Using linked tax, test, and admissions records, the study finds top‑1% students receive large Ivy‑Plus boosts via legacy, athletics, and non‑academic credentials that don’t predict success, while SAT/ACT scores do. Test use narrows the admissions gap for comparable low‑income applicants, whereas test‑optional policies risk entrenching wealth-based advantages.
— It reframes the testing debate by showing tests can be a pro‑equity tool against status‑coded 'holistic' criteria.
2025.10.07
62% relevant
The article argues the SAT is effectively an intelligence test and that euphemizing it as 'college readiness' undermines its rationale—aligning with the broader case for tests as valid, equity‑enhancing measures when used properly.
Robert VerBruggen
2025.09.29
65% relevant
The piece defends basic‑skills entry tests for police/fire hiring against DOJ disparate‑impact claims and reports the new administration’s move to stop such cases; this aligns with the broader argument that standardized tests can be fairer and more defensible than subjective criteria in gatekeeping.
Donald Devine
2025.09.08
60% relevant
By recounting how the PACE consent decree removed aptitude testing from federal hiring and led to insider 'name request' hiring, the article implicitly makes the same pro‑merit case: objective exams reduce subjective gatekeeping and status signaling, aligning with evidence that standardized tests can counter opaque, bias‑prone selection.
James Andrews
2025.09.03
70% relevant
The article contends that removing placement tests and banning remediation under 'equity' logic (AB 705) pushed minority students into SLAM paths and away from BSTEM, echoing the argument that objective testing can be a pro‑equity tool and that 'test‑optional' style moves entrench inequity.
Tyler Cowen
2025.08.23
100% relevant
“Two‑thirds of this gap is due to higher admissions rates… The three factors… are uncorrelated or negatively correlated with post‑college outcomes, whereas academic credentials such as SAT/ACT scores are highly predictive.”
Sebastian Jensen
2025.08.08
40% relevant
If verbal tests best capture g, this supports keeping robust verbal assessments in admissions rather than deemphasizing tests; it intersects with debates over which components of standardized tests best indicate general ability.
Sebastian Jensen
2025.07.13
75% relevant
The analysis relies on SAT/ACT as objective proxies (r≈0.84 with IQ) and notes nonacademic ratings predict little, reinforcing the case that test-based measures provide clearer signals than 'holistic' criteria that can entrench bias.
Cremieux
2025.06.24
80% relevant
The piece argues Columbia’s test‑optional policy skews comparisons because Asians submit scores far more often than Blacks and Hispanics, artificially inflating underrepresented groups’ reported averages and enabling lower‑qualified admissions; this directly bolsters the case that standardized tests are a pro‑equity guardrail against opaque 'holistic' preferences.