Public Colleges Urged to Rethink Admissions Policy Beyond SAT Scores

Observers have noted convergence between the Ivy League and Trump administration at one point: the SAT was being characterised as a "big, beautiful" test. According to reports, the administration had launched a Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education that favoured federal funding to schools that mandated standardised tests, such as the SAT or ACT. At the same time, it was said that Ivy League universities gave intellectual backing to the SAT reinstatement debate. Harvard, Dartmouth and Brown resumed the requirement after the pandemic test‑optional period.

Analysts explained that predictive validity is the claim of admissions tests upon which hangs the pro-SAT argument. The SAT purportedly predicted college success more accurately than did high school GPA. Research over decades all pointed to systemic evidence against such assumptions. The University of California and other public institutions continuously showed that high school GPA outperformed SAT, within the predictive power favouring GPA, which, as defined, reflected years of academic work-especially essays, labs, and exams, while the SAT is characterised as a two-hour snapshot. When the factors of family income and race are added, GPA can outperform the SAT by about 60 per cent in predicting first-year grades even at Ivy-Plus schools.

Commentators considered the diversity argument for testing to be largely illusory. To suggest that a 1400 from a low-income student has two different meanings was comforting, but without empirical evidence. In reality, ranking students by SAT score would introduce privilege bias and inequity in standardised testing against high-achieving students from underrepresented backgrounds. This was again read as an indication of SAT unsuitability for public universities since the mission of public higher education was to extend opportunities and upward mobility through higher education.

Experts emphasised that admissions policies of public institutions must not rely on selective-test models borrowed from elite private universities. Such a system, they claim, is to be criticised because what public universities lose in attaching selective tests, as compared to school grades, is credibility with respect to their public mission. Evidence against the predictive power of standardised tests for public colleges also showed how the SAT harms social mobility in public higher education. Hence, the policy implications of reinstating the SAT in state-funded institutions were considered negative. These would damage holistic admissions review and meritocracy in higher education.

Recommendations ranged from admitting reform to the public college systems of America to holistic approaches. They suggested that state universities determine admissions policy reform for public colleges with the focus of constructing holistic review systems for public universities and conducting equity audits of university testing practices. They also reinforced students' abilities to apply to a public university without SAT scores while balancing admissions research services for state higher education institutions with the public mission of universities versus selective testing.

All in all, the debate concerning the SAT for public admissions at US universities has proven that standardised testing remains contrary to the American public higher education system. Because of the effects of reinstating SAT requirements on underrepresented students in public universities, the SAT is responsible for reducing social mobility in public universities. The role which high school GPA plays in successfully gaining university admission still outweighs that of standardised testing, and the long-term mission of state universities should be to widen access, rather than reinforce inequity.

Editor’s Note:

The ongoing controversy surrounding the SAT undoubtedly brings to the fore a more serious divergence within selective private universities as compared to the public education mission. For Ivy League schools and politicians, the test has predictive validity and could address issues of diversity. Findings long before from state universities, however, have suggested otherwise. Indeed, research has shown repeatedly that high school GPA is a better indication of readiness, reflecting a years-long commitment to serious academic work, rather than a brief exam. This disqualifies SAT from public universities, where the mandate must be to expand access and facilitate social mobility through higher education. Lately, commentators have also claimed that the diversity argument attached to standardised tests is misleading. Empirical evidence does not support the contention that having the same mark could have different meanings to students of different backgrounds. In practice, however, SAT scores demonstrate privilege bias and inequity in standardised testing, placing at a disadvantage even high-achieving students from underrepresented groups. Thus, among those public institutions that extend the opportunity, this heavy reliance on selective testing undermines their credibility and fairness. In this light, reforms such as holistic admissions review, equity audits, and the option of applying without the SAT would best suit the public mission of universities. The reinstatement of the SAT requirements at state-funded institutions has negative policy implications: the SAT requirement will reduce social mobility and further undermine meritocracy in higher education.

Skoobuzz underlines that the SAT remains unsuitable for public universities, as it undermines equity and social mobility. High school GPA offers a stronger, fairer measure of achievement, and admissions policies must prioritise inclusiveness and sustained academic effort over selective testing.

FAQs

1. Why do critics say the SAT is a poor fit for public universities?

Commentators have argued that the SAT is unsuitable for public universities because it often reflects privilege rather than ability. They explained that public institutions are meant to widen access and promote social mobility, yet standardised testing tends to disadvantage the very students these universities are designed to serve.

2. Does GPA predict college success better than the SAT?

Researchers have consistently found that high school GPA is a stronger predictor of college success than the SAT. GPA reflects years of sustained academic work, essays, labs and exams, while the SAT is only a brief snapshot. When background factors such as income and race are considered, GPA outperforms the SAT by a significant margin.

3. How does SAT use affect diversity at state universities?

Analysts have noted that ranking applicants by SAT scores can reduce diversity. The test often mirrors socio‑economic advantage, meaning high‑achieving students from underrepresented backgrounds may be overlooked. As a result, SAT use can undermine equity in admissions at state universities.

4. What happens when public colleges drop standardised testing?

Evidence suggests that when public colleges adopt test‑optional policies, they can broaden access. Removing the SAT requirement allows admissions teams to focus more on sustained academic performance and holistic review, which better aligns with the mission of public higher education.

5. Can test‑optional policies improve access for underrepresented students?

Observers have said that test‑optional policies can indeed improve access. By reducing reliance on standardised testing, universities are able to consider a wider range of achievements and experiences, making it easier for underrepresented students to gain admission and succeed.