Test-optional admissions policies adopted by most selective colleges during the COVID-19 pandemic did not increase application rates among Black, Latino, and first-generation students to elite institutions, according to a new study that challenges the premise behind the widespread policy shift.
The research, conducted by Harvard Kennedy School’s Dr. Christopher Avery and colleagues using data from over one million Common Application users between 2018-2021, found that application rates to the most selective colleges actually declined among Black, Latino, and first-generation students who scored below the median in 2020 and 2021.
By 2020, 90.1 percent of Common App colleges made tests optional, rising to 95.9 percent in 2021-22, after standardized testing was disrupted by pandemic lockdowns. The policy shift was intended to expand access for students whose academic potential wasn’t reflected in their test scores.
However, the study reveals a more complex picture. While elite colleges enrolled more lower-scoring students with high grades, particularly first-generation and lower-income students, this wasn’t driven by increased applications from these groups.
“Although test-optional policies provided incentives for underrepresented students with strong grades but lower test scores to apply to the most selective colleges, application rates to the most selective colleges actually declined” among the target populations, the researchers found.
The study found that most applicants—and an even higher share of admitted and enrolled students—still submitted their scores at the most selective colleges during the test-optional period. At these institutions, the vast majority of enrolled students reported scores.
Average SAT scores submitted increased 3.7 percent, from 1238 to 1284, between 2019 and 2020, suggesting students strategically withheld lower scores. The research revealed that peer influence played a significant role in score submission decisions, with the share of high school peers submitting scores being the strongest predictor of whether a student would submit their own score.
While the study found modest increases in enrollment of underrepresented students at selective colleges during the test-optional period, these gains appeared to result from admissions office decisions rather than changed student behavior.
The magnitude of enrollment effects exceeded application effects, suggesting colleges reduced the weight placed on test scores in admission decisions rather than simply receiving more diverse applicant pools.
The research also documented concerning “undermatching” trends, with higher-scoring students increasingly enrolling at less selective colleges, potentially limiting their educational opportunities.
The study highlighted how test-optional policies may have inadvertently created new barriers. First-generation students were less likely to submit scores across nearly every GPA level, suggesting they lacked guidance about strategic score submission.
“Test-optional admissions therefore may have introduced reliance on outside information and potentially disparities resulting from differential access to information,” the researchers concluded.
The findings raise questions about the long-term effectiveness of test-optional policies for achieving their stated diversity goals. Several of the most selective colleges have since reversed their test-optional policies, with MIT, Harvard, Yale, and Dartmouth reinstating testing requirements.
The study suggests that colleges may have been able to achieve similar goals of boosting college access without test-optional policies, which may have worsened undermatching.
The research was published as a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper in September 2025, providing the first comprehensive analysis of test-optional policies’ effects at the nation’s most competitive colleges.
-1024x683.jpg "The Platner Problem: Is Political Vetting Broken?")
