Many factors that build a college application are subjective. An applicant’s essay, the prestige of their extracurriculars and the virtues highlighted in their letters of recommendation are all evaluated by the preferences of a small group of admissions officers. This the nature of college admissions. Standardized tests are a necessary way to eliminate bias in college applications. 

I took the ACT this year, pouring hours into reviewing material and taking endless practice tests. It was not easy, but it was worth the effort. In an era where many universities are test-optional, people question whether test scores are still relevant in college applications. Still, standardized test scores remain the most objective metric in a college application, as they provide a clear benchmark of academic ability, predict college readiness and counteract bias in the college admissions process. 

Many college admission offices stress their “holistic application” approach, evaluating people on all of their qualifications as a candidate and not just a number or score. While this is a great policy, admission committees must have at least one objective metric to assess academic readiness. A US News and World Report article said that test scores are the most objective method of finding qualified candidates. They can more reliably predict a student’s academic success in college than their grade point average (GPA), as test scores can not be influenced by grade inflation and inconsistent standards in grading. 

“From the colleges’ perspective, standardized test scores somewhat level the playing field in terms of better understanding the students’ academic context,” Robin Miller, a college admissions counselor at IvyWise said in a US News and World Report article.

According to Horizon Education, many universities such as Harvard, Stanford and Purdue are all requiring testing again in the coming years after becoming test-optional as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. At Harvard University, the admissions committee brought back test-required policies because they said that “the role of standardized testing [is] to help predict college and post-college success for students.” 

Even at test-optional universities, CollegeVine reports that many admissions officers subconsciously form biases and presumptions that students did not score well on standardized tests because they chose to not submit a score. Submission of test scores eliminates tendencies of admissions officers to jump to conclusions about an applicant’s decision not to submit scores, encouraging them to weigh the applicant equally against others. 

Advocates of test-optional policies often claim that test scores are higher among more affluent people, which disadvantages people of lower socio-economic statuses. In reality, many free tutoring options are widely regarded as effective in test prep. For example, the College Board promotes the use of Khan Academy as test prep material, which is free and effective.

Additionally, according to US News and World Report, lower socio-economic applicants who don’t report their scores are at a disadvantage in the college process. Seeing this demographic’s scores helps admissions officers determine whether students are scoring higher than others in their area. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) states that test scores “help us identify socioeconomically disadvantaged students who lack access to advanced coursework or other enrichment opportunities,” which directly disproves the fact that test scores hurt applicants of lower socio-economic status. 

Colleges and universities must keep their holistic approach to admissions, but that approach is not complete without requiring standardized testing. It is crucial to emphasize the most objective means of a college application to reduce selectivity, as every applicant wants to be weighed equitably. Without standardized testing, the admissions process becomes a guessing game, disadvantaging students who have worked hard to prove their academic capabilities on a national scale.

Like many other juniors, I have been trying to boost my ACT score, because I know that my score is a crucial aspect of my college application for test-required schools. However, the impact that these tests can have on our college admissions is unjustified, as they are neither fair nor effective at objectively measuring students’ abilities or intelligence.

Standardized exams intend to test intelligence by having test takers answer similar questions under similar conditions. However, standardized tests are a corrupt means of getting this information as they are ignorant of factors such as mental capability and socio-economic factors.

There are many test altering factors such as test anxiety, distracting environments, socio-economic disadvantages and racial bias in standardized tests that remain unchecked. 

The first factor that can unfairly impact the outcome of these tests is test anxiety. According to the College of Western Idaho, 25-40% of students suffer from test anxiety. Test anxiety is a form of performance anxiety that causes stress and heightened blood pressure in test takers before and during a test. Stress and anxiety can impair test takers’ mental clarity, thus affecting their scores.

As someone who struggles with test anxiety, I have seen firsthand how my stress during the real test versus non-stressful practice tests has impacted the outcome of my scores.

Standardized tests have also been highly criticized for inequity. Research from the Harvard Gazette shows that children of the wealthiest 1% of Americans were 13 times likelier to score higher than children of low-income families because of easier access to costly tools. 

Not only does taking the test itself cost $65 to $90, according to PrepScholar, ACT tutoring costs vary, but may fall anywhere from $30 to $200 per hour of one-on-one tutoring, and group classes fall between $30 to $100 per hour. Many people do not want to pay this amount or do not have the means to pay for tutoring and thus don’t have the same tools for such an important exam.

Speaking from experience, my ACT score went up five points (out of a 36-point test) from my practice ACT to my first official test. I largely attribute this to my two months of weekly ACT tutoring. It is simply unfair that test scores can be so largely affected by a variable which not everyone has the means for.

Beyond tutoring, the College Board offers many tools to improve scores, like official preparation guides and practice tests that not everyone can afford, costing anywhere from $50 to $100. The lack of thought for how the socio-economic status of test takers may affect their ability to prepare for tests and therefore their scores renders the test inconsiderate and, frankly, pointless. 

There is also a proven racial bias in these tests. According to Justice for Learning, low test scores among African-American and Latino students tend to be attributed to cultural differences and stereotyping that may undermine their learning overall as well as their performance on standardized tests.

According to Brookings, these racial and cultural differences stem from “generations of exclusionary housing, education, and economic policy.”

Not only are standardized tests marginalizing, but they also limits the ability to exhibit critical thinking skills, which are true tests of intelligence.

The National Education Association argues that tests like the ACT and SAT fail to measure intelligence effectively. Since these exams primarily consist of multiple-choice questions, they restrict students’ ability to demonstrate a broad range of skills. As a result, the heavy weight these scores carry in college admissions creates an unfair evaluation of applicants. 

These unfair standardized tests can still have massive impacts applications to schools that are still test mandatory in their admissions. Given these flaws, standardized tests should not be used as tests of intelligence or understood as the only objective factor of a college application.