The SAT Was Never a Racist Plot

By Judson Berger

Friday, February 09, 2024

 

In March 2023, National Review editorialized that the move by Columbia University and other colleges to make SAT/ACT scores optional for applicants was wrong. The tests identify “intellectually gifted children from all strata of society” and allow “talented children from disadvantaged backgrounds (whether economic or minority) to shine.” In other words:

 

You might have gone to Phillips Exeter Academy and had the best SAT tutors available to you — but this kid over here living above his parents’ corner store and studying when he doesn’t have to mind the shop? He took it once and scored a 1590.

 

This week marked what may be a turning point in that movement, as schools and researchers in the field begin to voice second thoughts about the wisdom of deemphasizing these tests. As Caroline Downey reported, Dartmouth announced Monday that it will restore its SAT requirement for admissions, becoming the first Ivy League school to do so after a Covid-era relaxation:

 

In an email to the university community, Dartmouth president Sian Beilock wrote that the decision to reimplement the standardized test was made in response to a faculty study which found that “standardized test scores are an important predictor of a student’s success in Dartmouth’s curriculum” regardless of a “student’s background or family income.”

 

Those involved in the school’s review arrived at a set of conclusions that might seem obvious: Test scores help admissions officers identify high-achieving students from around the world, they help otherwise disadvantaged students with high potential stand out, and they especially help make those distinctions clear for elite institutions inundated with applications featuring stratospherically high grades and Tracy Flick–level extracurriculars. Dartmouth now follows MIT, which, as Caroline noted, reinstated the testing requirement two years ago, determining it would be “more equitable and transparent than a test-optional policy.”

 

This realization runs completely counter to the thinking that led to the rollbacks in the first place.

 

David Leonhardt wrote a great piece for the Times last month describing the “misguided” campaign (which predated the pandemic) to ditch standardized tests out of concern that racial and class gaps in the scores were contributing to a less diverse student body. While Ivy League and other schools initially suspended test requirements by citing Covid-related hardships, those that embraced the change long-term did so on more ideological grounds. The California State University system, for example, removed the SAT and ACT from undergrad admissions to “level the playing field and provide greater access to a high-quality college degree for students from all backgrounds,” per the acting chancellor at the time.

 

But Leonhardt highlighted research showing test scores are “more reliable” than high-school grades and are solid indicators of success. They can “be particularly helpful in identifying lower-income students and underrepresented minorities who will thrive” even if they don’t score as high as others. One study from a Harvard-based group found that “SAT and ACT scores have substantial predictive power for academic success in college,” and high scores are associated with higher college GPAs “even when comparing students from different socioeconomic backgrounds.”

 

While concerns about elite test prep were a mark against the SATs, a fascinating and at-times infuriating New York magazine story recently showed how the ultra-wealthy don’t lack for avenues to gain an edge — including by contracting the services of a sought-after consultant who charges $120,000 a year to shape teens into Ivy material (though the article’s subject insisted he’s only giving the rich an unfair advantage over “other rich students”). Against this backdrop, Jeff Blehar points out, ahem, that “the one thing those parents and pros cannot do is walk into a testing room and take a child’s exam for them.”

 

The same profiled consultant acknowledged a month ago that standardized testing is, in fact, making a comeback, with most Ivies’ test-optional extensions set to lapse soon absent intervention. Dartmouth’s dean of admissions likewise told the student newspaper that other “peer” schools are considering reinstating the requirement as Dartmouth did. Universities should follow through, treating the score once more as one of multiple admissions criteria — though count this as another misbegotten educational experiment of Covid times that, like prolonged remote schooling, will have crimped the potential of a cohort of students before the mistake was realized.

 

As Jim Geraghty wrote for the Morning Jolt, “it says something about the evidence-free, ideology-heavy mentality in America’s colleges and universities that so many institutions ditched a tool for recognizing excellence in disadvantaged students because they believed they could persuade everyone else that the test was unfair, contrary to what the actual evidence said.” This tracks with the example of charter schools, which a recent Stanford study found outperform traditional public schools and help black and Hispanic students, especially those in poverty, get ahead.

 

It’s almost as if “faculty diversity salons,” DEI librarians, and their policy complements have nothing to do with leveling the playing field in any practical way.