In this article, I review the role of college admissions tests in the United States and consider the fairness issues surrounding their use. The two main tests are the SAT, first administered in 1926, and the ACT, first given in 1959. Scores on these tests have been shown to contribute to the prediction of college performance, but their role in the admissions process varies widely across colleges. Although test scores are consistently listed as one of the most important admissions factors in national surveys of postsecondary institutions, an increasing number of schools have adopted “test-optional” policies. At these institutions, test score requirements are seen as a barrier to campus diversity because of the large performance gaps among ethnic and socioeconomic groups. Fortunately, the decentralized higher education system in the United States can accommodate a wide range of admissions policies. It is essential, however, that the impact of admissions policy changes be studied and that the resource implications of these changes be thoroughly considered.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education (AERA, APA, and NCME). 2014. Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
3.
BelascoAndrew S.RosingerKelly O.HearnJames C.2015. The test-optional movement at America’s selective liberal arts colleges: A boon for equity or something else?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis37 (2): 206–23.
4.
BettsJulian R.RuebenKim S.DanenbergAnne. 2000. Equal resources, equal outcomes? The distribution of school resources and student achievement in California. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California.
5.
BowenWilliam G.ChingosMatthew M.McPhersonMichael S.2009. Crossing the finish line: Completing college at American’s public universities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
6.
BridgemanBrentMcCamley-JenkinsLauraErvinNancy. 2000. Prediction of freshman grade-point average from the revised and recentered SAT I: Reasoning Test. College Board Report 2000-1. New York, NY: College Entrance Examination Board.
7.
BuckleyJackLetukasLynnWildavskyBen. 2018. The future of college admissions. In Measuring success: Testing, grades, and the future of college admissions, eds. BuckleyJackLetukasLynnWildavskyBen, 309–12. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.
8.
BurtonNancy W.RamistLeonard. 2001. Predicting success in college: SAT studies of classes graduating since 1980. Research Report 2001-2. New York, NY: College Entrance Examination Board.
9.
CahalanMargaretPernaLaura W.YamashitaMikaWrightJ.SantillanS.2018. 2018 indicators of higher education equity in the United States. Washington, DC: Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education, Council for Opportunity in Education, and Alliance for Higher Education and Democracy of the University of Pennsylvania.
10.
CarnevaleAnthony P.RoseStephen J.2003. Socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, and selective college admissions. New York, NY: Century Foundation.
11.
ClearyT. Anne1968. Test bias: Prediction of Negro and white students in integrated colleges. Journal of Educational Measurement5 (2): 115–24.
EspenshadeThomas J.ChungChang Young. 2012. Diversity outcomes of test-optional policies. In SAT wars: The case for test-optional admissions, ed. SoaresJoseph A., 177–200. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
17.
EspenshadeThomas J.RadfordAlexandria Walton. 2009. No longer separate, not yet equal. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
18.
FloresStella M.HornCatherine L.2015. Texas Top Ten Percent Plan: How it works, what are its limits, and recommendations to consider. Educational Testing Service Issue Brief. Available from http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/flores_white_paper.pdf.
19.
GeiserSaulSantelicesMaria Veronica. 2007. Validity of high-school grades in predicting student success beyond the freshman year. Research and Occasional Paper Series: CSHE.6.07. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley: Center for Studies in Higher Education.
HornCatherine. 2012. Percent plan admissions: Their strengths and challenges in furthering an equity agenda. Pensamiento Educativo: Revista de Invesitgación Educacional Lationamericana49 (2): 31–45.
IngelsSteven J.PlantyMichaelBozickRobert. 2005. A profile of the American high school senior in 2004: A first look- initial results from the first follow-up of the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002. NCES 2006-348. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
25.
KidderWilliam C.GándaraPatricia. 2015. Two decades after the affirmative action ban: Evaluating the University of California’s race-neutral efforts. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service Issue Brief. Available from http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/kidder_paper.pdf.
26.
LeeValerie E.BurkamDavid T.2002. Inequality at the starting gate: Social background differences in achievement as children begin school. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
27.
LeonhardtDavid. 2018. The growing college graduation gap. New York Times, March25. Available from https://www.nytimes.com.
28.
LucidoJerome A.2018. Understanding the test-optional movement. In Testing, academic achievement, and the future of college admissions, eds. BuckleyJackLetukasLynnWildavskyBen, 145–70. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
29.
MarinPatriciaLeeEdgar K.2003. Appearance and reality in the sunshine state: The Talented 20 program in Florida. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.
30.
