SAT/ACT Scores Are Biased Predictors
Summaries Written by FARAgent (AI) on February 11, 2026 · Pending Verification
For years, the respectable view in admissions was that the SAT and ACT were narrow, coachable, and socially tilted, while high school GPA showed the “whole student” and therefore predicted college performance better. That belief had real appeal. Wealthy families could buy test prep, students from weak schools often faced unfamiliar question styles, and a transcript seemed to capture diligence over four years rather than one Saturday morning. In the civil rights and education worlds, this fit a broader conviction that standardized tests carried disparate impact and screened out able minority and low income applicants. By the 1990s and 2000s, “test optional” and “holistic review” sounded not only humane but more scientific.
Then the policy built on that assumption ran into awkward facts. Grade inflation spread, with ever higher GPAs becoming common and harder to compare across schools, while admissions offices still needed some common yardstick. Studies from selective colleges and policy groups increasingly found that test scores often added substantial predictive power on top of GPA, especially once one accounted for differences in school quality and grading standards. The old complaint that tests mainly measured family privilege also looked less complete when high scores repeatedly surfaced among students from poor or chaotic backgrounds, including some, like Rob Henderson in the military testing context, who had little else in their file that elite institutions would have trusted. The result was a system that often dropped the one metric most likely to reveal hidden academic strength.
A growing body of researchers now argues that the standard line, “tests are biased predictors,” overstated both the bias and the superiority of GPA. The debate is not finished, and many educators still defend test optional policies as a way to widen access. But increasingly the argument has shifted from whether the SAT and ACT are imperfect, everyone knew that, to whether they were discarded on a false premise. More institutions have begun restoring testing requirements, and the live question now is whether the country spent decades treating the most comparable measure in admissions as the least trustworthy one.
- Rob Henderson grew up in foster care with a deported drug-addict mother and an absent father yet discovered his own capabilities when the military's ASVAB standardized test identified his talent and opened a path to Yale. The test operated without regard to his chaotic background and gave him structure that non-test methods would have missed. He later wrote about the experience in his book Troubled, showing how such instruments can locate talent that softer measures overlook. [3]
- Janet Napolitano served as president of the University of California when she proposed suspending SAT and ACT requirements in 2020, arguing that eliminating the tests would enhance equity for disadvantaged students. She framed the policy as a step toward fairness after a lawsuit claimed the exams discriminated. The change spread quickly to other campuses despite an internal task force that had found the tests added predictive value. [7][8]
- Cecilia Estolano sat as a University of California regent and declared the SAT a racist test during debates over admissions policy. Her statement reflected the widespread view among administrators that score gaps proved inherent bias rather than differences in preparation. The regents ultimately agreed to drop the requirement in a 2021 settlement. [8]
- Jimmy Carter's administration officials settled the Luevano lawsuit in 1981 and banned the PACE exam after concluding it showed unacceptable disparate impact on Black and Hispanic applicants. They replaced a validated test used for 118 federal positions with subjective methods that reduced validity. The consent decree bound federal hiring for more than four decades. [4][5]
The University of California system used its institutional power to promote the assumption by settling a 2021 lawsuit and eliminating the SAT and ACT requirement for admission. Administrators cited claims of bias against disadvantaged and minority students even though their own task force had found the tests supplied distinct predictive information beyond high school GPA. The policy quickly influenced other selective colleges that adopted test-optional practices. [7][8][9]
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sponsored the Luevano lawsuit and enforced the resulting consent decree that prohibited federal exams with adverse impact on Black and Hispanic applicants. For forty-four years the agency required new tests without racial score differences, leading agencies to abandon valid instruments and rely on biodata self-ratings that performed worse. The decree shaped federal personnel policy across multiple administrations. [5]
The Fairfax County NAACP and Coalition of Silence filed a civil rights complaint alleging that Thomas Jefferson High School's test-and-grade admissions policy discriminated against Black and Latino students. The complaint focused on the low enrollment numbers for those groups and prompted school board review and resource shifts. Local media amplified the claim that the policy constituted racial exclusion. [19]
