Proof UC Knows Test-Optional and Test-Blind Admissions Are Problematic
Updated on July 5, 2023
Prior to the University of California’s bombshell admissions policy announcement last month, there was another announcement out of UC that had major implications for the testing and test-prep industries. In fact, it proves that much of the current doom and gloom around the future of testing is largely unfounded.
The University of California (UC) Academic Senate conducted an extensive study to determine (among other things) if considering standardized test scores from the ACT® and SAT® were to blame for the disparity in Underrepresented Racial Minority (URM) students’ high school graduation rates compared to their UC acceptance rates. Of particular concern was the fact that 59% of all California high school graduates were considered URM students, yet this population accounted for only 26% of all admitted students (which includes 37% of all admitted California URM freshmen).
The Academic Council’s Standardized Testing Task Force (STTF) was convened in 2019 to address these concerns. When the results came in, the data showed that not only are standardized tests not to blame for the admissions disparities for URM students, but the disparity would likely be worse should the standardized testing requirement be eliminated from the admissions process.
According to the report:
[The study] did not find evidence that UC’s use of test scores played a major role in worsening the effects of disparities already present among applicants and did find evidence that UC’s admissions process helped to make up for the potential adverse effect of score differences between groups.
If these results are to be believed, it marks a major blow to many of the most popular arguments in favor of schools going test optional. What’s more, the findings of the UC Academic Senate published in February seem to stand in stark contrast to the path that was announced by the UC Board of Regents just 3 months later. It shows that while UC may not be big fans of the current ACT® and SAT®, they are unlikely to pursue a long-term future that is either test optional or test blind.
Standardized Tests Surface High-Quality Students That May Have Otherwise Gone Unnoticed
The UC system admits students based on an holistic review. Students are evaluated on a whole host of academic and non-academic criteria including:
Standardized testing scores (SAT®, ACT® plus Writing, and/or AP)
High school course load and transcripts
Academic success
Personal qualities, skills, and abilities
Likely cultural and intellectual contributions to campus (race, ethnicity, gender, and religion not considered)
Extracurricular achievements
None of these criteria are weighted in any formulaic way. With each application, UC admissions considers all of the aforementioned factors to try and come up with a clear, comprehensive view of who each applicant is. That said, certain factors (like test scores) are typically considered with less overall weight than others. Schools with holistic admissions policies look to test scores more as a way to accept a particular candidate than a way to deny one.
This is noteworthy given the fact that most schools opting to eliminate their testing requirements cite the belief that the tests themselves are inherently biased—the ACT® and SAT® generate results that seem to favor certain racial and socioeconomic populations over others. However, most test-optional schools report no significant change in the diversity of their freshman populations compared to when tests were required (something the UC study predicted would be the outcome). Furthermore, some claim that the move to go test optional is more about boosting college rankings than admissions fairness.
Ultimately, the UC study concluded that while test scores could create major gaps in the acceptance rates between different socioeconomic and/or racial groups, an holistic review process seems to prevent (or at the very least, offset) this.
[M]ean differences in standardized test scores between different demographic groups are often very large, and many of the ways these tests could be used in admissions would certainly produce strong disparate impacts between groups. However, UC weights test scores less strongly than GPA, and comprehensive review appears to help compensate for group differences in test scores. The distributions of test scores among applicants are very different by group, but the distributions of test scores among admitted students are also very different by group, and in almost exactly the identical way.
When it comes to test scores, context matters. UC is admitting that while the disparities exist, acknowledging them means that they can be accounted for as a part of a thorough, holistic applicant evaluation process. In doing so, test scores can, in some cases, help reverse the negative trends they set out to investigate.
The Task Force did not find evidence that UC’s use of test scores played a major role in worsening the effects of disparities already present among applicants and did find evidence that UC’s admissions process helped to make up for the potential adverse effect of score differences between groups.
It is worth mentioning that for students impacted by COVID-19 school closures, many of the aforementioned holistic measures used to evaluate applicants now hold diminished value. Pass/fail grading, cancelled sports seasons, unemployment, and limited volunteerism opportunities all limit the options that students have of separating themselves from their peers. Test scores, optional or not, provide a useful piece in a uniquely challenging puzzle that admissions offices are going to have to try and assemble. Look for more on this in Thursday’s post!
Test-Optional Policies Are About Schools, Not Students
Perhaps one of the most interesting (now ironic) findings by the STTF was the notion that it would be problematic for a fair admission process should UC adopt a test-optional policy whereby students were free to choose whether or not to submit test scores.
Naturally, there are concerns about how to compare students who submit test scores with those who do not. In UC’s case, going test optional will remove one of the factors that is successfully identifying students that otherwise may not have been considered for admissions.
The current UC admissions practice of putting each applicant’s test scores into context by comparing them to all applicants from the same school, thus allowing readers to identify students who performed exceptionally well given available opportunities, could no longer be used if students could choose whether or not to submit their test scores.
It makes sense. With test-optional applications, only students with strong test scores are likely to submit said scores. This inherently creates two classes of applicants: those with test scores and those without. The natural assumption is that those that did not submit test scores performed more poorly than those who did. The disparity that test optional is supposed to eliminate will likely linger, just in a new form.
Meanwhile, schools—not students—see the largest benefit from a test-optional policy. With only strong testing performers submitting scores, schools see a bump in the overall averages in their test scores. Also, schools without testing requirements typically see an uptick in applications (due to one less perceived barrier to entry). Since class sizes are fairly constant, this skews the ratio of accepted to denied students. This ratio is another way for schools to portray themselves as more selective. In these ways, schools actually can (and likely will) leverage the test-optional policy in order to promote the appearance of becoming increasingly elite. Great for schools, not for applicants.
While UC’s new 5-year plan is still enjoying its time in the sun, it us UC’s fact-based and data-driven report that UC and other colleges and universities will have to acknowledge when making their own decisions moving forward. Sure, test optional makes sense in the short-term—some students this admissions cycle simply did not have access to testing and/or test-prep support while others did. Encouraging students to apply even if they don’t have test scores to submit shows that a school is in touch with the times while also keeping application numbers up.
The real tell will be in the years to come. Many schools may decide to go/stay test optional, but the stated reasons why they make that choice and the economic and marketing reasons for doing so probably won’t line up.
UC’s research shows that while access and opportunity certainly shape test scores, those scores can be very useful as part of an holistic effort to afford the opportunity of higher learning to those that otherwise may not have gotten a look.