Diversifying College Admissions: Why Test-Optional Is Not as Effective as We Hoped

For more than a century, standardized testing like the SAT had been a deciding factor on whether students could get into the top college of their choice. It was not until the COVID-19 pandemic when many testing centers closed that a majority of colleges and universities rushed to implement test-optional and test-blind policies. The results were staggering. Ivy League institutions like Cornell, which implemented both policies, saw an unprecedented surge of applications in 2020 from nontraditional applicants.

Since then, there has been much discourse on whether standardized testing is a barrier to higher education for first-generation students and students from racial backgrounds underrepresented in higher education. With more than 2,000 colleges still test-optional today, we’ve taken a step in the right direction towards bringing more inclusivity in higher education. In the last few months, however, some Ivy League colleges like Dartmouth have started to require SAT and ACT scores again after not seeing much of an impact in diversifying their admissions through test-optional policies.

Recent data from SSP International (SSPI), a nonprofit offering pre-college residential STEM research experiences to high school students, suggests that colleges perhaps have not gone far enough to make the admissions process as accessible as it can be for students from marginalized communities. In fact, test-optional policies may be doing more harm than good.  While test-optional policies have become popular among colleges, test-blind policies remain vastly unexplored, with roughly only 85 colleges being test-blind this year out of nearly 6,000 institutions.

Before we look into the data, let’s first differentiate what test-optional and test-blind policies are.

Test-Optional vs. Test-Blind

Test-optional means that colleges do not require students to submit their SAT or ACT scores but will still consider the scores in the admissions process, providing an uneven advantage to non-underrepresented students who are more likely to report their scores and are more likely to have the resources to boost their scores through tutoring and coaching. Test-blind (or test-free), on the other hand, means that colleges do not take standardized test scores into consideration during their admissions process.

The Case for Test-Blind Policies

SSP International, which runs the Summer Science Program, one of the most renowned and longest-running summer STEM programs in the nation, uses a careful but holistic admissions process that maintains its program’s competitive edge while ensuring it remains accessible to students from underrepresented communities.

In 2024, SSP International implemented a test-blind policy for the first time and later recorded 352 responses from 368 participants regarding their perceptions of test scores and whether they create barriers when applying to the Summer Science Program.

The study found that the test-blind policy encouraged more first-generation and racially underrepresented high school students to apply to the Summer Science Program. When the participants were asked if they would have submitted their test scores if the Summer Science Program was test-optional, first-generation and underrepresented students reported feeling more uncertain about and less likely to submit test scores than non-first-generation and underrepresented students, even among strong test performers who would have otherwise benefitted from submitting their test scores.

Another key finding was that first-generation and underrepresented respondents were more likely to encounter barriers to taking the ACT and SAT, with 16% of them reporting no barriers compared to 49% of their non-first-generation and underrepresented peers. Test costs, lack of access to preparatory materials and insufficient time were reported as the top three barriers to taking a standardized test.

What the data ultimately shows is that test-optional policies can only do so much to diversify academia. In fact, they can put students historically excluded by standardized test barriers at a bigger disadvantage than their non-marginalized peers, who are more likely to submit their test scores. Test-blind not only brings more equity to the admissions process, but it positively influences first-generation and underrepresented students to apply to academic opportunities they otherwise would not feel confident applying to.

Broader Implications

With colleges scaling back their DEI initiatives following the end of affirmative action and the barrage of attacks from the current administration, SSPI’s survey results and impact in encouraging more first-generation and underrepresented students to apply to its Summer Science Program could serve as a compelling example of how such admission policies can make a meaningful difference in higher education.

In addition to admission policies, SSPI’s data also sheds light on the need to provide marginalized students with a socially supportive environment that can reinforce their sense of belonging and soft skills before they graduate from high school. Our school system’s emphasis on standardized testing and competitive grades over teamwork and communication are clearly leaving students from marginalized socioeconomic backgrounds feeling more isolated and underestimated. Providing historically excluded students with opportunities, like a competitive summer program, can help develop their soft skills and cultural capital to ensure they feel confident in their abilities to aim high and pursue the top colleges of their choice.