BY: Cordell Johnson, Leah Kim, Fatima Faisal
In my junior year, I took the SAT a total of 4 times. Each time I signed up was $68, excluding the costs of transportation, since half of those times I took the exam in San Francisco. In the end, I ended up scoring in the 94th percentile, only for many of my peers to tell me my score still wasn’t competitive enough for colleges. Not only was the whole standardized testing process long, expensive, and unsatisfactory, but more than anything, it felt unfair. And I’m not alone.
In 2024, a record high of over 1.97 million students took the SAT, and another 1.4 million took the ACT. Calculating each test costs roughly $68 for the registration fee, approximately $220 million is spent on standardized testing across the country, which doesn’t even include the costs of tutoring or prep classes. An ongoing debate of whether or not these tests truly impact your college decisions begs the question: are standardized tests a true test of knowledge, or just a test of wealth?
Standardized tests examine a student’s reading and writing comprehension as well as their ability to answer math questions. But what makes standardized testing different is the standardization; each exam must be administered and scored in a consistent manner. But who decided these standards?
In 1923, Carl Bigham was hired by the College Board to engineer an aptitude test for the U.S. Army, categorizing 1.5 million World War I soldiers into units segregated by race and test scores. These aptitude tests would later be adapted to become the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) and the American College Testing (ACT). But Bigham was not an average professor; Bigham was well known for his studies as a eugenicist. His studies centered around pseudoscience, promoting the idea that the human race should only reproduce “superior genes”. Eugenicists like him pushed the idea that marginalized groups, including African-Americans and those with disabilities, should not reproduce, as they would “taint” the American gene pool. From the beginning, standardized tests were built on a foundation of prejudice meant to exclude and marginalize minority groups.
This prejudice is echoed in the tests’ results throughout history. As explained by the National Center for Fair and Open Testing, this deeply entrenched racial bias in standardized tests was made apparent as people of color disproportionately failed the exams. The consequences of this racial bias went far beyond failing scores. Because students of color scored lower, they were disproportionately denied merit scholarships and, in turn, denied access to higher education. This created a vicious cycle of educational inequality rooted in racism, creating a gap in college enrollment and completion.
That cycle is inseparable from money. Research from Opportunity Insights found that children from the wealthiest 1% of Americans are 13 times more likely than low-income students to score 1300 or higher on the SAT or ACT. Among all test takers, roughly one-third of students from the highest-income households hit that benchmark. In comparison, less than 5% from middle-class households and just 0.6% from the lowest-income bracket. Students from affluent families can afford hundreds or even thousands of dollars in prep courses, private tutors, and the luxury of taking time off work to study. However, students who can’t afford any of these start miles behind.
Tim Campbell, an AP English teacher at James Logan High School, has watched this play out before. “The best resources are behind all sorts of paywalls,” Campbell said. “College counselors, AP programs, tutoring programs, there’s a whole army of people taking advantage of the situation.” However, he states that these resources don’t work miracles, “you’re not taking a D student and getting them into Harvard. It’s… not happening.” Campbell’s also skeptical of how much weight these scores should carry. “People who make the tests are financially invested in making you think they matter.”
This tension is playing out right now in California. After the UC system dropped the SAT and ACT requirements during the pandemic, it is now reconsidering bringing standardized testing back as part of the admissions process in places such as UCLA, San Diego, and Berkeley. This is due to grade inflation and academic preparedness. For students at schools like Logan, Campbell doesn’t think the change will be dramatic either way, “It’s a washing of hands,” Campbell said, noting that the shift mostly affects students at the extremes, the exceptional test-taker who coasts on scores while barely passing their classes, or the hard worker who freezes up under timed conditions. Most students fall somewhere in the middle. But for those students at the edges, the stakes are real.
I think about my own four attempts at the SAT, the registration fees adding up, the early mornings commuting to San Francisco, the score I was proud of that was still somehow wasn’t enough. And for students without the money to keep trying, that may never come at all.
According to a new report from UC San Diego’s Senate–Administration Workgroup on Admissions, one in eight incoming freshmen place below high school–level math. Due to this, additional remedial courses were created to aid these students in filling the gap. Some argue that with such a significant share of students lacking proficiency in math, eliminating standardized testing may have removed an important academic benchmark. This sets a precedent of schools emphasizing that bringing back standardized testing would prevent these academic lowstandings. However, reinstating this testing without addressing the academic inequities around it revives the same disparities that it is based on.
Brookings found that among individuals who scored above 700 on the SAT, 43% are Asian and 45% are White, whereas 6% are Hispanic or Latino and 1% are Black. This disparity calls into question whether standardized testing is an objective academic benchmark or a measure of accumulated advantages.
If our school were to bring back standardized testing for all students, this shift would be personal. Our school’s diverse community involves students with language barriers and those working jobs to support their families, alongside students who can afford private tutors and have the resources for multiple test attempts. If standardized testing returns as a requirement, the playing field will not be even. Those with the resources to do well on the tests will continue to reap the benefits, while those who don’t will have to utilize the few other ways to prove themselves to colleges. The true question then becomes whether standardized testing reflects a student’s potential or simply their privilege.
