The SAT claims to measure merit, but how fair can it be when wealth often predicts your score? While many factors contribute to college applications, such as extracurricular activities and essays, standardized testing scores have long been a large contributor to a student’s application. In recent years, some colleges have opted to be test-optional in efforts to make applying more approachable, though many still require the scores. However, there is an important flaw with the use of standardized testing in the college admissions process.
Students from high-income families are set up, often from the beginning, with access to higher-quality schools, private tutors, and more time and funds to engage in impressive extracurriculars. While these issues are larger and systemic, an achievable step to equity is eliminating the pressure of scoring a high Standardized Academic Testing (SAT) score. The SAT is an unequal measure of student ability, as economic privilege gives wealthy students access to resources that low-income students often cannot afford, skewing test results.
The SAT fundamentally prefers wealthier students. According to data from a study by the New York Times, students with families in the top 20 percent of earners are seven times more likely to score a 1300 or above on the SAT than students with families in the bottom 20 percent of earners.
More affluent students are also more likely to be diagnosed and receive the appropriate accommodations for conditions like ADHD and test taking anxiety, both of which, when unaccounted for, can impair test results. The process for receiving diagnoses for these conditions can be expensive and time consuming, often requiring visits with specialists that low-income families cannot afford. As a result, students may go undiagnosed and unsupported, giving them a significant disadvantage in a testing environment meant to be an equal.
Economic differences can negatively influence the educational experiences available to students. This is due to systemic issues beginning as early as elementary school education. Experts such as Sean Reardon, a professor of poverty and inequality in education with a degree from the Stanford Graduate School of Education, have studied this issue.
“Kids in disadvantaged neighborhoods end up behind the starting line even when they get to kindergarten,” Reardon said.
Early education sets up wealthier children for better academic performance later in life, giving them an advantage in the competitive college applications process. In fact, according to the Pew Research Center, the average cognitive scores of children in high earning families are 60 percent above the lowest earning families, showing a clear sign of inequity.
Educational disparities are not just a result of individual effort, but are shown in the conditions students grow up in. Factors like lack of access to higher quality schools, fewer extracurricular opportunities and financial stress make large differences in academic performance. These early gaps in preparation accumulate over time and are reflected in standardized test scores.
A common argument in favor of the SAT is that it allows students from poorer backgrounds to stand out and that it is a generally equal test because it is the same for all test takers. The organization that administers the SAT, CollegeBoard, explained the benefits of the standardized test on their website.
“The SAT can serve as a unique opportunity to showcase who you are and what you excel at. It helps you stand out among applicants with similar GPAs and extracurricular activities,” said CollegeBoard.
Even though the SAT can give some students from poorer backgrounds a chance to stand out, even when they often aren’t able to dedicate as much time to extracurriculars to strengthen their applications, it’s unfortunately very uncommon for this to be the case. To keep the SAT in place using this reasoning is unrealistic.
Less than one percent of students in the bottom 20 percent of earners scored above a 1300 on the SAT, according to data gathered in the 2010s. Only one fifth of these students even took the test at all. The statistics show that students from underprivileged backgrounds have a significantly lower chance of obtaining a competitive score than their more affluent peers.
The comparison Reardon used of a starting line helps explain the issues of standardized testing. Financial disparities in the SAT are similar to starting a race at two different points. Two runners can run the same track, putting in equal effort, but if one starts before the other, they are bound to finish first. The racer starting behind must put in much more effort to even compete.
Given the overwhelming evidence of inequality in standardized testing, it is clear that the SAT does not offer a level playing field; it reinforces existing economic disparities. True educational equity requires recognizing that effort alone cannot overcome systemic barriers.
Eliminating or minimizing the weight of standardized tests in college admissions is a necessary step towards a fairer process that evaluates students’ backgrounds and the unequal conditions they’ve had to navigate.
