“Test-Optional Admissions and the Hidden Inequalities of Holistic Review” by Noah Cohen
- 2 hours ago
- 2 min read
Author: Noah Cohen
Date Published: 2026.01.31
Category: Research Article
Discipline(s): Education Policy, Sociology
Key Words: test-optional admissions; college access; equity; standardized testing; higher education; merit; socioeconomic inequality; holistic review
Abstract
Test-optional college admissions policies have expanded rapidly in the United States, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted access to the SAT and ACT. Supporters argue that removing score requirements can reduce barriers for low-income and underrepresented applicants, broaden applicant pools, and weaken the role of tests that reflect unequal educational opportunity. Critics counter that test-optional policies may have limited effects on actual enrollment diversity, may obscure useful academic information, and may unintentionally disadvantage strong low-income students whose scores could help them stand out. This paper argues that test-optional admissions can improve equity, but only under specific conditions. On their own, they tend to improve access most clearly at the application stage, while producing smaller or more uneven gains in actual enrollment and student diversity. Their equity benefits are strongest when institutions provide clear guidance about score submission, use contextual review consistently, scrutinize inequities in non-test components such as extracurricular activities, and pair admissions reform with outreach, affordability, and transparency. In this sense, test-optional admissions should be understood not as a complete solution to admissions inequality, but as a useful reform whose success depends on how institutions redefine merit after testing requirements are relaxed.
Author’s Note
I chose this topic because test-optional admissions seem to generate a kind of argument that is bigger than the policy itself. People often debate the issue as if the question were simply whether standardized tests are fair. But the more I read, the more it seemed that the deeper question is what colleges really mean by merit. If tests are removed, do admissions become more equitable, or do other advantages simply become more important?
That tension interested me because both sides raise real points. Standardized tests clearly reflect unequal access to educational resources and test preparation. At the same time, they can also provide a common signal that helps some high-achieving students from less advantaged backgrounds demonstrate their academic strength. I found it especially interesting that the same policy can be described either as expanding opportunity or as removing one of the few standardized tools disadvantaged students can use to stand out.
In writing this paper, I wanted to avoid taking the easiest position on either side. I did not want to treat test-optional admissions as a cure for inequality, but I also did not want to assume that retaining testing requirements is automatically fairer. Instead, I tried to focus on what recent evidence suggests about when test-optional policies actually help and when they fall short. That seemed more useful than asking whether such policies are simply good or bad in the abstract. My goal was to understand not only whether test-optional admissions improve equity, but what colleges would need to do for them to improve equity in a meaningful way.
Read The Full Work Below: