WHAT ARE WE TESTING FOR? A STUDY ON TEST-OPTIONAL POLICIES AT PRINCETON UNIVERSITY

Abstract

While student performance at test-optional universities has been studied in the past few decades, the effects of test-optional policies have not been studied in depth at highly selective universities such Princeton University with regards to student performance, academic preparedness, and especially mental health. The results of this research will help inform Princeton and other Ivy League admissions offices about the implications of admitting high school students who did not submit either ACT or SAT scores. In summary, students who did not submit ACT or SAT scores (non-submitters) are more likely to have lower ACT and SAT scores, lower GPAs, and struggle more with certain mental health stressors at Princeton. However, a higher percentage of non-submitters are on financial aid and come from more disadvantaged backgrounds, suggesting that not requiring test scores makes the university more accessible to students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Thus, the administration of Princeton faces a principal trade off if it hopes to increase accessibility and diversity: adopt a test-optional policy and risk admitting students who do not perform well academically or mentally, or admit more diverse students under a test-requirement policy and risk falling on top college rankings lists by lowering the average test score of admitted students.