Test-Optional, Test-Required, Test-Blind, Test-Flexible—amid the growing confusion surrounding college applications, the decision of whether to submit standardized test scores adds yet another layer to the already overwhelming complexity of the college admissions process. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, schools have adopted varying policies regarding their standardized testing policies, including many schools that switched to a “test-optional” approach, giving students the choice of whether or not to submit their ACT/SAT scores for admission. However, early last year, many universities announced the reinstatement of standardized test requirements for their undergraduate admissions process. Most notably, Dartmouth College became the first Ivy League institution to announce their new standardized testing policy. This decision prompted other universities, including Brown, Yale, Harvard, and Cornell, to follow suit. Most recently, three other well-known institutions, Johns Hopkins, the University of Miami, and the University of Pennsylvania, announced that they too would require future undergraduate applicants to submit ACT/SAT scores.
Recent research conducted by Opportunity Insights, led by Economic Professor John Freidman at Brown University, provides some reasoning into why standardized tests remain a relevant factor in college admissions. The study highlights three main findings: first, Friedman argues that students with higher standardized test scores are more likely to have higher college GPAs than their peers with lower scores. He stated, “Comparing within students of a given gender, family income level, race or ethnicity, and among students with the same grades in high school, students with the highest possible test score (i.e., SAT score of 1600 or ACT score of 36) achieve a first-year college GPA that is 0.43 points higher than students with an SAT score of 1200 or ACT score of 25 (which equates to the 75th percentile of test takers). Since 2020, students at each of the schools in this analysis (and most schools nationwide) have had the option to apply without submitting standardized test scores. Students opting to not submit an SAT/ACT score achieve relatively lower college GPAs when they attend an IvyPlus college, with performance equivalent to students with an SAT score of 1307 (or an ACT score of 28).”
The study’s second finding suggests that high school GPA alone is a weak predictor of academic success. Across the United States, the rigor of high school courses varies widely, as there is no universal standard. Even when courses cover similar material on paper, differences in teaching practices, grading policies of specific teachers can create inconsistencies in academic rigor, resulting in some students earning a higher grade than others not because of better academic performance but because of a more lenient grading system. This variation extends to AP courses, which, despite having a standardized curriculum designed by the CollegeBoard, differ in rigor based on how individual teachers structure their classes. Additionally, two previous Merionite articles, “Why we game the system: a deep dive into cheating at LM” and “grade inflation at LM” have pointed to factors that may even contribute to inflated GPAs within our own district, such as a rise in the culture of academic dishonesty at LM and lenient grading practices of LM teachers. These factors suggest that GPA alone may not fully capture a student’s academic readiness.
The study’s third findings explores the concern that standardized tests may favor students from more privileged backgrounds. To test this, they compared college success outcomes (first-year college GPA) of students from less advantaged vs. more advantaged high schools, controlling for their ACT/SAT scores. The results showed that students who share similar test scores, despite their differing socioeconomic backgrounds, performed similarly in terms of academics in college, suggesting that standardized tests may not be as biased as some critics argue.
Reflecting on this research, I recalled a lesson from my AP Psychology class earlier this year. My teacher discussed the different types of intelligence in psychology, and asked us whether standardized tests have correlation with a person’s intelligence, referencing a study which addressed similar points mentioned in this article. At the end of the lesson, she asked, “Raise your hand if you think that we should use Standardized Tests for college admissions?” Given the academic reputation of LM, I expected the majority of the students in the class to raise their hands, but I was surprised when I saw a 50-50 split, with half the class supporting the use of standardized tests, and the other half opposing it. So, this makes me wonder: how do current LM students approach the varying standardized test policies? Do most support the reinstatement of tests or are they against the use of them in college admissions?
Upon interviewing students, it became clear that the test prep industry was a major point of discussions. Some students, particularly those who support applying for test optional, expressed frustration with how these tests are commercialized and profit driven. They pointed out that the focus is often on the financial benefits for test prep companies, rather than actually improving them academically. This frustration seems to contrast with the common assumption that those who applied for optional at colleges are simply “bad test takers”. On the other hand, some students defend the role of test prep services with some believing that they only help some students to a certain level and are often misled about how much they actually improve scores, while others argue that they can be valuable tools for helping students study more effectively.
Miro Raj ’25, who supports standardized testing, believes it is important to consider the context of each student’s background. “I think it’s important to consider that colleges are not using standardized testing to compare two students from different backgrounds, but rather to see the academic upbringing,” he says. He gives the example, “For example, a 1350 in a poorer school district may mean the same to a college as a 1500 in a more affluent one.” While he recognizes that paid resources may offer some benefit, Raj adds, “using paid resources also does not have quite as significant an impact on SAT performance as people think. It may raise a score by thirty points compared to studying with just free online resources.” It’s important to note he did not have any data to back this up, but it still says something about LM’s attitude towards it.
On the other hand, Alexa Saler ’25 is deeply critical of the test prep industry, which she believes is more focused on teaching students strategies for “gaming the system” than on fostering genuine learning. “I feel like test prep centers exist to help students game the system rather than actually teaching useful skills,” she says. She further criticizes the industry’s profit-driven nature, explaining, “The whole test prep industry is built on the idea that you’re paying to memorize strategies rather than truly learning something.”
Yicheng Long ’25, too, believes that the SATs should be required or considered in the college application process, despite the valid arguments against them. He argues, “The college admissions process is already unpredictable enough, often with many decisions being left up to chance. Removing factors from the equation will only make the admissions process even more arbitrary and subjective.” He also criticizes the current test-optional approach, saying, “Many studies show that first-gen and low-income students who chose to go test-optional were misinformed as they drastically reduced their chances of admission compared to if they had sent their scores.” However, regarding test prep, Long strongly opposes it as he states, “Tutoring and paid resources can play a large role in raising scores, especially for international students who are non-native English speakers. Dozens of my friends spent about $10,000-$20,000 alone on tutoring, with many raising their scores by more than 100 points. For international students who have money to spend, and for whom admission to US colleges is tenfold times more competitive, every single point matters.
Additionally, after conducting interviews with students who applied test-optional to most colleges, many people seemed hesitant to be quoted on the subject. One senior jokingly explained, “I don’t wanna look dumb,” highlighting a broader concern that applying as a test optional applicant might be viewed negatively. In fact, it seems that a common assumption among those who applied test-optional is that they scored poorly on the exam and are hesitant to submit their scores, fearing it would reflect poorly on their academic abilities.
However, Bole Ying ’25 does share some concerns about their integrity. He explained, “I personally think standardized tests are important, but I do have issues with it. It’s like every time you turn around, there’s another story about someone cheating on the SAT or ACT.” This also resonates with points raised in the previous Merionite article mentioned, “Why We Game the System: A Deep Dive into Cheating at LM,” which discussed stories of LM students admitting to cheating on exams such as the ACT/SAT and even AP exams.
It is clear that the debate over the use of standardized testing in college admissions remains complex, with no clear consensus. While research shows that standardized tests can offer helpful insights to determine an applicant’s academic capabilities in higher education, concerns about fairness persist. The issue seems to be that there is no single factor that can perfectly measure a student’s academic abilities. Standardized testing, often seen as the most reliable tool, has its flaws, but so does GPA. So the question remains: will there ever be a more equitable and accurate method of assessing a student’s academic abilities in college admissions in the future?
