point average, extracurricular activities, essays, including the personal statement and supplementals, letters of recommendation and interviews. Some of these aspects are arguably just as, if not more, influenced by income brackets than standardized testing. Wealthier students can participate in extracurricular activities and summer programs that are costly and often inaccessible to lower-income students.
Additionally, the average private high school, which is populated by predominantly White, Asian and wealthy students, provides far more extensive college counseling services than the average public school in the United States. Seniors at private high schools are equipped with substantial information and guidance on the complicated college application process, including where to apply early to maximize their chances of admission. College counselors at private schools advise fewer seniors and can spend more time with each applicant, preparing them for interviews and editing essays. Grade inflation is also more common at private high schools than their public counterparts, according to College Board researchers.
Still, many argue that tests like the SAT must be similarly influenced, with more affluent students using expensive test-prep methods like classes and tutors to boost their scores. Yet, according to New York Times columnist David Leonhardt, test preparation does little to boost overall score trends. Tests to measure educational progress, such as the National Assessment of Educational Progress, are given nationwide without students studying in advance. Scores from these exams are similar to those of the SAT and ACT, following the same general race and socioeconomic trends.
These results are not representative of discrepancies in test preparations, but rather of the overall inequality in the United States. SAT and ACT scores simply reflect the unequal state of the country along racial and socioeconomic lines, and eliminating this standard in higher education admissions does little to eliminate this disparity.
As Leonhardt suggests, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) provides an interesting case study for continuing to require SAT or ACT score submissions. MIT argues that test scores are better indicators of a student’s future success capabilities in college than high school grades, which are measured differently according to school and may be inflated. As a result, MIT has been able to admit a more diverse class than its Ivy counterparts in the wake of the Fair Admissions decision — a class that their admissions team argues is also more academically prepared and set up for college success.
Test-optional policies drive up average scores for academic institutions since lower-scoring students opt not to report their results, increasing the overall average. With fewer standards to meet to apply to high-ranking colleges, high school seniors are applying to more schools, dramatically increasing application rates while the number of accepted students remains steady.
The fight to diversify higher education both racially and financially has been dramatically hindered by the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard landmark decision. Still, efforts under this new legislation must be grounded in thoughtful consideration, research, and evidence. The SAT and the ACT remain fundamentally biased towards White, Asian and wealthy students, yet they are less influenced by race and income than other application components.
Standardized test scores should be required and considered in conjunction with a myriad of other application factors for schools to make the most accurate and equitable assessment of a student’s application and academic capabilities.