Believers in the assumption made a reasonable case grounded in observable patterns. Wealthy parents could afford test preparation courses that seemed to inflate scores beyond true academic readiness. High school GPA appeared to capture sustained effort over years while SAT and ACT offered only a single snapshot. Score gaps between racial groups were large and persistent, with Asian students averaging 24.9 on the ACT and Black students 16.3, which looked like evidence of systemic unfairness given historical disadvantages. [7] Critics argued that letters of recommendation, teacher reports, and extracurriculars would identify talent more fairly than instruments that merely measured exposure to privileged environments. [3] A thoughtful observer in the early 2000s could see grade inflation pushing GPAs against a 4.0 ceiling and conclude that tests added little once school rigor was considered. [1]
The assumption gained strength from real limitations in early studies. Critics of The Bell Curve pointed out that measures of parental socioeconomic status were imperfect and that fuller controls for confounding factors appeared to shrink the independent effect of cognitive ability. [2] The PACE exam, developed scientifically over seven years, still produced disparate impact on Black and Hispanic applicants, which seemed to prove that no valid test could avoid unequal outcomes. [4] Witnesses in court testified that items such as "Who discovered America?" measured only exposure to White culture rather than ability, and the claim sounded credible when presented as cultural irrelevance to minority children. [6] These arguments were not invented from nothing; they reflected genuine concern about fairness and the visible correlation between family resources and test performance. [1][7]
Yet growing evidence suggests the core claims were flawed. A 2025 study by Friedman and colleagues found that SAT and ACT scores predict college GPA better than high school GPA and show no bias against disadvantaged or underrepresented minority students. [1] Conditional on test scores, higher-resourced students do not outperform lower-resourced ones, contradicting the idea that scores merely reflect privilege. [23] Similar gaps appear in essays, letters of recommendation, and extracurriculars, indicating that preparation differences rather than test design drive disparities. [7][8] The University of California’s own task force concluded that the tests supplied information distinct from GPA and helped identify some minority students who would succeed. [9]
Admissions committees at elite colleges spread the assumption by shifting to test-optional policies after 2020, reasoning that high school GPA could be adjusted for school quality even though committees often lacked precise knowledge of thousands of high schools. [1] Media outlets reinforced the narrative by describing the SAT as a wealth test that favored rich families, a framing that persisted in popular coverage despite mounting counter-evidence. [2] The assumption moved through lawsuits brought by left-leaning groups that labeled the exams discriminatory, prompting public statements from university officials who called the tests racist. [7][8] New York Times coverage and UC regents debates portrayed the instruments as proxies for privilege that disadvantaged minorities. [9]
Legal mechanisms amplified the idea without much public scrutiny. The Luevano consent decree, approved by a hand-picked judge, bound federal hiring for forty-four years and discouraged rigorous testing across agencies. [5] Courtroom testimony in the PASE case featured experts claiming IQ tests measured only cultural exposure, and those assertions entered the record without requiring proof of differential prediction. [6] Black Lives Matter organizations during the 2020 racial reckoning called for discarding SAT scores as unfair to Black and Hispanic applicants, framing them as structural barriers. [10] Corporate pledges of nearly one hundred billion dollars to such groups after George Floyd’s death rewarded the narrative and extended its reach. [12]
The idea also traveled through state policy and media amplification. Louisiana’s public universities relied on enrollment-based funding that rewarded loose admissions standards justified by equity goals. [14] Local media in Fairfax County reported NAACP complaints about low minority enrollment at Thomas Jefferson High School as evidence of discrimination, shaping public perception before any investigation. [19] Media outlets such as CBS and Inside Higher Ed reported colleges dropping tests due to discrimination concerns and pandemic disruptions, accelerating the trend. [26]
Top colleges enacted test-optional admissions policies after 2020, basing decisions primarily on high school GPA because they assumed SAT and ACT scores were biased against disadvantaged and minority applicants. [1] The University of California formalized the shift through a 2021 lawsuit settlement that eliminated the entrance exam requirement, a move many other institutions copied. [7][8] The policy was presented as advancing equity without lowering standards, yet internal studies had shown the tests added predictive power. [21]
The Luevano Consent Decree of January 1981 banned the PACE exam and required federal hiring tests without adverse impact on Black and Hispanic candidates. [4][5] The Carter administration’s Justice Department settled the case and replaced a validated instrument used for 118 positions with subjective tools such as biodata forms that reduced validity. [5] Multiple subsequent administrations failed to develop a replacement that produced equal scores across groups, leaving the decree in place for more than four decades. [4]
School systems dismantled gifted programs that relied on standardized testing after those programs revealed racial differences in talent distribution. [3] Chicago schools faced a lawsuit from Parents in Action on Special Education that challenged IQ testing for placing Black children in special education classes. [6] Fairfax County Public Schools reviewed Thomas Jefferson High School’s test-and-grade admissions policy after a NAACP complaint alleged discrimination, leading to board interventions and potential loss of federal funds. [19]
