Test-Optional Policies: Impacts to Date and Recommendations for Equity in Admissions

Motivations for Test-Reduction Admissions Policies

The roots of the test-reduction movement lie in selective liberal arts colleges (Bennett, 2022; Zwick, 2019), which began to implement test-reduction policies in the mid-1980s (Furuta, 2017; Paris & Wacker, 2023; Pellegrino, 2022). Stated motivations for early adopters of test-reduction policies included concerns about the biases and validity of standardized assessments, and a perception among adopting institutions that test-reduction policies could help enhance the ethnic and economic diversity of the student body without compromising academic quality (Belasco et al., 2015). These motivations continue to have a role in the test-reduction movement, as institutions may perceive the removal of test requirements as equivalent to the removal of a barrier in the higher education admissions process (Matheny, 2022) and, in the case of selective colleges, the removal of a barrier to accessing an important pipeline for economic mobility (Bleemer, 2023). Other motivations tied to more pragmatic or image-focused facets of enrollment management have also been posited; these include goals to boost the number of applicants to an institution, to raise average standardized test scores, resulting in an improved school ranking (based on the idea that lower-scoring applicants will be less likely to submit scores; Belasco et al., 2015), and to generate positive publicity (Lucido, 2018). Once many schools began to adopt test-optional policies, social pressure to follow suit may have also played a factor in some decision making (Dessein et al., 2023).

a Equity effects refer to impact on socioeconomic, racial, and ethnic diversity of incoming class (e.g., number of Pell Grant recipients, representation of URMs). Enrollment refers to impacts on volume and quality of applicants, overall admissions yield, and similar metrics.

Acceleration Under COVID. The number of institutions adopting test-reduction policies began to accelerate to a certain degree in the early 2000s (Pellegrino, 2022), but an unprecedented number adopted temporary or permanent test-reduction admissions policies during the COVID-19 pandemic (Paris et al., 2022; Pellegrino, 2022). Time-limited logistical concerns directly tied to the pandemic, such as public health concerns, limited administrations of standardized assessments, and anticipated declines in student enrollment drove much of the move to enact test-reduction admissions policies in this timeframe (Paris et al., 2022; Turk et al., 2020). Correspondingly, many institutions initially framed their reduction in mandatory testing policies as temporary (Haviland et al., 2022), yet now that those policies have been implemented, and even with pandemic-related logistical challenges being resolved, most enrollment management professionals do not envision a return to prepandemic testing policies (Haviland et al., 2023; Inside Higher Ed, 2023).

Still despite this, testing policies continue to be updated. Postpandemic, two highly selective institutions (Massachusetts Institute of Technology [MIT] and Georgetown University) and a small number of public state university systems in the south (e.g., Tennessee, Georgia) resumed testing requirements permanently, though Georgia reversed course amid falling application numbers and concerns that the requirement would push students to enroll at public universities in nearby states. In early 2024, additional highly selective institutions including Dartmouth College, Yale University, Harvard University, Caltech, and Brown University also reinstated test-required policies while others (e.g., University of Pennsylvania) announced they would remain test optional at least for the upcoming application cycle. Some media outlets have speculated there is an emerging trend towards reinstating testing requirements at competitive institutions in particular. For now, however, the majority of competitive institutions as well as the majority of public state university systems continue to hold onto test-reduction policies, so it is prudent to examine the evidence that has been collected on the effectiveness of those policies across several metrics.

