The University of California Shouldn’t Drop the SAT (Yet)

The University of California Board of Regents voted unanimously last week to phase out the SAT and ACT in their admissions process, becoming by far the largest group of universities in the country to jettison the standardized tests in recent years. Advocates hailed the move as a victory for equity, with Board of Regents member Cecilia Estolano calling the tests a “proxy for privilege.”

It is true that higher-income students tend to do better on the SAT and ACT than their lower-income peers. But standardized tests are also a relatively low-cost way for disadvantaged students to demonstrate their readiness for the rigorous coursework at selective colleges such as UCLA and Berkeley. Ending the use of tests in college admissions may end up exacerbating rather than reducing inequities.

The UC system’s own faculty review committee concluded as much in February, writing that standardized tests “aid in predicting important aspects of student success.” They are right. Students who score higher on the SAT have a much better chance of actually graduating from college within six years, even after accounting for family income (see chart). Though standardized tests have flaws, they are nonetheless measuring something real about students’ aptitude for college.

Many of critics’ broadsides against standardized tests are valid. Taking the test multiple times has been shown to cause 100-point swings in scores, meaning students who can afford several attempts will attain a higher maximum score. The effectiveness of expensive SAT prep courses is controversial, but they are still a potential source of unfairness. The tests also do not capture many “soft skills” students need to be successful in college, such as good time management.

However, the question is not whether the SAT and ACT are perfect, but whether there are better alternatives. Some have suggested that colleges could rely more on high school grades for admissions, which are sometimes better predictors of college success than standardized tests. However, a standardized measure of student aptitude such as the SAT is necessary to forestall grade inflation. Without an objective yardstick against which to measure grades, high schools will have every incentive to liberally hand out A’s in order to get more of their students into top colleges.

At the University of California, the lack of standardized tests and the unreliability of high school grades mean college admissions committees will probably place more emphasis on subjective factors. Expect personal essays, interviews, letters of recommendation, and family connections to become more important in the admissions process. Students from families with more resources will have a significant advantage in fine-tuning their performance along these dimensions to admissions officers’ preferences.

As Rick Hess writes, “the default setting will be to give admissions staff extraordinary discretion. That should give us pause. After all, these individuals can be prone to the same sorts of biases as anyone else.”

The SAT and ACT have major problems, as I have argued before. I would be overjoyed if someone came up with an alternative that is fairer and more precisely identifies student ability. The University of California has signaled its intention to develop a new exam. But until that alternative exists and has a proven track record, colleges should keep using SAT and ACT scores in their admissions processes. At least for now, there are no better options.