Rethinking Standardized Testing

Preparing for the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT, or the American College Test (ACT),  requires countless hours of sitting at a desk looking at  the same problems over and over again,  and agonizing over minute changes in practice scores.  Sacrificing your weekends to learn about never-before-seen grammar conventions and relearn Algebra 1 might not be the best use of your time when faced with other challenges like maintaining a solid GPA, or boosting your resume with attention grabbing extracurriculars. Nevertheless, days and hours are spent on preparing for the test, and while some may have expensive tutors to assist them, many do not. 

Standardized testing has long been a cornerstone of college admissions, offering a seemingly objective way to evaluate students from diverse backgrounds. The SAT, ACT, and state-level exams like the NJSLA are often considered essential tools for measuring academic ability. But as the conversation around equity in education grows louder, it’s worth asking: Do these tests truly reflect a student’s potential? And is it time to reconsider their role in the admissions process?

There’s no denying that standardized tests provide a common metric for comparing students. For colleges inundated with applications, they offer a straightforward way to assess academic readiness. Yet, this convenience comes with limitations. Research consistently shows that socioeconomic factors heavily influence test scores. Students from wealthier families tend to score higher, not necessarily because they are more capable, but because they have access to resources like test prep courses, private tutoring, and the ability to retake exams multiple times. This raises questions about whether these tests are truly leveling the playing field or simply reinforcing existing inequalities.

The pandemic prompted many colleges to adopt test-optional policies, and the results have been illuminating. Schools like the University of Pennsylvania and Princeton saw a record number of applicants from diverse backgrounds apply. In the end, these gave rise to more diverse  and academically talented classes than ever before. Without the requirement of test scores, students who might have been discouraged from applying, particularly those from underrepresented backgrounds, felt empowered to take their shot. This shift suggests that standardized tests may not be as indispensable as once thought.

That said, standardized tests aren’t without merit. For some students, they can be an opportunity to showcase strengths that might not be reflected in their GPA or extracurricular activities. For colleges, they provide a data point that, when used thoughtfully, can complement other aspects of an application. The key is to view test scores as one piece of a much larger puzzle, rather than the defining factor in a student’s candidacy.

The challenge lies in finding a balance. While standardized tests can offer useful information, they shouldn’t overshadow other important qualities like creativity, resilience, leadership, and the ability to overcome adversity. A student’s potential cannot be fully captured by a multiple-choice exam. By placing less emphasis on test scores and more on holistic factors, colleges can create a more equitable and inclusive admissions process—one that recognizes the unique strengths of each applicant.

As we move forward, it’s worth considering how standardized testing fits into the broader landscape of education. Perhaps the solution isn’t to eliminate these tests but to rethink their role. Could they become optional tools for students who choose to submit them, rather than mandatory hurdles? Could colleges invest more in evaluating applicants based on their contexts and achievements? These are questions worth exploring.

Standardized testing has played a significant role in college admissions for decades, but it’s not without flaws. As we strive to create a fairer and more inclusive system, it’s time to take a closer look at how we measure merit and whether these tests truly serve the students they were designed to help. By embracing a more nuanced approach, we can ensure that every student has the opportunity to shine, not just those who excel at filling in bubbles.