Trigger Warning: Discussions of racial discrimination, segregation, and racially motivated violence
The SAT, formerly known as the Scholastic Aptitude Test, is a test that’s been around since the 1920s, and has been an instrumental factor in admissions — from elite colleges like Harvard and Yale to state universities alike — for generations. That is, until COVID-19. One effect of the pandemic was the cancellation of SAT and American College Test (ACT) test dates in 2020, then for the rest of the pandemic. Applicants no longer had any way to get test scores they could put on their college applications, so institutions were forced to adapt. Suddenly, even Ivy League schools became “test-optional,” meaning they no longer required test scores on applications.
Now, in 2024, we have all but left the era of the pandemic behind, leaving colleges to question whether or not they should remain test-optional. Many Ivy League schools and some state schools have already returned to requiring standardized test scores from applicants. When asked if these reinstatements would start influencing local schools to do the same, Regina Stanton, the college coordinator at Franklin, said, “It’s already happened.”
However, I firmly believe that we need to challenge the purpose of the SAT in a system where it does not measure intelligence or learning capabilities, so much as it measures the access you have to resources and the privilege you were born into.
Even the change of title from Scholastic Aptitude Test to merely SAT was to cover for the fact that an exam which had been called an “aptitude test” for so long truly didn’t test any inherent abilities at all. We need to stop requiring and valuing a test that perpetuates systemic inequality, because a few hours in a sterile room do not show how well you will manage your future. We need to look beyond the scores and see the history behind them.
The abundant issues with the SAT date back to its creation. According to an article published by Teen Vogue, the SAT was originally used for military assessments — with questions designed to disadvantage racial minorities — and then subsequently analyzed and adapted to serve a eugenic agenda for pseudo-scientists hoping to prove that white people were inherently superior over other races. In the time of lynchings and segregation, this horrific ideology promoted by psuedo-science and taken from standardized tests moved states to pass laws permitting the forced sterilization of people who were “defective” to protect “racial purity.”
Although the SAT is no longer used to promote eugenics, it still has some disturbing racially disparate results. College Board’s 2023 SAT Assessments Annual Report showed that 51% of white test takers met the benchmark for both the English reading and writing portion and the mathematics portion, compared to 17% of Black, 24% of Hispanic/Latinx, 21% of Pacific Islanders, and 17% of Native American and Alaska Native test takers. Additionally, according to the Harvard Gazette, a 2023 study found that “children of the wealthiest 1% of Americans were 13 times likelier than the children of low-income families to score 1300 or higher on SAT/ACT tests.” Race and generational wealth have no effect on inherent or potential learning capabilities, so for a test that claims to measure such qualities to have such stark inequality in its results puts the very idea of it in doubt.
Since the SAT has been in use since the 1920s, and has continued to be utilized by many prestigious universities, one would assume it serves a great purpose, if not for the students then for the colleges themselves. However, after speaking with teachers, students, and college admissions directors from multiple local universities, I’m not convinced this archaic test serves a meaningful purpose. “When you have a system that purports to ‘standardize’ information about individuals across our multifaceted society and the result is that those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds come out so consistently on the lower end of the scoring spectrum, we have to call into question what that test is really telling us,” said Hollie Elliott, the associate vice president for admissions at Lewis and Clark College. “When you have a test that can be learned, a test that you can prepare for and increase your score not by learning content but simply by learning how to take the test, you have to question what that test is really telling us.”
Lewis and Clark has been test-optional since 1991, and plans on becoming test-free by fall of 2025 as submitted scores had little value and ended up causing unnecessary complications. Elliott said, “Fewer than 25% of our applicants have submitted test scores to us. In the most recent cycle, we hardly looked at them at all — and they certainly weren’t swaying our decisions for the ones that had provided scores.” Despite not requiring test scores, they are a successful school, with a 73.5% graduation rate.
“I hope that students really think twice about taking the tests at all,” said Elliott. She went on to lament about the ways in which the SAT burdens even the best of students with unneeded stress. Taking the SAT should be voluntary, and students should be given the freedom to direct their valuable time elsewhere. “I’d like to see a world where students’ sense of self-worth is not attached to a score they got on a test that was created by a company whose goal is to make money.”
Dylan Cohen, a Franklin High School teacher who teaches Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID) to ninth-grade students, had a similar attitude towards standardized tests, stating, “They don’t really serve a purpose other than telling the students who have an advantage — whether that’s money or race — that they’re smarter than other students.” Cohen mentioned that test taking is merely one avenue of learning, and all that doing well on a standardized test tells a teacher is that you are good at taking such tests. Echoing Elliott’s sentiment, Cohen said, “Fundamentally, as an educator and as a person, I wish we would abolish all standardized testing.” He added, “To figure out where a student is at, I understand the need for some sort of assessment … but to use that to judge them on what they can do, doesn’t make any sense to me.”
This touches on one of the largest issues with standardized testing: that it is so removed from reality, it cannot hope to reflect it. These tests take no real-world factors into account, and as Cohen put it, “In terms of most jobs and most parts of life that you’ll go through, you’re going to be able to make mistakes, you’re going to be able to ask for help, you’re going to be able to look at your notes and use resources while you’re doing them, and the fact that we throw all of those real life experiences out the window in order to do one end all be all test, doesn’t sit right with me.”
