The Biases of “Fair” Testing

Image via Money/Getty Images

***

For years, standardized tests have been a defining part of college admissions in the United States, but recent debates over the fairness and relevance of the SAT have intensified. The SAT began as a neutral tool to measure academic ability nationwide. Today, it faces scrutiny for reinforcing broader social inequalities. Defenders of the SAT’s fairness often overlook the advantages wealthier students have in preparing for the exam. As Harvard economist David Deming correctly observes, regardless of whether colleges require the SAT and ACT, the educational inequality the test reveals is something we need to fix. This insight raises a critical question: Do standardized tests measure a student’s ability or the quality of the institution that taught them?  

By examining the SAT’s historical origins, socioeconomic and racial inequalities, and weak predictive validity, this article argues that the SAT functions less as a merit-based tool and more as a reflection of systemic inequality. While its defenders highlight its potential to identify hidden talent, evidence strongly suggests that test-optional and holistic approaches to admissions provide a fairer, more accurate measure of students’ potential. 

The history of the SAT reveals a contested purpose and enduring flaws. Designed in the early twentieth century, the SAT drew inspiration from military intelligence testing as a scientific measure of aptitude. However, it was built on assumptions about intelligence that were not neutral, reflecting cultural and racial biases. Over time, the SAT was marketed as a tool to make college admissions fairer, yet evidence shows it has never been fully reliable in predicting academic success. Research has even challenged the College Board’s assertion that the SAT strongly predicts first-year grades in college. A 2016 study using the College Board’s own SAT data from 475,000 test-takers found significant predictive errors across gender, race, and subject area, inaccurately predicting 80,000 math scores and 65,000 first-year college grades. These mistakes may have cost students their futures, demonstrating that the SAT failed its promise of accurately measuring merit. Its history, in short, indicates that the test was founded on inequality, an issue that persists in debates about the test today.

A major critique of the SAT centers on how wealth shapes preparation and performance. A Harvard Gazette report found that children of the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans were 13 times more likely than children from low-income families to score 1300 or higher. This disparity reflects access to expensive tutoring, test-prep courses, and well-funded schools. An article from the University of Pennsylvania explains that affluent families heavily invest in numerous AP classes and tutoring, allowing them to have taken standardized test preparation classes, all advantages tied to higher standardized test scores, a luxury that low-income families do not have. 

While some fear that eliminating the SAT could make it harder for academically exceptional low-income students to stand out, the current system already makes it nearly impossible. The very basis of “superscoring” proves this. In short, superscoring is when a student may submit their highest Math score and their highest English score, even if they are from different attempts. The more times you take the test, the more score options you have, a privilege only money can buy. 

The SAT heightens students’ stress like nothing else, especially for those without consistent academic support outside the classroom. A Harvard article, “Is the SAT Still Needed?” argues that tests like the SAT can be a tool for educational equity if they avoid three fallacies. The article explains that the problem is that colleges allow prospective students to believe that test scores are more meaningful, precise, and permanent than they actually are, creating self-doubt if the score is not perfect. Those already disadvantaged are likely to fall even further behind in the race for admission. This critique aligns with David Deming’s observation that accumulating unequal opportunities throughout a child’s life accounts for the stark differences in pre-college test scores. 

By framing these disparities as evidence of merit, the SAT obscures the need for structural reforms since much of the SAT is foundational. The Princeton Review notes that the new digital SAT has two modules. The first modules of the English and Math sections are a mix of easy, medium, and difficult questions, which determine each student’s second module based on their performance. Students from underserved communities have been just that their whole lives: underserved. It is unfair to expect them to even make it to the second module if so much of their academic foundation disappears in the classroom—years before the SAT was even a thought in their minds. Through this lens, the SAT appears less as a measure of academic potential but as a mechanism emphasizing inequality. 

Supporters of the SAT frequently argue that it predicts college success, but evidence shows its predictive power is inconsistent. Critics note that SAT scores produce large amounts of error and do not correlate with college success compared to students who don’t take the SAT. If the test fails to align with actual college outcomes, its usefulness as a predictor is highly questionable. This inconsistency may be partly due to the transition to an online, adaptive format, where students will receive different questions based on their performance. The New York Times highlights a key flaw in the test, explaining that it reduces a person’s talent and potential to a single number. This prevents colleges from considering the whole student, a crucial factor in determining if a person will thrive in a particular academic environment.

The emphasis on SAT scores in admissions does not translate into equal opportunity for students with similar results. A Harvard study found that upper-class children in the top 1% are more than twice as likely to attend an Ivy-Plus college as those from the middle class, even with comparable SAT/ACT scores. This disparity shows that even the high-achieving, low-income students with strong test scores are still disadvantaged compared to their upper-class counterparts. Although the SAT offers some data, its limited validity and continued inequality suggest that it cannot be a fair or reliable measure of success. 

The SAT’s long history as the key to college admissions reveals a profound contradiction between its promise of an even playing field and the reality of systemic inequality. Factors outside the students’ control primarily shape test outcomes, and it is unjust that these underserved students are worse off due to circumstances they had no influence over. Although the SAT offers some predictive validity, it is not sufficient to be the sole tool that identifies academic potential. 

Test-optional policies and holistic admission teams will provide a more equitable pathway to excellence. Wayne Au reminds us that the college admissions process must  “Recognize the need to attend to the conditions of students’ lives both inside and outside the school if we want them, and their families, to thrive in this world.” Abandoning the SAT as the central admissions tool is necessary to fulfill higher education’s promise to expand opportunity, diversify leadership, and redefine merit beyond a number.

***

This article was edited by Mary Elaina Gibson and Daniel Ukandu.