Are test scores the backbone of meritocracy or the nexus of privilege?

LIKE ANY hotbed of scholarly activity, the University of California (UC) is no stranger to rows. Recently a debate over the use of SATs and ACTs, tests used in college admissions, has spilled out from campus and into the courtroom. In December a lawsuit denouncing UC’s use of the tests was filed in the Alameda County court. On February 3rd a commission reviewing admissions procedures recommended that UC should resist calls to abandon tests. More than 1,000 colleges across America have made submitting test scores optional for many students, though hardly any are completely “test blind”. UC is by far the largest institution to consider abandoning them. UC’s size (it has about 220,000 undergraduates) and prestige means others will watch what it does carefully.

First administered in 1926, SATs have faced criticism for favouring the wealthy since the 1940s—an irony, since they were originally adopted by Harvard to expand its intake beyond the boarding schools of the north-east. While the College Board, which owns the SATs, has worked hard to eliminate egregious advantages for children from wealthy families—gone are the questions about oarsmen and regattas—there has been a persistent correlation between test scores and both socioeconomic status and race. The College Board acknowledges these correlations, but argues that they reflect “learning gaps that result from educational and societal inequities”, not bias in the test itself. All measures of college preparedness are affected by societal inequity, and it is unsurprising, if unfortunate, that students from poor backgrounds perform worse. Using test scores, the College Board argues, helps colleges to select those students most likely to thrive.