How have test-optional admissions policies since 2020 affected outcomes for students with lower SAT scores?

1. Why lower scorers increasingly hid their scores — and what happened when they did

Since 2020, multiple studies report a sharp rise in applicants electing not to submit SAT/ACT scores under test-optional rules, and those who withheld scores generally posted lower first-year outcomes compared with submitters. Research covering Ivy-Plus colleges and other selective institutions finds a persistent relationship between higher test scores and higher first-year college GPA, with differences of about 0.4 GPA points across score percentiles; non-submitters’ outcomes mirror those of students with roughly a 1300–1307 SAT ^{[1] [2]}. A June 2025 consortium study reached similar conclusions: test scores remain strong predictors of grades, credit accumulation, and retention even when controlling for high school GPA, and withholding scores correlates with weaker measurable academic outcomes ^[4]. These analyses underline that opting out often mapped onto lower observed academic preparedness, not merely admissions strategy.

2. Enrollment and diversity: did test-optional widen access or rearrange who enrolls?

Test-optional policies clearly boosted application volumes and increased the representation of some lower-income and first-generation applicants in the applicant and admit pools at certain institutions, yet translation into enrollment remained uneven. A September 2025 study found more lower-scoring but high-GPA students—particularly first-generation and lower-income—enrolled at elite colleges, suggesting improved access for some groups, but also documented persistent gaps in who accepted offers, with higher-income and white students enrolling at higher rates ^{[5] [7]}. FairTest and other advocates argue test-optional improved equity and that high school grades predict success as well or better than standardized tests, framing score removal as a net gain for diversity ^[6]. The conflicting outcomes indicate that policy adoption shifted admissions funnels but did not uniformly solve downstream enrollment disparities.

3. Academic performance: selective colleges show stronger test predictiveness

Analyses focused on Ivy-Plus and highly selective colleges present the strongest evidence that standardized tests add predictive power for first-year GPA, even after accounting for socioeconomic status and high school grades. Opportunity Insights and related work show roughly a 0.43 GPA gap between high and mid-high scorers; institutions relying on test data argue this helps admit academically prepared students from diverse backgrounds, potentially promoting mobility ^{[1] [2]}. Critics counter that test use advantages wealthier students and that test-optional intake still enabled elite colleges to admit more diverse high-achieving applicants with lower scores but strong grades ^{[6] [7]}. The balance of evidence for selective schools therefore supports test utility for short-term academic prediction while simultaneously exposing trade-offs between predictive accuracy and equity goals.

4. Varied impacts at non-elite colleges and issues beyond test scores

Less selective colleges display more heterogeneity: some research indicates modest or negligible graduation changes for underrepresented students at selective liberal arts colleges, but declines in graduation rates at other institutions after test-optional adoption ^[3]. The Admissions Research Consortium points to grade inflation and flat credit/retention trends as complicating factors, warning that rising average FYGPAs may mask declines in preparedness among students with lower measured test performance ^[4]. In practical terms, test-optional policies interact with institutional supports, pedagogy, and student resource gaps; outcomes depend on whether colleges couple admissions changes with academic advising, remediation, or retention investments. The evidence therefore shows that policy effects are context-dependent and mediated by institutional capacity.

5. Competing narratives, methodological limits, and what’s still uncertain

Studies diverge on emphasis: some highlight predictive validity of tests and recommend reinstating requirements at some selective institutions ^[2], while advocacy groups highlight equity gains from test-optional adoption and point to high-school grades as robust predictors ^[6]. Methodological caveats include short post-2020 windows, institutional heterogeneity, selection effects (who chooses to submit scores), and pandemic-era disruptions that confound interpretation ^{[4] [7]}. Recent September 2025 analyses provide broader data across application platforms but still find mixed translation to enrollment and success ^{[5] [7]}. The cumulative picture is nuanced: test-optional policies changed applicant pools and increased access for some groups, but they also coincided with measurable declines in first-year academic metrics among students who did not submit scores, especially at highly selective colleges.