MatternKrista D.PattersonBrian F.ShawEmily J.KobrinJennifer L.BarbutiSandra M.2008. Differential validity and prediction of the SAT. College Board Research Report No. 2008-4. New York, NY: The College Board.
31.
MatternKrista D.PattersonBrian F.WyattJeffrey N.2013. How useful are traditional admission measures in predicting graduation within four years? College Board Research Report No. 2013-1. New York, NY: The College Board.
32.
MatternKrista D.ShawEmily J.MariniJessica. 2013. Does college readiness translate to college completion? College Board Research Note No. 2013-9. New York, NY: The College Board.
33.
McLoydVonnie C.1998. Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development. American Psychologist53 (2): 185–204.
34.
National Assessment Governing Board. 2017. Mathematics framework for the 2017 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education.
35.
National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC). 2003. Diversity and college admission in 2003: A survey report. Arlington, VA: NACAC.
36.
National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC). 2008. Report of the Commission on the Use of Standardized Tests in Undergraduate Admission. Arlington, VA: NACAC.
National Center for Fair and Open Testing. 2018. More than 1000 accredited colleges and universities that do not use ACT/SAT scores to admit substantial numbers of students into bachelor-degree programs. Summer. Somerville, MA. Available from https://www.fairtest.org/university/optional.
39.
NettlesMichael T.2019. History of testing in the United States: Higher education. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (this volume).
40.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2010. PISA 2009 results: Overcoming social background – equity in learning opportunities and outcomes. Vol. II. Paris: OECD. Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264091504-en.
41.
PernaLaura W.LiChunyanWalshErinRaibleStephanie. 2010. The status of equity for Hispanics in public higher education in Florida and Texas. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education9 (2): 145–66.
RadunzelJustineNobleJulie. 2012a. Predicting long-term college success through degree completion using ACT composite score, ACT benchmarks, and high school grade point average. ACT Research Report 2012(5). Iowa City, IA: ACT, Inc.
44.
RadunzelJustineNobleJulie. 2012b. Tracking 2003 ACT-tested high school graduates: College readiness, enrollment, and long-term success. ACT Research Report 2012(2). Iowa City, IA: ACT, Inc.
45.
RauschenbergSamuel.2014. How consistent are course grades? An examination of differential grading. Education Policy Analysis Archives22 (92). Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v22n92.2014.
46.
SaboeMattTerrizziSabrina. 2019. SAT optional policies: Do they influence graduate quality, selectivity or diversity?Economics Letters174:13–17.
47.
SackettPaul R.KuncelNathan R.2018. Eight myths about standardized admissions testing. In Testing, academic achievement, and the future of college admissions, eds. BuckleyJackLetukasLynnWildavskyBen, 13–39. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
TaylorHarold C.RussellJames Thomas. 1939. The relationship of validity coefficients to the practical effectiveness of tests in selection. Journal of Applied Psychology23:565–78.
50.
WechslerHarold S.1977. The qualified student: A history of selective college admission in America. New York, NY: Wiley.
51.
WestrickPaul A.LeHuyRobbinsSteven B.RadunzelJustine M. R.SchmidtFrank L.2015. College performance and retention: A meta-analysis of the predictive validities of ACT scores, high school grades, and SES. Educational Assessment20 (1): 23–45.
52.
WillinghamWarren W.PollackJudith M.LewisCharles. 2002. Grades and test scores: Accounting for observed differences. Journal of Educational Measurement39:1–37.
53.
WolfCalvin. 25July2014. Op-Ed: Rise of test-optional college admissions will backfire. Digital Journal. Available from http://www.digitaljournal.com.
54.
YablonMaria. 30October2000. Test flight: The scam behind SAT bashing. The New Republic, 24–25.
55.
YoungJohn W.2004. Differential validity and prediction: Race and sex differences in college admissions testing. In Rethinking the SAT: The future of standardized testing in university admissions, ed. ZwickRebecca, 289–301. New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.
56.
ZwickRebecca. 2002. Fair game? The use of standardized admissions tests in higher education. New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.
57.
ZwickRebecca. 2017. Who gets in? Strategies for fair and effective college admissions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
58.
ZwickRebecca. Forthcoming. Using mathematical models to improve access to postsecondary education. In Higher education admission practices: An international perspective, eds. OliveriMaria ElenaWendlerCathy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
59.
ZwickRebeccaGreenJennifer Greif. 2007. New perspectives on the correlation of SAT scores, high school grades, and socioeconomic factors. Journal of Educational Measurement44:23–45.
60.
ZwickRebeccaHimelfarbIgor. 2011. The effect of high school socioeconomic status on the predictive validity of SAT scores and high school grade-point average. Journal of Educational Measurement48:101–21.