Effects on Volume and Quality of Applicants

While one of the motivations for moving to test-reduction policies has been to increase the number of applications to an institution (Lucido, 2018), studies have been split as to whether this effect has been taking place. Several studies did report an increase in the volume of applications (Belasco et al., 2015; Epstein, 2009; Osaki, 2022; Paris et al., 2022; Schultz & Backstrom, 2021; Syverson, 2007; Syverson et al., 2018) and admissions yield (i.e., the number of accepted applicants who enroll; Kang, 2022; Paris et al., 2022) following adoption of such policies, yet other studies found that test-reduction policies had no significant effect on volume of applications (Bennett, 2022; Felegi, 2024; Saboe & Terrizzi, 2019; Sweitzer et al., 2018) or yield (Bennett, 2022; Pellegrino, 2022; Sweitzer et al., 2018; Zwick, 2017) or even had a negative effect on volume of applications and yield (Pellegrino, 2022). Other researchers found that adopting test-reduction policies led to an initial increase in applications which did not persist over time, and which was followed by a decrease in admissions yield (Saboe & Terrizzi, 2019).

A number of studies have found promising evidence of increased enrollment of first-time undergraduates following the adoption of a test-reduction policy among selective institutions, whether the study focused on private institutions (Bennett, 2022), larger research institutions (Pellegrino, 2022), or a mixture of public and private institutions (Paris et al., 2022). Yet Saboe and Terrizzi (2019) found that adopting test-reduction policies had little effect on many other generally desirable outcomes, including overall graduation rate and retention rate.

An increase in the average standardized test scores (of those who submitted scores) of an incoming class may be desirable for schools wishing to increase perceived selectivity or placement in college rankings (Belasco et al., 2015). Two studies, Sweitzer et al. (2018) and Belasco et al. (2015), found that liberal arts institutions experienced increased standardized test scores as an effect of their test-reduction policies. Yet, in their study focusing on a mix of private and public institutions, Saboe & Terrizzi (2019) found no such increase in test scores. Possible explanations for these differing findings include different timeframes (Sweitzer et al. and Belasco et al. cover an earlier time period than does Saboe & Terrizzi) or institution types (liberal arts vs. a mixture of institution types), but there is insufficient evidence to make any such claims conclusively.

Effects on Campus Diversity

Although the adoption of test-reduction admissions policies on overall applications, enrollment, and student retention has been minimal in a global sense, from an equity lens it is perhaps more important to look at its effects on the makeup of the applicant pool and incoming class at adopting institutions to investigate whether, and in what way, adopting such policies has impacted diversity at those schools.

It is theorized that admissions tests may pose a particular barrier to underrepresented minority student groups (URMs) either due to financial challenges (Pellegrino, 2022), perceived unfairness (Walpole et al., 2005), or because racial performance differences on large-scale standardized admission tests may discourage applicants (Gómez, 2023; Holzer & Baum, 2017; Woo et al., 2022). Looking at the applications, enrollment, and success of underrepresented groups provides a clearer picture of the effect of test-reduction policies on equity in admissions than does looking at just general trends. Consider, for example, that attracting a larger pool of applicants in general does not necessarily increase equity if the institution continues to select applicants fitting the same profile that it always has.

Studies are mixed on the effects of test reduction in fostering improved representation of URMs. Some studies have found evidence of greater first-time enrollment among URMs (Bennett, 2022; Osaki, 2022; Pellegrino, 2022; Syverson et al., 2018), yet others found no effect on the enrollment of URMs over time (Belasco et al., 2015; Paris et al., 2022; Rubin & González Canché, 2019; Saboe & Terrizzi, 2019; Sweitzer et al., 2018). See Table 1 for additional details.

Economic equity is also a concern; research to date again showed inconsistent findings on whether test-reduction policies can improve participation of students from less advantaged backgrounds. For example, some studies have found that adopting a test-reduction policy led to a modest increase in Pell Grant recipients enrolling (Bennett, 2022; Felegi, 2024; Osaki, 2022; Pellegrino, 2022; Syverson et al., 2018), while others have found that adopting such a policy had no effect in that regard (Belasco et al., 2015; Paris et al., 2022; Rubin & González Canché, 2019; Saboe & Terrizzi, 2019; Sweitzer et al., 2018). The time period included in the analysis may play a role in explaining these contrasting findings. Paris et al. (2022) points out that the number of Pell Grant recipients in the general population increased significantly during the Great Recession of the late aughts, for example, as increased federal funds were pumped into the Pell Grant program. A particular concern for economic equity is that as schools admit students with more economic need, the financial supports for those students to attend may not always be present. For example, Felegi (2024) found that institutions dispersed less financial aid per student after instituting test-reduction policies, and Syverson et al. (2018) found that schools with test-optional policies gave less financial aid to applicants who had not submitted a test score with their application.

