Test-Optional Admissions: How Social Pressure Shapes College Decisions and Impacts Students

Core Concepts

Colleges may adopt test-optional policies not just to enhance diversity, but also to minimize social pressure stemming from disagreements over the weight placed on standardized test scores versus other admission factors.

Abstract

• Bibliographic Information: Dessein, W., Frankel, A., & Kartik, N. (2024). Test-Optional Admissions (No. w31504). National Bureau of Economic Research.
• Research Objective: This paper investigates the motivations behind the widespread adoption of test-optional admissions policies by U.S. colleges and analyzes their consequences for colleges, students, and society. The authors challenge the common claim that these policies primarily aim to increase diversity and propose an alternative explanation: social pressure.
• Methodology: The authors develop a theoretical model where a college aims to maximize its utility from admissions, considering both its preferences over student characteristics and the disutility from disagreeing with societal preferences. The model analyzes different admission regimes: test-mandatory, test-blind, and test-optional with flexible or restricted imputation rules for missing test scores.
• Key Findings: The study finds that under social pressure, colleges can benefit from going test-optional by strategically using imputation rules to minimize disagreement costs with society. This benefit arises regardless of whether the college is generally more or less selective than society. However, the impact on student welfare is heterogeneous: student groups favored by the college benefit from test-optional policies, while those less aligned with the college's preferences are disadvantaged.
• Main Conclusions: The research highlights the significant role of social pressure in shaping college admission policies. While test-optional policies can advance a college's interests, they may not necessarily lead to fairer or more socially desirable outcomes. The authors suggest that understanding the interplay between social pressure, information disclosure, and strategic decision-making is crucial for evaluating the effectiveness and equity of different admission regimes.
• Significance: This study provides a novel framework for understanding the complexities of test-optional admissions. It sheds light on the strategic behavior of colleges in response to social pressure and the potential unintended consequences for different student demographics.
• Limitations and Future Research: The model makes simplifying assumptions, such as abstracting from the cost of test preparation and application. Future research could explore these aspects and empirically test the model's predictions using real-world data. Additionally, investigating the competitive dynamics between colleges with different testing policies would enrich the analysis.

Stats

By 2019, one-third of the 900+ colleges that accepted the Common Application did not require test scores.
In the 2021–22 application season, 95% of Common-Application colleges did not require test scores.
In a 2022 PEW research survey, only 26% of respondents thought that race or ethnicity should be even a minor factor in college admissions, with 25% for legacy status.
39% thought that test scores should be a major factor in college admissions, and an additional 46% thought they should be a minor factor.

Quotes

"Proponents of test-optional admissions often cite concerns that standardized testing may disadvantage low-income students and students of color."
"Hence a puzzle: if a college can use test scores as it would like, why choose not to have access to a student’s score? Why throw away potentially valuable information?"
"Our paper proposes, instead, that test-optional policies are driven by social pressure on admission decisions."
"Our broad argument is that by hiding score disparities among students who do not submit their test scores, a college lowers the cost of disagreement with 'society'."

Key Insights Distilled From

Test-Optional Admissions

by Wouter Desse... at arxiv.org 11-12-2024

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2304.07551.pdf

Deeper Inquiries

How might the increasing prevalence of test-optional policies impact the development and use of alternative assessment methods for college admissions?

The increasing prevalence of test-optional policies could act as a catalyst for the development and use of alternative assessment methods in college admissions. Here's how:

Incentivizing Innovation: With standardized tests no longer a universal requirement, colleges are incentivized to explore and adopt more holistic and multifaceted approaches to evaluate applicants. This creates a demand for alternative assessment methods that can provide a more comprehensive picture of a student's abilities and potential.
Focus on Non-Cognitive Skills: Traditional standardized tests often fail to capture important non-cognitive skills such as creativity, critical thinking, collaboration, and communication. Test-optional policies open the door for assessments that can measure these attributes, potentially through methods like portfolio submissions, project-based evaluations, or structured interviews.
Emphasis on Demonstrated Interest and Fit: Colleges may place greater emphasis on factors like demonstrated interest in the school, alignment with the college's values, and the student's potential to contribute to the campus community. This could involve evaluating extracurricular activities, essays, letters of recommendation, and even social media presence in a more nuanced way.
Technological Advancements: The shift away from standardized tests could accelerate the development of technology-driven assessment tools. This might include the use of artificial intelligence to analyze essays, data mining techniques to assess online profiles, or virtual reality simulations to evaluate problem-solving skills in realistic scenarios.
However, there are also challenges associated with this transition:

Standardization and Comparability: Developing alternative assessments that are standardized and comparable across different schools and applicant pools is a significant challenge. Without a common yardstick, evaluating students fairly and efficiently becomes complex.
Bias and Access: It's crucial to ensure that alternative assessment methods don't introduce new forms of bias or disadvantage students from under-resourced backgrounds. Access to resources and opportunities to develop the skills and experiences valued by these assessments needs careful consideration.
Cost and Feasibility: Developing, implementing, and evaluating new assessment methods can be resource-intensive for colleges. Balancing innovation with practicality and affordability will be essential.
In conclusion, the test-optional movement has the potential to drive significant innovation in college admissions, leading to a more holistic and equitable evaluation process. However, careful consideration must be given to ensure that these alternative methods are fair, reliable, and accessible to all students.

Could the emphasis on social pressure overshadow the potential benefits of standardized testing in identifying and supporting talented students from disadvantaged backgrounds who might otherwise be overlooked?

