Objective standards matter in college admissions, and lowering them proves universities are no longer accrediting institutions, but DEI echo chambers.
by Jasmine Campos
In the four years since the COVID-19 pandemic, a plethora of schools across the country— including all eight Ivy league schools—dropped the application requirement for standardized tests. 85% of the top liberal arts schools in the nation decided that they would make the submission of test scores as optional.
But just last month, Yale University joined Dartmouth in bringing back their requirement for applicants to submit either an SAT or ACT score with their application. Their request included a caveat that AP or IB tests could provide sufficient alternatives. Meanwhile, all other Ivy league schools, the California State university system, and the University of Michigan have decided to stick with their original decision to drop the requirements.
This news raises the question: Why do away with these tests in the first place, only to be returning to them now? The answer is rather simple: While universities claim to care about diversity, equity, and inclusion, their bottom line is money, and they are more than willing to parrot any narrative to avoid being canceled themselves.
The original purpose of the SAT was to make higher education “more meritocratic.” Yet, since its creation, critics of the test have maintained the test is biased, as students of “color, low-income students, immigrants, and other historically excluded groups scored lower on the exam.” While the test was an attempt to standardize admissions procedures and allow more access to higher education, the debate over the value and bias within such testing continues today.
The pandemic allowed universities to use public health as a reason to get rid of a system they already considered biased and racist. The National Education Association published an article from 2021 titled “The Racist Beginnings of Standardized Testing” which discusses how standardized tests are not just an example of racism, but an instrument and inherently biased systems. Brookings made a similar point in a 2020 article titled, “SAT math scores mirror and maintain racial inequity.” Inside Higher Ed wrote about “The SAT and Systemic Racism,” stating that it is a simple perpetuation of past crimes. Some say the recent Supreme Court decision means that the only way to legally be allowed to encourage underrepresented groups is to get rid of testing requirements.
Yet, now administrators are changing their tune once again. Jeremiah Quinlan, dean of Yale undergraduate admissions, said that strong test scores will not hamper economic equality, but will in fact have the opposite effect of boosting those from low socio-economic backgrounds. He even went so far as to claim that students attending high schools with less resources have little in their applications to prove their readiness. Therefore, when they are able to include a score, “they give the committee greater confidence that they are likely to achieve academic success.”
The schools who have brought these tests back have cited numerous studies that show that standardized tests are important in “providing context to student performance.” More importantly, they say these tests are good at recruiting diverse and low-income students, especially after the recent Supreme Court ruling that banned race considerations in admissions.
Yale itself collected data that proved that there is “a statistically significant difference in average grade point average between those who applied with and without test scores.” Though the application pool grew, the number of qualified applicants did not, according to Quinlan. Quinlan actually explicitly stated that Yale took this information into account when making their decision to return to testing.
A recent analysis from Dartmouth found that hundreds of students from low socioeconomic backgrounds had declined to submit them, for fear of being too far below the average to apply. Economics at Harvard published a study that “found that test scores could help identify lower-income students and students from underrepresented populations who would thrive in college.”
So then what exactly should universities learn from this?
Well, first they can give up the DEI charade. The main job of a university is not to promote diversity or socioeconomic equality for their own sake, but instead to nurture the most qualified minds into becoming the future leaders and thinkers in our country. This makes it wholly unacceptable and disturbing to lower standards that should be met.
Secondly, they ought to recognize that objective standards — by their nature — cannot be racist. Going to college at all is not a right, much less attending an elite university such as Harvard. There is value to a meritocracy in a society where everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed, and only those who deserve it are rewarded.
College is not for everyone, and standardized testing is not the only important metric for determining the potential success of a student, but in conjunction with other factors, universities should do their best to ensure they are accrediting students who are likely to take their degree and succeed, not drown.
Their goal is to be thinking institutions, pushing the boundaries of medicine, science, and thought, not reflecting the most radical and liberal positions of the moment. Perhaps bringing back objective standards can reflect the first step in the right direction. Only time will tell.
Jasmine Campos is Young Voices contributor and a second-year MPP student at Pepperdine University studying American Politics and policy. She writes about freedom in higher education and cultural issues in America today.
Originally published by RealClearPolicy. Republished with permission.
For more great content from School Reform News.