Why do findings on the impact of test-reduction policies on campus diversity differ so widely? One key difference among studies is that each examined a different set of institutions (see Table 1). Another methodological difference which may help explain the difference in findings between these studies is the timeframe which was examined. For example, while Bennett (2022), Felegi (2024), Kang (2022), Osaki (2022), Paris et al. (2022), Pellegrino (2022) and Sweitzer et al.’s (2018) analyses each cover roughly the years from 2000 to 2020, each analysis starts and ends at a slightly different time. Soboe and Terrizzi’s (2019) study covers a narrower period from 2009 to 2014, while Belasco et al.’s (2015) covers an earlier date range, from 1992 to 2010.

Policies were implemented at different times by different types of institutions, so the timeframe of these studies also affects the types of institutions they are likely to examine (Paris & Wacker, 2023)—for example, whereas many early adopters of test-reduction policies were private liberal arts institutions, COVID adopters tend to include more public institutions that have higher preexisting levels of ethnic diversity (Lovell & Mallison, 2024). Bennett (2022) reasons that earlier adopters of test-reduction policies may have been more likely to implement other shifts to recruitment and admissions policies concurrently than institutions which adopted more recently. Osaki (2022) finds that “warming effects on enrollment may be more prevalent among colleges adopting the policy relatively early” (p. 15) but proposes a different explanation for this trend. Colleges which have dropped testing requirements more recently may experience scant enrollment boosts essentially because there are already so many schools which do not require test scores, and that, therefore, dropping a testing requirement no longer makes a school stand out. Disentangling the impact of the various methodological differences on the impact of test-optional studies is still a needed area of focus for future research, especially as there are relatively few studies looking at impact in a postpandemic timeframe as of yet.

Even so, we can tentatively see some trends emerging which merit future investigation. Of the 12 studies in this review, two looked at a mixture of public and private institutions (Paris et al., 2022; Saboe & Terrizzi, 2019), two were case studies at public institutions/university systems (Rubin & González Canché, 2019; Schultz & Backstrom, 2021), six looked at principally private institutions and/or small liberal arts schools (Belasco et al., 2015; Bennett, 2022; Felegi, 2024; Osaki, 2022; Sweitzer et al., 2018; Syverson et al., 2018), one looked at large research institutions (Pellegrino, 2022), and one looked separately at effects for liberal arts and for research institutions (Kang, 2022), as demonstrated in Table 1. Notably, both studies looking at effects on equity for large research institutions found that test reduction had a positive impact on equity. Yet, among studies that looked at impact on a mixture of public and private schools, that effect disappeared. Studies focusing on liberal arts institutions were split (including the analysis in Kang, 2022). In terms of promoting racial and socioeconomic diversity, four of the studies found positive effects (Bennett, 2022; Felegi, 2024; Osaki, 2022; Syverson et al., 2018) and three found no effect (Belasco et al., 2015; Kang, 2022; Sweitzer et al. 2018). Of the studies finding positive effects, it should be noted that in looking at descriptive trends among their target institutions, Syverson et al. (2018) did not compare against a control group to account for the broader diversification of society during their study timeframe which may have contributed to increased diversity in incoming classes regardless of testing policy. The two case studies included found mixed (Schultz & Backstrom, 2021) or no (Rubin & González Canché, 2019) effects of test optional on the diversity of incoming classes.

Overall Effects of Test-Reduction

While test-reduced admissions have been occurring for years, it is still a relatively new area for academic study. The 12 papers we discussed herein represent the early findings emerging from the new era of test-optional and test-free admissions. However, given the rapid proliferation of test-reduction strategies during the pandemic, it is important now to take a step back and try to determine if these strategies are achieving the desired goals of colleges who adopt them, typically to improve access and diversity, and to increase applications.

