In an op-ed published last week, Schuyler Colfax ’25 argued that the College should discontinue its test-optional admissions policy, which it implemented during the COVID pandemic. Colfax raises important issues that merit careful consideration, and although his arguments focus specifically on the College, they reflect broader concerns relevant to peer institutions, a few of which have recently reinstated their pre-pandemic testing requirements. However, a closer examination of the evidence leads me to disagree with Colfax. Test-optional policies like the College’s have increased diversity and equity at institutions of higher education without sacrificing academic rigor.
Colfax rightly highlights an important nuance: When contextualized properly (such as by using tools like the College Board’s “Landscape”), standardized test scores can help identify talented students who might otherwise be overlooked. A study from this year, focusing on Dartmouth College, shows that students from socioeconomically “disadvantaged” communities who withhold relatively strong standardized test scores can inadvertently decrease their chances of admission.
However, in his argument, Colfax misses the broader body of evidence regarding test-optional policies. Admittedly, some older studies have found the impacts of test-optional policies on diversity to be statistically insignificant. For instance, studies by Belasco et al. (2015) and Rubin and González Canché (2019) found that test-optional policies have only minimal effects on the racial and socioeconomic diversity of incoming classes. More recent analyses, however, provide stronger evidence that requiring test scores hinders diversity. A comprehensive study by Vanderbilt’s Christopher Bennett from 2022, which examined nearly 100 institutions, demonstrated that test optional policies were associated with enrollment increases among historically underrepresented minority and low-income students. Specifically, Bennett reported a three-percent to four-percent increase in matriculation of Pell Grant recipients and a 10-percent to 12-percent increase in first-time students from underrepresented racial and ethnic backgrounds after the implemention of such policies. The University of California system also provides a dramatic example. After implementing a test-blind policy in 2020, it reported record-high diversity among admitted students in 2021, including significant increases in Black and Latino student enrollment. These recent findings show that not requiring test scores catalyzes essential progress within a deeply inequitable educational landscape.
Beyond overlooking the broader potential of test-optional policies to increase diversity, Colfax also somewhat overstates the extent to which standardized test results predict academic success in college. Longitudinal studies consistently show that high school GPA also remains a relatively strong predictor of college success (though it, too, reflects systemic inequities across different K–12 schools). For instance, a 2020 study found that high school GPA was five times stronger than ACT scores at predicting college graduation. A 2014 study found negligible differences in college GPAs and graduation rates between students who did and did not submit test scores.
Of course, even with test-optional policies, disparities persist in higher education. As noted by the Brookings Institution, selective colleges continue to disproportionately enroll wealthier students, reflecting broader socioeconomic inequities in admissions processes — inequities that standardized testing requirements alone do little to mitigate.
In the current post-affirmative action moment, test-optional policies provide admissions officers greater flexibility to evaluate applicants through alternative metrics like place-based factors (which consider applicants’ geographic or school contexts), first-generation status, and applicants’ other socioeconomic circumstances. Such metrics, when thoughtfully integrated into holistic admissions processes, can better capture the potential and diverse strengths of applicants. A more holistic approach is especially important when evaluating applicants whose experiences reflect intersectional identities related to race, gender, disability, LGBTQ+ status, immigration status, or refugee background.
Instead of reinstating testing policies, colleges and universities should take a more equitable and evidence-based path forward. First they should enhance transparency in admissions, including clear guidance about when submitting standardized test scores may benefit applicants, and analyze institutional data to identify if applicants inadvertently disadvantage themselves by withholding scores.
Second, admissions offices should leverage place-based assessment frameworks to identify high-potential applicants.
Third, they should expand targeted outreach efforts to promising students from underserved communities, similar to successful programs such as Posse, QuestBridge, and the University of California’s Early Academic Outreach Program.
Ultimately, the evidence clearly supports maintaining test-optional admissions. Abandoning this policy would risk reversing gains in diversity and access achieved without compromising academic standards. Test-optional policies recognize the complexity of academic potential and align with a broader commitment to equity, inclusion, and justice in higher education.
Chad M. Topaz is a professor of complex systems.
