« Back to Results

The Evolving Role of Test-Optional Admissions in Higher Education

Paper Session

Friday, Jan. 3, 2025 10:15 AM - 12:15 PM (PST)

Hilton San Francisco Union Square, Golden Gate 6
Hosted By: American Economic Association & Committee on Economic Education
  • Chair: Akila Weerapana, Wellesley College

Test Optional Admissions

Wouter Dessein
,
Columbia University
Alexander Frankel
,
University of Chicago
Navin Kartik
,
Columbia University

Abstract

The Covid-19 pandemic has accelerated the trend of many colleges moving to test-optional, and in some cases test-blind, admissions policies. A frequent claim is that by not seeing standardized test scores, a college is able to admit a student body that it prefers, such as one with more diversity. But how can observing less information allow a college to improve its decisions? We argue that test-optional policies may be driven by social pressure on colleges' admission decisions. We propose a model of college admissions in which a college disagrees with society on which students should be admitted. We show how the college can use a test-optional policy to reduce its "disagreement cost" with society, regardless of whether this results in a preferred student pool. We discuss which students either benefit from or are harmed by a test-optional policy. In an application, we study how a ban on using race in admissions may result in more colleges going test-optional or test blind.

Test Scores and Admissions Policies at Highly Selective Colleges

John N. Friedman
,
Brown University
Bruce I. Sacerdote
,
Dartmouth College
Doug Staiger
,
Dartmouth College
Michele T. Tine
,
Dartmouth College

Abstract

What is the appropriate role for standardized testing in the admissions process at highly selective colleges? As an input to this question, this study examines the relationship between students' scores and their academic performance in college, as well as their post-college labor market outcomes, focused on highly-rated applicants and students attending Iyv-plus colleges. Test scores predict academic performance in college, even among students of the same race, socioeconomic status, and gender. This predictive power is roughly four times larger than that of high school GPA. Test scores also exhibit little predictive bias across groups, in the sense that student demographics do not predict academic performance conditional on test scores. Test scores also predict student success after college, as measured by labor market outcomes and attendance at elite graduate schools. Racial disparities in college entrance tests mirror those in the non-incentivized NAEP tests, suggesting these gaps reflect underlying differences in school quality and other environmental factors. We further provide evidence suggesting that many students from underrepresented backgrounds don’t make the correct strategic decision on whether to submit their test scores in order to maximize their chances of admission. We conclude that testing requirements enhance broad access of students to Ivy-plus colleges.

The Impacts of Removing College Entrance Exams: Evidence from the Test-Optional Movement

Brianna Felegi
,
Virginia Tech

Abstract

As of 2019, about 250 four-year colleges and universities had adopted a test-optional application procedure that allowed students to apply for admission without submitting an SAT or ACT score. Many schools adopted this procedure to encourage greater racial and socioeconomic diversity among admitted students. Unfortunately, we know little about the impact of test-optional policies. In this paper, I use a difference-in-differences design to examine the impact of this reform on schools that adopted the policies between 2006 and 2014. Compared to schools that did not switch, test-optional schools witnessed around a 15 percent increase in the number of Black, Native American/Alaskan Native, and Hispanic enrollments and around a 7 percent increase in the number of Pell Grant students. I also show that test-optional policies affect financial aid disbursements. After switching, schools experienced an increase in the number of students receiving institutional grant aid, but decreases in the average aid granted. Schools offset the decrease in grant aid by increasing the availability of institutional loans. Institutions interested in adopting these policies should consider these possible unintended consequences.

GRE-Optional Policies in Doctoral Admissions: Impacts on Student Applications, Yield, and Structural Diversity

Heeyun Kim
,
University of Houston
Michael Bastedo
,
University of Michigan
John Gonzalez
,
University of Michigan
Allyson Flaster
,
University of Michigan
Yiping Bai
,
University of Michigan

Abstract

Test-optional policies in graduate admissions have been increasingly common in recent years, yet their impact on structural diversity remains a topic of debate, particularly about whether they facilitate increased access for traditionally underrepresented student populations. This study leverages doctoral admissions data from the University of Michigan, spanning 2010 to 2020, to scrutinize the effects of GRE-optional policies on applications, yield, and structural diversity. Employing heterogeneity-robust difference-in-differences analyses, our findings indicate that the adoption of GRE-optional policies immediately increases the program selectivity, evidenced by a surge in application volume and a decrease in acceptance rates. However, these effects were not sustained over time. Notably, the changes within the applicant, admitted, and enrollee demographics were mostly not significant. We found a significant increase in female applicants, yet this did not translate into a corresponding ascent within the admitted or enrolled cohorts. Our study enhances the existing body of literature by providing empirical insights into the relationship between test-optional policies and selectivity, while also highlighting the policies' negligible impact on altering structural diversity in graduate education.

Discussant(s)
Akila Weerapana
,
Wellesley College
Kristin Butcher
,
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
Stephen J. Conroy
,
University of San Diego
Aashish Mehta
,
University of California-Santa Barbara
JEL Classifications
  • A2 - Economic Education and Teaching of Economics
  • A1 - General Economics