Though some studies have shown positive effects in terms of application volume or campus diversity, evidence is mixed, and other studies have failed to find evidence of positive effects. Generally, the evidence aligns with Matheny’s (2022) conclusion that test reduction is “no panacea for vast racial and social class inequalities in pre-college resources and preparation” (p. iii). Yet, further research is needed to understand the role of these policies in the current historic context—of the 12 studies we explored, only two examined data that were collected postpandemic. And with the recent removal of Affirmative Action from schools’ toolkits, it is more important than ever to examine how these policies interact with diversity goals.

It is also important to understand the context in which the adoption of a test-reduction policy takes place. For example, from the existing literature, we see that larger, public schools, particularly those that are less selective (Kang, 2022), may observe greater increases in diversity which accompany test-reduction strategies than smaller, private schools. Examining the effects of test-reduction strategies in varying contexts will be increasingly important moving forward as the profile of schools adopting these strategies changes to include increasingly more public, ethnically diverse, and selective institutions than in the past (Lovell & Mallison, 2024).

Broadly speaking, schools do not all begin test-reduction policies from the same place. Until recently, schools adopting such policies have tended to have lower structural diversity than test-requiring institutions both before and after instituting those policies, regardless of whether they began to make up that gap after adopting the policy change (Felegi, 2024; Kang, 2022). Schools that already have diverse classes may have less latitude (or motivation) to increase diversity metrics, while schools with less structural diversity have more opportunity for change. However, the situation is not as cut and dry as it sounds—a school that currently has less diversity may also be less attractive to underrepresented groups for a variety of reasons; reducing testing requirements may not be sufficient to make a school attractive without further changes to the institution itself (e.g., reductions in cost of attendance; social supports for minoritized groups). Although further study is needed, it is unlikely that small shifts to admissions practices alone can improve diversity goals for institutions of higher education in all schools.

Consideration of Context

Research indicates that admissions approaches which consider the applicant in context may be more effective at promoting equitable admissions outcomes (Bastedo et al., 2023). For example, in a 2018 simulation study, Bastedo et al. found that admissions officers who subscribe to an understanding of admissions emphasizing educational and family contexts of applicants were significantly more likely than other admissions officers to admit a low-income applicant from an underserved high school into an entering class (Bastedo et al., 2018). Similarly, a case study at a medical school found that considering applicant context led to increased admission of URM students (Wilson et al., 2019). Another pilot study showed that providing contextual information about students increased the probability of acceptance for students from the most challenging school and neighborhood backgrounds (Mabel et al., 2022), further suggesting that the admissions strategies which are most promising for fostering diversity and equity in admissions may be those which take into account educational context.

Additional Best Practices

In addition to the consideration of context, there are various other best practices that should be followed to minimize adverse unintended consequences of implementing admissions policies. For example, grades and personal characteristics (Zwick, 2023), exams (National Association for College Admission Counseling [NACAC], 2020), and any other admissions component considered should be accompanied by a strong rationale and a study of the likely impact of its consideration. An admissions practice which is currently undergoing scrutiny at many schools is legacy admissions, a practice which tends to privilege the wealthy (Chetty et al., 2023; Liu, 2022). Transparency in what an institution values and in how applicants will be evaluated is an important fairness concern (Gooch et al., 2024; Liu, 2022; Zwick, 2023), and such information should be posted prominently where all applicants will see it, such as on an institution’s application webpage (Ober et al., 2023; Sotelo et al., 2023). A necessary prerequisite for this kind of external transparency is internal clarity on the values of the program or institution and how those values will be measured (Gooch et al., 2024). With this information, programs may align admissions procedures to their mission or values (Ober et al., 2023), potentially through the use of rubrics, as recommended by the Council of Graduate Schools (Kent & McCarthy, 2016).