There is quite a bit of momentum behind the “test optional” trend in higher education — that is, colleges deciding to accept student applications whether or not they’ve taken the SAT or ACT. For years, leftists have complained that those tests are unfair to their favored groups and therefore shouldn’t be relied upon by admissions officers.

Is it true that the SAT and ACT are biased and have little value in predicting college success? Or, perhaps, is the movement against them just another instance of leftist virtue signaling?

A recent book makes a strong case that the tests are indeed good evidence of academic preparation. In today’s Martin Center piece, Jenna Robinson takes a look at it. “The book,” she writes, “provides considerable evidence that standardized tests add significant value to the admissions process—most notably because it is the only transparent, objective measure available. By giving up standardized testing, colleges may be losing crucial information on whether prospective students can succeed in the college environment.”

The book is a collection of essays published by Johns Hopkins Press, and contains essays from both testing proponents and opponents, but Robinson thinks that the pro-side has by far the stronger argument.

Especially persuasive is the chapter by two University of Minnesota researchers that addresses the myth that the SAT and ACT are biased in favor of wealthy, white students, which the authors thoroughly debunk.

Another chapter attacks the notion that other indicators of college readiness are better, such as high school grades. The problem is that grades and other factors are extremely subjective. The SAT and ACT are imperfect, but all other measures are much worse by the same measure.

Robinson concludes, “As long as institutions of higher education are committed to these goals, standardized testing should retain its place as an important part of the college admissions process.”

I agree. Why would schools deliberately turn away from solid evidence about a student’s academic strength or weakness? The answer, I believe, is that schools imbued with a PC mentality (most of them), would rather have an academically weaker student body than simply admit the strongest students they can because they claim latter reduces “diversity” (despite the chapter debunking this) which has become the Holy Grail of higher education.