Advocates for requiring SAT or ACT for college applications revere these tests as an admissions factor which only strongly favors wealthier students instead of overwhelmingly favoring wealthy students.
They don’t seem to realize that it’s college admissions officers who intentionally and systematically do the favoring. These admissions officers are the people who decide what characteristics to favor in college admissions, so they are also the ones who must design a fairer application evaluation process, which will be easier to do when SAT scores are ignored.
Treating standardized tests as a step up in fairness from other “soft factors” is exactly what college admissions officers want you to do. It makes their jobs easier and prevents them from ever having to seriously re-evaluate their applicant evaluation and admissions methods.
One of the most compelling arguments against colleges going test-optional is summarized in the subtitle of this USA Today article, “Eliminating meritocratic opportunities for students to excel will cause colleges to rely on the ‘soft’ parts of a résumé, which will benefit the rich.” But, that claim serves only to innoculate colleges against any accusations of discrimination, and relies on some demonstrably false premises.
Firstly, the SAT is not meritocratic. Its grading method is somewhat opaque. The test itself and its policies of superscoring favor wealthier students who can afford extra prep and retakes. Wealthier families also have an easier time getting accommodations for students who need them, doubly disadvantaging poorer students who might also need such accommodations. All of these problems with the SAT are structural or integral to the nature of the test.
Secondly, in college admissions, nothing “benefits” any particular set of students. College admissions officers may choose to favor certain groups based on certain characteristics, but it is always a conscious, intentional choice. It’s their job to weigh the candidates against each other, and it’s their job to make and calibrate the scales.
The way they weigh students, however, is dependent on far less intrinsic discrimination than SAT scores. Admissions officers could just as easily decide that being a leader of a club will act as a penalty rather than a plus in the admission evaluation. They could choose to favor essays which students actually wrote themselves. (They can tell when students had someone else write their essays.) They can choose to ignore a student’s legacy status or demonstrated interest or even penalize it.
To understand this, imagine that a college wanted to favor men over women in their admissions process. They might make their evaluation process such that being a man counts for significantly more than being a woman, but that discrimination would be too easy to identify and fix. So, instead they might choose to weigh students’ height as an important factor in admissions. Certain women can be and often are taller than certain men, just like certain poor students may earn higher SAT scores than wealthy ones. But, the criteria is inherently biased. The only way to justify using something like height or SAT scores would be to prove that it has a significant, practical impact on a student’s ability to succeed in college and that fairer criteria cannot be used for the same purpose.
If college admissions officers are allowed to use the SAT, then when they are brought to court to defend an admissions decision from an accusation of discrimination, it would be easy for them to argue, “Well, their SAT score was higher,” when what they mean is, “His parents can pay full and still donate $20 million a year.”
If colleges couldn’t use the SAT, however, and had to rely more on soft factors, but still wanted to favor wealthy students, they would have to argue something like, “A student who volunteers at a puppy saving center will make a better college student than a student who had to spend all their free time taking care of their younger siblings so their parents could work,” or “This student receiving a recommendation from his state Senator clearly qualifies him better for our university than this other student who only got recommendations from his teachers.” These are much less convincing arguments, and they make the exact basis of the discrimination in any decision obvious enough to undo.
Using fundamentally flawed but less wealth-favoring “hard factors” like SAT scores makes discrimination easier to hide and leaves less room for improvement in the admissions process than using non-fundamendamentally flawed “soft factors” like extra-curricular activities, essays, and recommendations, even if they are currently used to favor wealthy students.
It’s also worth keeping in mind that top universities require good grades and high SAT scores as a baseline. They have already been making almost all of their decisions based on “soft factors” in order to differentiate between their many, many qualified applicants.
The belief that the SAT is the most consistent, objective, and fair admissions factor is the problem. Using the SAT as the standard of fairness by which other factors are measured, bakes the SAT’s flaws into any evaluation of the entire system, preventing true fairness from being created. Explicit, intentional discrimination is far easier to correct than discrimination disguised as objectivity.