For more than a century, standardized testing like the SAT had been a deciding factor on whether students could get into the top college of their choice. It was not until the COVID-19 pandemic, when many testing centers closed, that colleges rushed to implement test-optional and test-blind policies. The results were staggering. Ivy League institutions like Cornell, which implemented both policies, saw an unprecedented surge of applications in 2020 from nontraditional applicants.
Since then, there has been much discourse on whether standardized testing is a barrier to higher education for first-generation students and students from backgrounds underrepresented in higher education. With more than 2,000 colleges still test-optional today, we’ve taken a step in the right direction towards bringing more inclusivity to higher education. Some Ivy League colleges, however, have started to require SAT and ACT scores again after seeing little impact in diversifying their admissions through test-optional policies.
Recent data from SSP International (SSPI), a nonprofit offering pre-college residential STEM research experiences to high schoolers, suggests that colleges have not gone far enough to make the admissions process accessible for marginalized students. In fact, test-optional policies may be doing more harm than good. While test-optional policies have become popular among colleges, test-blind policies remain vastly unexplored, with roughly only 85 colleges being test-blind this year out of nearly 6,000 institutions.
Before we look into the data, let’s first differentiate what test-optional and test-blind policies mean.
Test-Optional vs. Test-Blind
Test-optional means that colleges do not require students to submit their test scores but will still consider the scores in the admissions process, providing an uneven advantage to students with access to tutoring. These students – who are less likely to be from historically underrepresented backgrounds – are more likely to report their scores and benefit from them. Test-blind means that colleges do not take standardized test scores into consideration during their admissions process.
The Case for Test-Blind Policies
SSP International, which runs the Summer Science Program, one of the most renowned and longest-running summer STEM programs in the nation, uses a careful but holistic admissions process that maintains its program’s competitive edge while ensuring it remains accessible to students from underrepresented communities.
In 2024, SSP International implemented a test-blind policy for the first time and later recorded 352 responses from 368 participants regarding their perceptions of test scores and whether they create barriers when applying to its program.
The study found that the test-blind policy encouraged more first-generation and underrepresented high school students to apply to the Summer Science Program. When the participants were asked if they would have submitted their test scores if the program was test-optional, first-generation and underrepresented students reported feeling more uncertain about and less likely to submit test scores than their non-first-generation and underrepresented peers, even among strong test performers who would have otherwise benefitted from submitting their test scores.
Another key finding was that first-generation and underrepresented respondents were more likely to encounter barriers to taking standardized tests, with 16% of them reporting no barriers compared to 49% of their non-first-generation and underrepresented peers. They reported test costs, lack of access to preparatory materials and insufficient time as the top three barriers to taking a standardized test.
The data ultimately shows that test-optional policies fall short in diversifying academia. They put students historically excluded by standardized test barriers at a bigger disadvantage than their non-marginalized peers, who are more likely to submit their test scores. Test-blind not only brings more equity to the admissions process, but it positively influences first-generation and underrepresented students to apply to academic opportunities.
Broader Implications
With colleges scaling back their DEI initiatives following the end of affirmative action and the recent decisions from the current administration, SSPI’s survey results demonstrate how admissions policies can meaningfully impact first-generation and underrepresented students.
SSPI’s data also sheds light on the critical need to provide marginalized students with a socially supportive environment that can reinforce their sense of belonging and soft skills before they graduate from high school. Emphasis on standardized testing over teamwork and communication is clearly leaving students from marginalized socioeconomic backgrounds feeling more isolated and underestimated. By offering opportunities like SSP International’s Summer Science Program, we can equip these students with the skills and confidence they need to aim high and compete at top colleges.
If you’re interested in learning more about SSP International and its Summer Science Program, please visit summerscience.org.
