When Dartmouth College became the first Ivy League school to reinstate a mandatory testing admissions policy for the 2024-25 admissions process, it argued that standardized testing provided a uniform benchmark to identify students from diverse backgrounds likely to succeed. Yale University, Brown University, and Harvard University quickly followed, citing similar reasons for eliminating test-optional admissions. Now, as Penn announces a return to a test-required admissions policy for the 2025-26 cycle, it appears that opponents of test-optional admissions are finally claiming victory, declaring the end of the test-optional experiment.
It’s ironic that the debate on test-optional admissions centers around “fairness.” Even opponents acknowledge the admissions process is systemically unequal but claim that test-optional policies unintentionally harm low-income students by removing a uniform benchmark that allows them to stand out. To them, the solution is to reinstate test-required admissions. After all, standardized testing is the only objective part of the application — everyone has the chance to take the same SAT and ace it.
But have we forgotten what the SAT truly measures? Sure, the test is standardized, but what about the opportunities to take the test? This top-down approach that insinuates standardized testing as the great equalizer in the admissions process is dangerous. This rhetoric is counterproductive to addressing the deeper roots of inequality. Test-optional policies aren’t the problem; we are. Rather than arguing that test-optional admissions favor wealthier applicants or that SAT scores reveal students truly worthy of success in college, shouldn’t we instead ask why low-income students must prove their worth in a system not built for them?
We exploit every possible advantage while they lack basic necessities. While we seek out doctors to pay off to fake an ADHD diagnosis for extra testing time on the SAT, there are low-income students with disabilities who struggle to get any medical attention. Wealthy high schools have 2.6 times more students eligible for additional time on tests compared to low-income high schools. Even medically valid diagnoses for testing accommodations are indicators of inequality — many disadvantaged students are less likely to receive diagnoses for conditions requiring accommodations, such as autism or ADHD, due to limited access to healthcare. Universities won’t be able to identify many high-achieving low-income students if they aren’t provided the accommodations to prove themselves in the first place.
But the disparity doesn’t end there. Wealthier students get multiple attempts to perfect or superscore their SAT. Low-income students only get two attempts with a College Board fee waiver, and many don’t ever bother to retake it. A 2018 study from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that low-income SAT takers are 20.6% less likely than high-income students to retake the SAT, and 53% of SAT takers using a fee waiver on their first try do not retake the exam. The score they get will not accurately reflect their potential as a result, and many high-achieving low-income students are filtered out. For a low-income student enrolled at a competitive high school, their scores appear artificially low compared to the school average, making it harder for them to stand out in college admissions.
Many testing centers in suburban areas are also inaccessible to low-income students due to limited access to transportation. Only 57% of 16- to 18-year-olds in households making under $50,000 have the luxury of having a driver’s license. If they needed a ride, as many as 19% of households living below 200% of the poverty line lack access to a personal vehicle, compared to only 5% living at or above 200% of the poverty line.
There are cultural, social, and familial barriers to taking the SAT as well. Low-income adolescents are 53.3% more likely to take on caring for their siblings when their single mothers are employed, with a 66.4% chance of it becoming becoming a routine responsibility. Students in these families do not have the time and resources to take standardized tests, let alone prepare for them.
But our students do. In 2019 alone, we spent a record $1 billion on test-prep for our students because we take time and money for granted. We spend hours stressing over that four-digit score that would make or break our student’s college applications. But to a low-income applicant, those hours might be spent worrying about food that won’t be on the table that night. The luxury of a test score that stands out to admissions officers is one that their time and money often can’t afford.
If we still want to argue that test-optional admissions are inequitable, fine. If we still want to claim that standardized testing levels the playing field, go ahead. But remember why the test-optional debate began in the first place.
DAVID TRAN is a freshman studying urban studies from Fort Worth, TX. His email is ddtran@sas.upenn.edu.
The Daily Pennsylvanian is an independent, student-run newspaper. Please consider making a donation to support the coverage that shapes the University. Your generosity ensures a future of strong journalism at Penn.
Donate