Test-optional policies produced credential inflation in which GPAs climbed to 4.40 and made it harder to distinguish genuine top talent from average performers. [1] Selective colleges overlooked signals from stronger high schools and risked mismatching students who appeared qualified on paper but struggled once enrolled. [1] Disadvantaged children with high ability, including those in foster care, were less likely to be identified without universal testing and often remained with peer groups that offered less structure. [3]
Federal hiring suffered for forty-four years under the Luevano decree. Agencies abandoned six successive valid exams because they showed adverse impact and turned instead to subjective resumes, interviews, and self-ratings that performed worse and introduced new forms of bias. [5] The result was reduced competence in government staffing and a measurable decline in the quality of civil service selection. [4]
Louisiana’s public universities wasted four hundred forty million dollars annually on students who never graduated, with institutions such as SUNO achieving an eight percent graduation rate and the statewide average stuck at thirty-nine percent against a national fifty-four percent. [14] Administrative bloat grew until there were thirty-nine percent more administrators per student than faculty, a pattern sustained by enrollment-based funding that rewarded quantity over outcomes. [14] The Black middle class experienced disillusionment after integration policies failed to deliver colorblind success, leading many families to retreat into separate social circles and producing greater societal Balkanization. [15]
Growing evidence suggests the assumption was flawed. The 2025 Friedman study demonstrated that SAT and ACT scores predict college GPA more accurately than high school GPA and exhibit no bias against disadvantaged or underrepresented minority students. [1] Non-URM students slightly outperformed URM students with identical scores, contradicting claims that the tests systematically underpredict minority performance. [1] A 2015 study of universal testing in one state produced large increases in gifted placements for disadvantaged and minority students, showing that the instruments uncover hidden talent rather than conceal it. [3]
Legal and institutional shifts began to reverse the policies built on the assumption. The Trump administration ended the Luevano consent decree in 2025, arguing that it conflicted with Supreme Court precedents against racial quotas for statistical parity. [4][5] The decree’s own history illustrated its failure: agencies had repeatedly abandoned superior tests such as ACWA because of adverse impact and settled for inferior substitutes. [5]
University of California’s internal task force had already contradicted the public narrative by finding that the SAT was a better predictor of college success than GPA and provided useful information for some minority applicants. [9] Similar gaps in essays, recommendations, and extracurriculars revealed that preparation differences, not test design, drove disparities. [7][8] Congressional hearings later exposed how universities continued test-blind practices to evade the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling against race-based admissions. [21] The accumulating data made reliance on alternatives look less fair than the tests themselves. [26]
-
[1]
Wow, it turns out The Science shows SAT/ACT scores matterreputable_journalism
-
[2]
IQ isn't everything but it's a lotreputable_journalism
-
[3]
Review of 'Troubled' by Rob Hendersonreputable_journalism
-
[4]
Trump Trashes Carter's Infamous Luevano Decreereputable_journalism
-
[5]
Trump Administration does something smartreputable_journalism
-
[6]
Bias is Often Unpredictablereputable_journalism
-
[7]
Think Again: Do College Admissions Exams Drive Higher Education Inequities?reputable_journalism
-
[8]
Think Again: “College Admissions Exams Drive Higher Education Inequities”reputable_journalism
- [9]
- [10]
- [12]
- [13]
-
[14]
Louisiana’s Higher Education System Not Making the Gradereputable_journalism
- [15]
- [16]
-
[17]
Regents of Univ. of California v. Bakkeprimary_source
-
[18]
Grutter v. Bollingerprimary_source
-
[19]
Discrimination Complaint Against Virginia High Schoolreputable_journalism
-
[20]
Daughter of top EU official raped and murdered by Afghan migrantreputable_journalism
- [21]
- [22]
- [23]
-
[24]
Test scores don't stack up to GPAs in predicting college successreputable_journalism
-
[25]
Standardized tests can be great predictors of college successreputable_journalism
- [26]
- Affirmative Action Causes No Reverse DiscriminationAcademia Business Civil Rights Criminal Justice Culture Wars DEI Education Employment Government Higher Education Immigration Psychology Public Policy Race & Ethnicity
- Policing Disparities Prove DiscriminationAcademia Business Civil Rights Civil Service Criminal Justice Culture Wars DEI Education Employment Government Immigration Psychology Public Policy Race & Ethnicity
- Implicit Bias Test Predicts DiscriminationAcademia Business Civil Rights Criminal Justice Culture Wars DEI Education Employment Government Immigration Psychology Public Policy Race & Ethnicity
- Airport Profiling is Racial DiscriminationAcademia Business Civil Rights Civil Service Criminal Justice Culture Wars DEI Education Government Psychology Public Policy Race & Ethnicity
- Diversity is Our StrengthAcademia Business Civil Rights Criminal Justice Culture Wars DEI Education Europe Government Immigration Public Policy Race & Ethnicity