How standardized exams can favor privilege over potential

At first glance, calls from members of Congress to restore academic merit in college admissions might sound like a neutral policy.

In our view, these campaigns often cherry-pick evidence and mask a coordinated effort that targets access and diversity in American colleges.

As scholars who study access to higher education, we have found that when these efforts are paired with pressure to reinstate standardized tests, they amount to a rollback of inclusive practices.

A Department of Education letter sent to congressional offices from Feb. 14, 2025, stated that is “unlawful for an educational institution to eliminate standardized testing to achieve a desired racial balance or to increase racial diversity.” The letter also claimed that the most widely used admissions tests, the SAT and ACT, are objective measures of merit.

In our recent peer-reviewed article, we analyzed more than 70 empirical studies about the SAT’s and ACT’s roles in college admissions. Our work found several flaws in how these exams function, especially for historically underserved students.

Measuring college readiness

Several elite universities – including Yale, Dartmouth and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology – have reinstated SAT or ACT requirements, reversing test-optional policies that institutions expanded during the COVID-19 pandemic.

These changes have reignited debates about how well these tests measure students’ academic preparedness and how colleges should weigh them in admissions decisions.

During a May 21, 2025, hearing of the U.S. House Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Development, some witnesses argued that using test scores allows colleges to admit students based on merit. Others maintained that test scores can function as barriers to higher education.

Our research shows that while these tests are statistically reliable – that is, they produce consistent results for students across subjects and during multiple attempts under similar conditions – they are not as valid as some argue.

High school grade-point averages are typically better predictors of students’ success in college than either test.

In addition, the tests are not equitable or similarly predictive for all students, especially given gender, race and socioeconomic demographics.

That is because they systematically favor those with more access to high-quality schooling, stable socioeconomic conditions and opportunities to engage with test prep coaches and courses. That test prep can cost thousands of dollars.

In short, both tests tend to reflect privilege more than potential.

For example, students from higher-income households routinely outperform their peers on the ACT and SAT.

This isn’t surprising, considering wealthier families can afford test prep services, private tutoring and test retakes. These advantages translate into higher scores and open doors to selective colleges and scholarship opportunities.

Meanwhile, students from low-income families often face challenges – such as less experienced instructors and less access to high-level science, math and advanced placement courses – that test scores do not factor in.

Reflecting deep inequities

In our published review, we found that these disparities aren’t incidental – they’re systemic.

Our review revealed long-standing evidence of bias in test design and differences in average scores along lines of race, gender and language background.

These outcomes don’t just reflect academic differences; they reflect inequities that shape how students prepare for and perform on these tests.

We also found that high school GPA outperforms standardized tests in predicting college success. GPA captures years of classroom performance, effort and teacher feedback. It reflects how students navigate real-world challenges, not just how they perform on a single timed exam.

For many students, particularly those from historically marginalized backgrounds, grades can offer a better indication of how prepared they are for college-level work.

This issue matters because admissions decisions aren’t just technical evaluations – they are value statements. Choosing to center test scores in admissions rewards certain kinds of knowledge, experiences and preparation.

The American Council on Education defines equity as opportunities for success. It means building educational environments that recognize diverse forms of potential and equip all learners to thrive.

It’s worth noting that research on testing often focuses on elite institutions, where standardized test scores are more likely to be used as high-stakes screening tools. Our systematic review found that, even in elite schools, the tests’ ability to accurately predict college academic performance is often limited (moderate in statistical terms).

But most college students attend state universities, public regional universities, minority-serving institutions, or colleges that accept most applicants. Our study found that at these institutions, standardized test scores are even less likely to predict how students will do.

This may be because state universities and public regional universities are more likely to serve highly diverse student populations, including older, part-time and first-generation students and those who are balancing work and family responsibilities.

Where does higher ed go from here?

With the debate over the role of standardized tests in the admissions process, higher education stands at a crossroads: Will colleges yield to political pressure and narrow definitions of merit and ignore equity? Or will institutions reaffirm their mission by embracing broader, fairer tools for recognizing talent and supporting student success?

The answer depends on what values are prioritized.

Our research and that of others make it clear that standardized tests should not be the gatekeepers of opportunity.

If universities define merit on test scores alone, they risk closing the doors of opportunity to capable students.