MIT Strikes a Blow for College-Admissions Fairness

T he Covid-19 pandemic precipitated many changes in higher education, not least of which was a trend among colleges toward ending the use of standardized-test scores in the admissions process. California State University, the nation’s largest public-university system, said that it would stop considering the scores altogether. Harvard said that it would not require SAT or ACT scores for the next four admissions cycles, and might axe the requirement permanently after that.

It was therefore a welcome departure from the trend when the Massachusetts Institute of Technology announced last month that it would reinstate its standardized-testing requirement, which had been suspended earlier in the pandemic. MIT dean of admissions Stu Schmill argues that “a [testing] requirement is more equitable and transparent than a test-optional policy.” He’s right.

Proponents of ending standardized-testing requirements often make their arguments on equity grounds. But practically speaking, standardized tests help level the playing field for comparatively disadvantaged applicants. Colleges and universities, in particular those with mathematically rigorous curricula such as MIT, need a mechanism to identify prospective students who are academically prepared to succeed. Such a mechanism must consistently identify talented students from a variety of backgrounds. And standardized-test scores are one of the most effective tools we have for this purpose.

Relative to other traditional components of the college-admissions process, standardized tests are broadly accessible. Any committed student who spends some time with the $21 official SAT study guide every day can end up with quite a good score on the test. For this reason, SAT and ACT scores correlate well with good study habits, and thus predict success in college. Even more important, these tests are one of the best chances many low-income students have to prove their readiness for rigorous coursework at top colleges.

MIT’s internal analysis backs this up. “Our ability to accurately predict student academic success at MIT⁠ is significantly improved by considering standardized testing – especially in mathematics,” writes Schmill. “Our research shows this predictive validity holds even when you control for socioeconomic factors that correlate with testing. It also shows that good grades in high school do not themselves necessarily translate to academic success at MIT if you cannot account for testing.”

Some opponents of using standardized tests in college admissions argue that high-school grades are a more appropriate metric for assessing college preparedness. There’s some truth to that. While a high grade-point average (GPA) does reflect good behaviors such as attendance and timely completion of assignments, its predictive usefulness is limited by the wide variations between schools: Simply put, a GPA of 3.8 can mean very different things in different high schools.

According to Mark Schneider, the director of the Institute for Education Sciences, high-school grades and standardized-test scores have diverged in recent years. While the average GPA rose from 3.00 to 3.11 between 2009 and 2019, overall average standardized-test scores did not change, and average math scores on standardized tests actually declined.

The upshot is that grades are becoming a less useful indicator of academic preparedness. While grades still have some utility, it is more important than ever to have a benchmark to put them in context. And the SAT and ACT fill that role.

Other researchers have reached the same conclusion. The University of California’s faculty senate found that “a [UC] student admitted with a low SAT score is between two and five times more likely to drop out after one year, and up to three times less likely to complete their degree compared to a student with a high score.” Standardized-test scores were found to be better at predicting a UC student’s grades than high-school GPA was. (The UC system, ironically, ignored its own research and stopped using standardized tests in admissions.)

College- and university-admissions offices that drop standardized-testing requirements don’t just make it more difficult to identify talented students from disadvantaged backgrounds. They also make it harder for low-income students to compete with wealthier applicants to selective colleges, given gaps in the quality of K–12 education.

MIT understands this. As Schmill writes:

Standardized tests also help us identify academically prepared, socioeconomically disadvantaged students who could not otherwise demonstrate readiness⁠ because they do not attend schools that offer advanced coursework, cannot afford expensive enrichment opportunities, cannot expect lengthy letters of recommendation from their overburdened teachers, or are otherwise hampered by educational inequalities.

Addressing the left-wing argument that standardized tests are a force for inequality because rich students tend to score better on them, Schmill notes that “research also shows correlations [with family income] hold for just about every other factor admissions officers can consider, including essays, grades, access to advanced coursework, and letters of recommendations.” The correlations are more extreme for nonacademic admissions criteria. Standardized tests, therefore, tend to mitigate rather than exacerbate existing gaps in equal opportunity.

Indeed, high-income students attend top colleges at higher rates than their SAT or ACT scores alone would predict. According to research by Harvard economics professor Raj Chetty and his colleagues, students in the top income quintile account for just over half of those who score better than a 1300 on the SAT, but account for nearly 70 percent of enrollments at the nation’s twelve most elite colleges. That means that lower-income students are underrepresented at top colleges relative to what their SAT scores would predict. If college-admissions decisions were made purely on the basis of a lottery for students with top SAT scores, socioeconomic diversity at elite schools would go up.

Bringing back the use of SAT and ACT scores in college-admissions decisions will help lower-income students get a fair shot in the admissions process. Unlike many of its peers, MIT recognized this and chose to reinstitute testing requirements. Let’s hope that other universities soon follow suit.