Another issue with standardized tests, as pointed out by Franklin senior Kyra Kreuscher, is that they can lower your confidence in areas that you were previously very comfortable with. She said, “In the same way that your teachers will tell you that your grades aren’t a reflection of your intelligence, that’s what tests should be like for college admissions.” Stanton agreed, saying, “A test score is just a snapshot in time. There’s nothing [in the SAT or ACT] that measures a student’s academic performance over time.”
So, if universities, students, and teachers all find little use for the SAT, why are we still using it? Where does the push to return to this system come from? The reason is, of course, money. According to an article by Total Registration, a service that helps organize AP, SAT, and PSAT exams, the century-old non-profit organization College Board generates around $1 billion per year from the SAT, PSAT, and AP exams — exams that they not only administer, but own. They have cultivated an unshakeable monopoly around the industry of college admissions, generating obscene amounts of affluence and reinforcing the cycle of generational wealth.
College Board holds the keys to college admissions, and works in tandem with universities to generate maximum profit. Students with money and privilege can pay for College Board supplied resources to game these tests, and once accepted into elite universities, their wealthy families can generously support the school itself. According to an article from Inside Higher Ed, in February of 2024, the organization was fined $750,000 by the New York State attorney general’s office for illegally selling the data of students who took their tests. Between 2018 and 2022 alone, they licensed said data to over 1,000 different institutions. For such a famous non-profit, they behave remarkably similar to most modern corporations.
The colleges themselves also benefit from the disproportionate amount of wealthy students. According to an article in the Guardian, “among a committee culled from Harvard’s 400 biggest givers, including some who were childless or too young to have college-bound children, fully half the big donors had a child enrolled at the school.” Clearly, a large motivator behind the use of the SAT for college admissions is financial gain. Yet, the pandemic showed us that it is possible to do away with this system, and universities are able to adapt with relative ease.
Aside from monetary benefit, there are some other arguments in favor of reinstating the SAT, but they fail to consider the whole picture. An article by David Leonhardt, published by the New York Times, argued, “Without test scores, admissions officers sometimes have a hard time distinguishing between applicants who are likely to do well at elite colleges and those who are likely to struggle.” However Erin Hays, the director of admissions at the University of Oregon (UO), said that UO has been test optional, relying on grades and curriculum for admissions with no intention of ever reverting back. Both UO and Lewis and Clark demonstrate how successful the application process can still be without test scores. Additionally, standardized test scores do not tell a university which students are likely to struggle at their institutions, it tells them which students have the privilege to access supports and afford advantages within these systems.
An argument written by Ingrid Jaques in USA Today, stated, “Counter to the progressive groupthink on this issue … low-income students are actually harmed when SAT or ACT scores aren’t considered in their admissions application … economically disadvantaged students had withheld their test scores when it was optional, [and colleges began] mistakenly believing they were too low.” However, if most schools make the transition away from using standardized test scores for admissions, this is an unsubstantiated argument. When little to no one is submitting scores and there are alternate ways of determining potential and intelligence, it’s then on College Board, scholarship managers, and university admissions to see that shift and adjust accordingly.
There is no reason we should stick to this archaic system when, if we all make this shift together, we can make the world more equitable for everyone. Making a permanent shift away from the SAT and standardized tests will benefit all involved.
The SAT does not measure intelligence at all, it measures access to resources, which have been systemically withheld from people of color. The SAT is not only unfair to people of color, but also to anyone from a low income household, and doing away with it will benefit everyone; not because of inherent intelligence but because the SAT has become an excuse for elites to recycle generational wealth under the guise of “potential.” I want to make it incredibly clear, however, that everyone has equal potential; the goal is to break down barriers to equal access so that no matter the environment in which you were brought up and the resources you have access to, you have an equal chance for a bright future.
The natural question then, is what colleges will be valuing in the absence of test scores. The most common answer is that they will look primarily at high school transcripts, including Grade Point Average (GPA), grade trends, and course history. This has turned out to be far more inclusive, with NBC News reporting that in the wake of test-optional policies, colleges received far more applications from “students that have felt historically excluded” and “it became clear that students had been self-rejecting, deciding not to apply to places like Cornell because they thought their lower SAT scores meant they couldn’t get in.” In fact, during the pandemic, Cornell University reported a near 50% increase in first-generation college students, due to marginalized students feeling more hopeful about a test-optional policy.
Some schools have also been employing a “holistic” method, in which the college tries not to place disproportionate weight on scores or GPA, but instead looks at every part of a student’s application, including their essay and extracurriculars/experiences, as well as letters of recommendation and any special circumstances. Although these policies can leave some students floundering for what to expect and how to look the best in the eyes of a prospective university, overall, it evens the chances for students to be able to achieve the future they want and deserve.
We as students, as educators, and as a community must fight back against being once again placed into boxes and brackets that tip scales in favor of those born into wealth. We need to advocate for test-optional policies that will give people the freedom to choose how they want to present themselves, and allow people to be seen through a lens that is equitable and equal-opportunity focused. We are more than one simple test score, and we deserve to be seen as such.