Yes, the emphasis on social pressure in college admissions, particularly the pressure to increase diversity, could potentially overshadow the benefits of standardized testing in identifying talented students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Here's why:

Perceived Bias in Standardized Tests: Standardized tests have been criticized for reflecting existing socioeconomic disparities rather than innate ability. Students from underprivileged backgrounds often lack access to quality education, test preparation resources, and enriching experiences that can boost test scores. This leads to concerns that relying heavily on test scores perpetuates inequality.
Shifting Focus from Academic Potential: When colleges prioritize diversity metrics or other non-academic factors in response to social pressure, they might inadvertently overlook academically gifted students from disadvantaged backgrounds whose potential is evident in their test scores but not fully reflected in other aspects of their application.
"Mismatch" Concerns: Some argue that de-emphasizing standardized tests could lead to a "mismatch" effect, where students are admitted to institutions for which they are not academically prepared. This could result in higher dropout rates or struggles for students from disadvantaged backgrounds, even if their admission was intended to be beneficial.
However, it's important to acknowledge the counterarguments:

Holistic Admissions: Proponents of holistic admissions argue that standardized tests provide a narrow view of a student's potential. They believe that considering a broader range of factors, including personal background, challenges overcome, and unique talents, can help identify students from disadvantaged backgrounds who might thrive in a challenging academic environment.
Test Scores as a Tool for Equity: Some argue that standardized test scores, when used appropriately as one factor among many, can actually promote equity. High test scores can serve as objective evidence of academic ability, helping talented students from under-resourced schools stand out and gain access to opportunities they might otherwise miss.
Ultimately, the key lies in striking a balance. Colleges should strive to create admissions processes that are both fair and effective. This involves:

Contextualizing Test Scores: Colleges should interpret standardized test scores within the context of a student's socioeconomic background, educational opportunities, and personal experiences.
Investing in Support Systems: Simply admitting a more diverse student body is not enough. Colleges must also invest in robust support systems, such as tutoring, mentoring, and financial aid, to ensure that all students have the resources they need to succeed.
Exploring Alternative Assessments: As discussed earlier, developing and implementing alternative assessment methods that can more accurately and equitably measure student potential is crucial.
In conclusion, while social pressure to increase diversity is important, it's crucial to ensure that it doesn't come at the expense of overlooking talented students from disadvantaged backgrounds. A balanced approach that considers both standardized test scores and a broader range of factors, while also providing adequate support, is essential for creating a more equitable and effective college admissions process.

If colleges are susceptible to social pressure in their admissions decisions, how can we ensure that other important decisions made by institutions, businesses, or governments are driven by objective evidence and ethical considerations rather than external influences?

The susceptibility of colleges to social pressure in admissions highlights a broader challenge: ensuring that important decisions across institutions are based on sound judgment rather than undue external influence. Here are some strategies to address this:
1. Promote Transparency and Accountability:

Clear Decision-Making Processes: Institutions should establish and clearly communicate transparent decision-making processes. This includes outlining the factors considered, the weight assigned to each factor, and the rationale behind the chosen approach.
Public Data and Reporting: Whenever possible, institutions should make relevant data publicly available and provide regular reports on their decisions. This allows for external scrutiny and helps identify potential biases or inconsistencies.
Independent Audits and Reviews: Periodic independent audits or reviews by external experts can help assess the fairness, objectivity, and ethical soundness of decision-making processes.
2. Foster Diverse Perspectives and Inclusivity:

Representation in Decision-Making Bodies: Institutions should strive for diversity in their leadership, boards, and committees involved in making important decisions. This ensures that a wider range of perspectives, experiences, and values are considered.
Mechanisms for Feedback and Dissent: Creating formal channels for stakeholders to provide feedback, voice concerns, and express dissenting opinions can help mitigate the influence of a single dominant viewpoint.
Open Dialogue and Deliberation: Fostering a culture of open dialogue, respectful debate, and evidence-based deliberation can help ensure that decisions are well-reasoned and consider diverse viewpoints.
3. Strengthen Ethical Frameworks and Training:

Codes of Conduct and Ethics Training: Institutions should develop and enforce clear codes of conduct that emphasize ethical considerations in decision-making. Regular ethics training can help individuals recognize and navigate potential conflicts of interest or undue influence.
Whistleblower Protection: Establishing robust whistleblower protection policies encourages individuals to report unethical behavior or improper influence without fear of retaliation.
Ethical Review Boards: For decisions with significant ethical implications, institutions can consider establishing independent ethical review boards to provide oversight and guidance.
4. Cultivate Critical Thinking and Media Literacy:

Education and Awareness: Promoting critical thinking skills and media literacy among stakeholders can help them evaluate information objectively, identify potential biases, and resist manipulation or undue influence.
Fact-Checking and Source Verification: Encouraging a culture of fact-checking and source verification can help mitigate the spread of misinformation or misleading narratives that might unduly influence decisions.
5. Legal and Regulatory Measures:

Anti-Discrimination Laws: Existing anti-discrimination laws can be used to challenge decisions that are unfairly influenced by social pressure based on protected characteristics.
Campaign Finance Reform: In the context of government decisions, campaign finance reform can help reduce the influence of special interest groups that might exert pressure through political contributions.
Addressing the influence of social pressure requires a multi-faceted approach. By promoting transparency, inclusivity, ethical conduct, critical thinking, and appropriate legal frameworks, we can encourage institutions to make decisions based on sound judgment and objective evidence, ultimately serving the best interests of all stakeholders.