How did test-optional admissions policies implemented in 2020 affect college enrollment for students with low SAT scores?

1. What the claims say — a fast map of the evidence terrain

The core empirical claims across recent studies are threefold: test-optional adoption in 2020 correlated with larger application pools and modest enrollment increases; elite colleges enrolled more students with lower SATs but high GPAs, particularly first-generation and lower-income students; and the policy generated strategic behavior where students with higher scores were likelier to submit them, leaving institutions with less information about some applicants. Multiple working papers and institutional analyses support these points, reporting increased applications at selective publics and elites, selective enrollment shifts favoring high-GPA/low-SAT admits, and persistent socioeconomic patterns in final enrollment ^{[1] [4] [5]}.

2. Who applied, who got offers, who enrolled — parsing the numbers

Studies using large application platforms and institutional data find application volumes rose sharply after 2020 (one cited increase 38%), offers increased more modestly, and overall enrollment rose less than applications—about 11% in one analysis—with the biggest gains at selective public institutions. The growth in applications included more low-income and underrepresented students, but the conversion from application to enrollment favored those with higher GPAs and often higher incomes; institutions continued to receive many high-scoring applicants even under test-optional rules. This pattern implies that the policy changed the applicant mix but did not uniformly translate into proportional enrollment diversification ^{[4] [1] [2]}.

3. Did low-SAT students gain real access, or just admissions reshuffling?

Evidence shows elite colleges did admit and enroll more students with low SATs but strong grades, indicating some expansion of access for academically prepared students whose test scores understate their achievement. However, the demographic payoff was limited: overall enrolled socioeconomic diversity remained relatively stable and average family income among enrollees rose in at least one study. Researchers caution that increased admission of low-SAT students may coexist with “undermatching,” where high scorers enroll in less selective colleges, and that enrollment gains for low-SAT applicants are uneven across institution types ^{[1] [6] [2]}.

4. Strategic disclosure and the hidden costs for disadvantaged high-achievers

A January 2025 working paper documents strategic non-disclosure: applicants with lower scores tended to withhold them, while higher scorers disclosed, creating selection effects that magnify information loss for institutions. Critically, disadvantaged high-achievers were less likely to submit scores and thus may have lost admissions advantage that scores would have conferred; reporting a score increased admission probability markedly for less advantaged applicants in that study. This finding flips a common narrative: rather than test scores uniformly disadvantaging lower-income students, they sometimes function as a leveling indicator when submitted, and test-optional rules can unintentionally harm those who do not disclose ^{[3] [5]}.

5. Practical consequences for placement, STEM readiness, and institutional policy

Beyond admissions, colleges use SAT/ACT scores for placement, curricular advising, and targeting support—especially in STEM. College Board research and institutional reports highlight that lost visibility into student readiness under test-optional regimes impedes placement and early-warning systems, with math SAT scores retaining predictive power for first-year STEM performance. Institutions have adapted by adopting alternative measures (ALEKS, GPA, placement exams) and clearer communications, but the transition raises concerns about matching support to need and the potential for higher remediation or retention risks among students whose low or absent test data masked readiness issues ^{[7] [8]}.

6. Bottom line, trade-offs, and where research still needs to go

The balanced conclusion from recent studies is that test-optional policies expanded the applicant pool and enabled some low-SAT, high-GPA students—especially first-generation or lower-income—to enroll at selective colleges, but the policies did not automatically produce broad socioeconomic diversification and introduced information losses and adverse effects for certain disadvantaged high-achievers. Policymakers and admissions offices face trade-offs: widening access at application stage versus maintaining tools for identifying academic readiness and supporting students in STEM. Important gaps remain in long-term outcomes—degree completion, major persistence, labor-market returns—and future research must track cohorts beyond first-year outcomes and across institution types to evaluate the net societal impact of test-optional admissions ^{[1] [2] [7]}.