Yes, I’m sure some might see it that way. The admin/enrollment professionals at the large majority of TO or test blind schools might not agree.
Regardless, the various inequalities in K-12 education are one of the root causes of relatively low test scores at lower family income levels. Colleges and their admissions policies can’t fix those issues. I applaud the colleges that rank high on social mobility measures. With that said, I support whatever admissions policies/requirements a given school wants to have. I was merely pointing out one of the many consequences (whether good, bad, or neutral) of requiring test scores.
Sure it is. You may not agree, but it is certainly reasonable to not require tests in order to expand the pool of applicants to include more lower income students.
First, I don’t know that this is true, and not sure how you support such a conclusion. All the other factors you mention show up in much higher test scores for kids with relatively more resources. Stacking on yet another cumulative advantage further exacerbates the relative unfairness.
Second, elite colleges wouldn’t choose to require that all the applicants hire expensive tutors, attend tony prep schools/competitive public schools, live in an expensive zip code, etc. because the bias against low SES kids would be unacceptable. Requiring the derivative (the tests) merely masks the unfairness and bias and creates the illusion of objectivity where none exists.
As for the quote and the editorial, both concern race in admissions and there is only one thread where that can be discussed, so I will ignore the quote and link.
I agree that SAT serves a purpose as being a standardized measure, but test scores are by no means less correlated with wealth than the rest of application. Note the early Chetty stats I posted showed SAT top 3% income kids were >100x more likely to have a 1400+ score than low income kids. At 1500+ score, there weren’t enough low income kids in that score range to evaluate ratio (rounded to 0.0%).
Being a standardized measure also contributes to why test scores show a greater degree of correlation with wealth. Most other common admission criteria have a greater degree of influence from local comparisons, particularly within the same HS. For example, the Harvard reader guidelines state the following for high LOR scores. Note that Harvard emphasizes LOR comparisons in the context of a student’s particular HS with phrases like “best of” something in HS, rather than comparisons to students outside of HS. It’s a similar idea for GPA, HS course rigor, rank, etc. Even ECs are evaluated in context of what is available, with a special category for " Substantial commitment outside of conventional EC participation such as family obligations, term-time work or a significant commute."
Strikingly unusual support. "The best of a career,” “one of the best in many years,” truly over the top.
Very strong support. “One of the best” or “the best this year.”
A college could certainly evaluate SAT score with a similar degree of local context to the measures above… comparing SAT largely to other students within school type / region / SES / background … rather than nationally. However, the more SAT is compared locally instead of across the full applicant pool, the less benefits of being standardized occur.
Some of these colleges have a provision whereby if taking the test was onerous (no test site or no available date, etc - common in some parts of CA!..) the GC can specify so the requirement can be waived. The issue of course is whether lower income students will even know about this fine line.
Many colleges offer a choice of tests : 3 AP scores, officially predicted IB scores.. they don’t necessarily want an SAT score but want some external marker that the As aren’t inflated.
Add the University of California to this list soon?
Even before the recent scrutiny on higher ed institutions by the Trump administration, the UC Board of Admissions (a part of the Academic Senate) had been discussing reinstating the SAT/ACT requirement because of concerns about grade inflation at the high school level and readiness of high school students for college.
I’d be stunned if the UCs brought back testing anytime this decade. It’s too much of a political football in California to bring it back. According to the Your College Bound Kid podcaster who spoke to Gary Clarke and others in admissions at UCLA towards the end of last year, they are very happy with their student population and being test optional. So it’s not UCLA admissions that’s looking to revisit the issue. Or course, I recall something similar at Cal Tech last year where their admissions office was pushing to even forgo AP Calculus and then professors revolted and now CT requires testing again.
Then they need to figure out a way to make it accessible to students because right now many students literally have to go out of state to take the SAT/ACT due to lack of local availability. If the UCs reinstate the requirement, demand will surge, stretching the resources even thinner and making it accessible only to those students who are very lucky and those who can afford to travel to Nevada for the weekend to take it out of state. Given the UCs commitment to providing opportunities to low-income students, this seems like a terrible, terrible idea as low-income California students stand to be shut out entirely unless something radically changes in terms of local test availability.
