Economic diversity is a hot topic in higher education these days. Low-income student enrollment is slightly up at some institutions. To note, enrollment increased much more for affluent students, and there is much room for improvement.
In a recent report, the American Talent Initiative (ATI), a group of 135 institutions seeking to increase economic diversity, attributed the progress to increased investments in financial aid, as well as members committing to increase the number of Pell-eligible students.
Another factor could be testing policy. Almost all ATI members were test-optional or test-free during the 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 admissions cycles, where institutions saw the most growth in low-income student enrollment. Over the years, studies have linked test-optional to some growth in both racial/ethnic and economic diversity.
Despite these patterns, some elite institutions have backed away from test-optional, contending that it actually undermines diversity and results in enrolling academically unprepared students. Given these claims, we were curious to understand how test-optional affected students’ lives during the application process and after enrollment. In a new report supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, our team interviewed 96 students, admissions professionals, faculty, and staff at two selective state flagship institutions.
Admissions staff talked about how test-optional opened up access across the state, especially in parts that typically sent fewer students to the flagship. As one staff member commented, “we all see that there are many students that are very capable of being very successful that may not have stellar test scores ultimately.”
Students described how they were unable to prepare the test, which made them view test-optional admissions positively. One student who worked multiple jobs during high school described “kind of going in blind” to the test. Test preparation fell to the wayside in a high school marked by broken equipment, food insecurity, and high teacher turnover.
We were curious if students who applied without test scores felt any disadvantage once enrolled. Were they out of their league, as some suggest? On the contrary, students spoke positively about their college experiences, both inside and outside of the classroom. A staff member noted that when students admitted via test-optional faced academic challenges, the state flagship was able to provide the support they needed to persist. In turn, students persevered, graduated, and benefited from the institution’s reputation.
These perspectives challenge the idea that test-optional policies hurt low-income students, a claim made by some Ivies to defend required testing. In our study, low-income students spoke powerfully about how they benefited from the policy. Students spoke about test-optional making a difference in how they applied to college, helping them take a chance on schools that earlier felt out of reach.
Nonetheless, there are some valid concerns about test-optional. Dartmouth, which returned to required testing in 2024, noted how hundreds of low-income students did not submit test scores under test-optional that would have strengthened their applications. Most students do not know that institutions consider a student’s context for opportunity when weighing test scores. Hence, a below average score can benefit a lower-income student: A 1400 is impressive when it comes from a student at a high school where the average SAT score is 900.
Still, low-income enrollment remained steady at the Ivies when they were test-optional. In some cases, however, test-optional admissions shifted the type of low-income student admitted. Test-optional policies facilitated access for outstanding low-income students who may not test well.
Once enrolled, these students generally did fine in their studies. As noted by Yale Admissions Dean Jeremiah Quinlan, “students who have been admitted to Yale without test scores have done relatively well in their Yale courses.”
Low-income students reap crucial benefits from attending selective institutions. Thus, institutions should seek to enroll both types of low-income student: those whose test scores are competitive when read and context, and those whose talents are not well-reflected via testing. As I argue in my new book on college admissions following the Supreme Court ruling, doing so could facilitate even greater economic diversity.
How could institutions adjust testing policy to maximize diversity? Keep test-optional, but provide clearer guidance on how to navigate the question of score submission. Provide information on how admissions officers read test scores in the context of a student’s environment, and how even lower scores can benefit students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Encourage the widest range of students to apply through test-optional, but help students realize that sometimes, a test score may work to their benefit.
Arguably, the research on testing does not point in a clear direction for institutions. At the end of the day, institutional priorities and values inform decisions around testing policy as much as data and evidence. We encourage institutions to consider that test-optional is a key tool to facilitate access in higher education, and to refine test-optional policies rather than discard them.
Julie J. Park is professor of education at the University of Maryland, College Park and co-director at the College Admissions Futures Co-Laborative. She is author of Race, Class, and Affirmative Action: College Admissions in a New Era (Harvard Education Press, 2026).
