By Vanguard Staff
Universities that have eliminated standardized test requirements for admissions in recent years generally experienced gains in diversity in their student bodies, according to research by the University of California, Davis. But if the universities also faced recent financial shortfalls or enrollment declines, or continued to prioritize quantitative academic criteria such as test scores and class rank, these gains in diversity diminished or disappeared.
The study, “Same Policy, No Standardized Outcome: How Admissions Values and Institutional Priorities Shape the Effect of Test-Optional Policies on Campus Diversity,” was published in the American Sociological Review on Aug. 11.
“Although test-optional admissions policies are often adopted with the assumption that they will broaden access to underrepresented minority groups, the effectiveness of these policies in increasing student diversity appears to depend on existing admissions values and institutional priorities at the university,” said Greta Hsu, co-author of the paper and a UC Davis professor in the Graduate School of Management who studies organizational behavior.
Hsu co-authored the paper with Amanda Sharkey of the University of Notre Dame.
Researchers analyzed data from more than 1,500 public and private four-year, degree-granting colleges and universities in the United States between 2003 and 2019. More than 200 of those universities eliminated standardized test requirements during that time.
Some universities, such as the University of California, are currently “test-blind” and do not consider test scores at all. Others make them optional. Students can decide whether to submit scores and must weigh whether doing so will help or hurt their application when tests are optional, Hsu said.
The data did not include the period after the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, when more colleges dropped testing requirements and altered enrollment processes because of changes in high school education, the lack of test centers and other issues.
During the years analyzed, the racial and ethnic makeup of college campuses shifted. Students identifying as white decreased from 68% to 53%. Those identifying as Black, Hispanic or Native American increased from 19% to 28%. Students identifying as Asian or Asian American increased from 6% to 8%.
Standardized tests have been widely used to assess college readiness since the 1950s. But concerns have grown over the years — beginning in the 1980s and especially more recently — that the testing is flawed and exhibits racial and income-based inequities. Critics argue that access to test preparation tutors and materials favors students with the resources to pay for them.
The study found that colleges giving significant weight to test scores — even if they are not required — saw no significant increase in underrepresented student enrollment for three years after changing their testing policy. In contrast, colleges giving less weight to test scores saw a 2% increase in underrepresented student enrollment during the same period. The researchers noted that additional recruitment efforts and individual university initiatives could affect those numbers, but those factors were not part of the study.
The researchers also looked at whether colleges were facing financial or enrollment shortfalls when they adopted test-optional policies. Colleges under those pressures were less likely to see meaningful increases in minority student representation after going test optional.
“It is important to recognize that college and university environments, like most complex organizations, face multiple competing pressures,” Hsu said. “Actions and policies aimed at responding to each of these pressures can, at times, work at cross-purposes with one another.”
From article: “Some universities, such as the University of California, are currently “test-blind” and do not consider test scores at all. Others make them optional. Students can decide whether to submit scores and must weigh whether doing so will help or hurt their application when tests are optional, Hsu said.”
Students are increasingly-deciding whether it’s worth taking on student loan debt – that’s the REAL question (regardless of skin color or gender). Especially when the value of a degree is increasingly-questioned as it relates to student loan debt.
But yeah, it’s pretty obvious that if universities are taking on students who aren’t prepared, they’re either going to have to take on the responsibility of bringing those students “up to speed”, or adjust the curriculum to account for that – as well as the resulting value of the degree. Those are the only two options I can think of. “Pack ’em and stack ’em” in regard to the last man standing (the UC system).
And everyone and their dog will have a UC degree (and student loan debt).
Pretty sure I know which of those options that universities will select – especially in regard to declining overall enrollment (and reduction of programs at community and state colleges). Of course, it’s the option that will enable the institution itself to continue, without taking on the responsibility of bringing students up to speed (which is a direct result of the failure of the “feeder” systems). Or perhaps its an indictment of entire communities, which aren’t producing students able to pass college entrance exams.
“Some universities, such as the University of California, are currently “test-blind” and do not consider test scores at all. Others make them optional. Students can decide whether to submit scores and must weigh whether doing so will help or hurt their application when tests are optional, Hsu said.”
Some might call this the dumbing down of our university system.
“Some might call this the dumbing down of our university system.”
Employers certainly will, unless you can bring some demonstrable, valued skills to the table (not necessarily even related to what you learn in college). (Which increasingly doesn’t include expertise in gender or “fill in the skin color” studies, for example.) And ultimately, the students who were lied to (and find themselves in non-dischargeable debt) will look at it that way, as well. (Probably while they also chastise the person in the mirror, for signing on the dotted line.)
Well, I guess they’d better hope that Biden 2.0 (or some version similar to him) wins next time, in regard to that. Essentially hoping for “presidential pardons”.
But the really irritating part is that self-interests continue to lie to these students, and the students continue to believe them. (Or maybe I should say “amusing” part.) Hey – there’s an entrance exam question: What makes you think that the field you elected to study will lead to a job – sufficient to take on the debt that you just agreed to?
Ron, you make too much sense.
Let’s not leave out how many employers will never hire any woke college activists who participated protests and other such events.
“You almost made me spit out beer.”
I know, David – student loan debt (and increasing defaults) is definitely pretty-amusing.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/student-loan-delinquencies-are-on-the-rise-heres-why-184802465.html
https://thefinancialbrand.com/news/banking-trends-strategies/rising-student-loan-defaults-reveal-a-shocking-new-borrower-persona-191465
Not to worry – someone else will pay it off and buy a house for them, to boot. (And as to Keith’s comment – more points if they have a visible tattoo stating “From the River to the Sea”, or “Eat the Rich”.)
That’s the ticket.
And not willing to report to the office unless they’re serving free avocado toast. (O.K. – you can definitely spit out your beer regarding that one.)
Don’t make me have to spell it out for you… come to think of it, that would be par for the course
Too late – I already know how to spell “avocado” (I think). I like them myself, but don’t have to establish a payment plan in order to get them. I can probably even afford a couple of them every day – in cash.
(That, by the way, is my favorite stereotype.)
These young’uns don’t even realize that boomers invented avocados (and the Internet, thanks to Al Gore).
Now, is it “tomato”, or “tomatow”?
In contrast to the wild assertions here, the UC system has both the top rates public universities in the nation (and perhaps the world) AND achieving the best socio economic advancement of its students. Fortunately, employers are not listening to you:
Rankings
https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities?_sort=rank&_sortDirection=asc
https://www.niche.com/colleges/search/best-colleges/
https://www.forbes.com/top-colleges/
Access
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/17/upshot/californias-university-system-an-upward-mobility-machine.html
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/17/upshot/top-colleges-doing-the-most-for-low-income-students.html
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/09/07/magazine/college-access-index.html
I proposed a different approach to admitting a more representative student body while also focusing on real community objectives: https://mcubedecon.com/2018/09/01/fixing-college-admissions/