Greta Hsu, a professor in the Graduate School of Management at the University of California, Davis, has co-authored a significant paper that examines how test-optional admissions policies influence campus diversity. The research, conducted alongside Amanda Sharkey from the University of Notre Dame, was published in the American Sociological Review and entitled “Same Policy, No Standardized Outcome: How Admissions Values and Institutional Priorities Shape the Effect of Test-Optional Policies on Campus Diversity.”
The report investigates new data from more than 1,500 public and private four-year colleges and universities across the United States. It takes a deep dive into the years from 2003 to 2019. Over this time, over 200 colleges and universities dropped their standardized test requirements. Hsu’s findings indicate that while some universities have moved towards test-optional policies hoping to enhance diversity, the outcomes vary significantly based on each institution’s admissions values and priorities.
Insights from the Research
Hsu’s research paints a complex picture of the effects of test-optional policies on student demographics. Colleges that only took standardized test scores experienced no measurable increase in the enrollment of underrepresented students. That trend continued for the next three years after they approved those changes. On the other hand, those institutions that de-emphasized test scores experienced a slight 2% growth in enrollment among these populations. This was a major shift in the same period, though.
Hsu highlighted how it’s vital for students to take ownership over their application materials, particularly in an ecosystem with tests being optional. She stated, “Students must contemplate whether it helps or hurts them to include test scores in their application where tests are optional.” This perspective sheds light on the complicated and often conflicting decision-making process students must navigate when applying to institutions that have chosen to implement more diverse admissions policies.
In looking at those demographic shifts, Hsu found that a lot had changed on college campuses in the years under investigation. The share of students who identified as white fell from 68% to 53%. At the same time, the share of students identifying as underrepresented populations—specifically Black, Hispanic, or Native American—grew from 19% to 28%. Further, the share of students who identify as Asian or Asian American increased a full two points from 6% to 8%.
The Role of Institutional Priorities
As Hsu explained, the effects of test-optional policies aren’t the same in all institutions. She remarked, “Although test-optional admissions policies are often adopted with the assumption that they will broaden access to underrepresented minority groups, the effectiveness of these policies in increasing diversity appears to depend on existing admissions values and institutional priorities at the university.” This observation points to a further geopolitical complexity in achieving diversity in higher education.
Colleges are shown to remain caught in a web of competing pressures, often making it more difficult for colleges to increase diversity. Hsu noted, “It is important to recognize that college and university environments, like most complex organizations, face multiple competing pressures.” These pressures can be fiscal, academic, and mission based, which can at times work against each other.
As institutions try to address these often-competing demands, they inevitably have to pit their laudable commitments to diversity against other priorities. Hsu cautioned that “actions and policies aimed at responding to each of these pressures can, at times, work at cross-purposes with one another,” suggesting that a strategic approach is necessary for universities aiming to improve their diversity outcomes.
Future Implications
Hsu’s research provides the first real picture into these test-optional policies going into the unprecedented test-optional COVID-19 pandemic. It fails to account for any shifts that could have occurred since 2020. As colleges adapt to new challenges and student needs post-pandemic, ongoing analysis will be crucial in understanding how admissions practices evolve.
Lessons learned from Hsu and Sharkey’s study add substance to the larger discussion about equity and access in our nation’s higher education system. As universities continue to refine their admissions processes, understanding the implications of such policies will be essential for ensuring that all students have equitable opportunities to succeed.