This is from the Oct 4 2025 UC BOARS meeting minutes (page 8) (granted, it’s difficult to divine what UCLA means when it says that “[t]here is also an interest in standardized tests” in its Campus Updates, but it’s clear that Berkeley is actively looking at potentially requiring standardized tests again):
IX. Member Reports/Campus Updates
UCB: The committee’s first meeting entailed identifying topics of interest. One topic is discussion of direct admission into majors as opposed to admission of students as undeclared. Another topic is how to consider alternate or secondary major choices in the admissions process. A subcommittee will look at potentially requiring standardized tests again in light of other universities reintroducing them. This will involve uncovering any faculty concerns about what the test-free policy means for student preparedness. Chair Swenson stated that the Regents will have to vote to bring back standardized tests, noting that it has become logistically difficult for students to take these tests in California.
UCLA: The committee will look at the report from the campus ADT task force. The task force process, a collaboration between the divisional Senate and administration, went well. There is also an interest in standardized tests.
This is from the Oct 4 2025 UC BOARS meeting minutes (page 8) (granted, it’s difficult to divine what UCLA means when it says that “[t]here is also an interest in standardized tests” in its Campus Updates, but it’s clear that Berkeley is actively looking at potentially requiring standardized tests again):
IX. Member Reports/Campus Updates
UCB: The committee’s first meeting entailed identifying topics of interest. One topic is discussion of direct admission into majors as opposed to admission of students as undeclared. Another topic is how to consider alternate or secondary major choices in the admissions process. A subcommittee will look at potentially requiring standardized tests again in light of other universities reintroducing them. This will involve uncovering any faculty concerns about what the test-free policy means for student preparedness. Chair Swenson stated that the Regents will have to vote to bring back standardized tests, noting that it has become logistically difficult for students to take these tests in California.
UCLA: The committee will look at the report from the campus ADT task force. The task force process, a collaboration between the divisional Senate and administration, went well. There is also an interest in standardized tests.
They are studying the issue, as they should. I personally don’t read this as indication that they will require standardized testing any time soon. They are reviewing the issue and gathering new information. That is due diligence. But it does not indicate what their ultimate decision will be once they have assessed the data. We shall see.
I think this is going to be a huge issue. As it currently stands, I don’t see how CA schools can fairly require standardizes tests are so many students get shut out and simply can’t afford the travel to another state to take a test. This issue will have to be solved before any reinstatement happens, especially given the UCs commitment to FGLI students, who are the ones form whom testing may currently be least accessible. I’m sure an assessment of this situation will be part of their due diligence when reviewing testing policy.
If the UCs go back to requiring tests, California will have to add a school day test for juniors and seniors, and/or HS counselors will have to start running Saturday tests again at their schools. I understand why counselors don’t like doing that, but they would have to.
Likely so. And who pays for this? That’s a genuine question, not a rhetorical one. Would it be paid through the SAT/ACT fees, or would districts have to absorb the costs?
CB and ACT pay proctors for Saturday tests, but the rest of the costs of planning and such fall to the counselors (or testing coordinators if the school has that.) AFAIK, schools pay proctors for school day tests. Hopefully a school based counselor will chime in.
Given the funding disparities characteristic of California public schools and the wide chasm in funding between wealthy districts and impoverished districts, this is going to exacerbate inequities.
I’m sure, same as in any state. (Although to be clear, for school day testing the teachers and other staff are already getting paid). The reality is there already are inequities because so many CA students don’t have access to ACT or SAT. That will be magnified if UCs go to test required, especially if the state and schools don’t respond to increase test access.
Agree completely. And I do have some faith that the UCs also understand this and that this will be part of their discussions on the future of standardized testing requirements. They have made a clear commitment to equity, especially for FGLI students. The way things currently are, requiring testing would contradict this commitment. That’s not to say that it can’t be solved somehow, but certainly that will take time, at least a few years, I would think.
Because UCLA is now using AP scores. Every kid who was admitted into UCLA over the past several years from our high school has had tremendous number of AP exams and majors fives on exams. I don’t know what SAT scores would add to that.
In NYC, I think it comes out of school budgets, from what I have seen – though low-income schools, even the ones that don’t hit the 60% free and reduced lunch level that counts for Title 1 in NYC, get a discount. At my kid’s school, the PA paid for school-day PSAT testing for 11th graders (for NMSC qualifying), and it would have been $18 per test full freight, and was $9 with a low-income adjustment. I think the PA may have also paid a college board invoice for SAT testing in the past, but I haven’t seen that cost recently. To address space needs to offer the test, the school arranges for an off-campus activity for seniors on the fall PSAT day. I feel like they may do something similar on the SAT in-school day, but I can’t remember.
Yes, I remember now – they did another senior off-campus activity on the spring SAT-in-school day so there would be enough classroom space for the tests for juniors (and a practice PSAT for sophomores). The PA covered the cost for that off-campus activity for seniors – was in the $2K range for each activity (one fall, one spring).