Passage A
Some universities have adopted "test-optional" admissions policies, allowing applicants to omit standardized test scores. Advocates argue that such tests correlate with household income and access to preparation resources, so requiring scores can disadvantage capable students from under-resourced schools. They also contend that high school grades and course rigor often predict college performance at least as well as test results, especially when evaluated in context. Several institutions report modest increases in applications and a more socioeconomically diverse applicant pool after adopting test-optional policies.
Nevertheless, proponents typically concede that test scores can provide useful information in certain cases, such as when applicants come from schools with limited curricular offerings or inconsistent grading standards. For this reason, some support a conditional approach: keeping tests optional but encouraging submission when scores add signal beyond transcripts. They further emphasize that admissions reforms should be accompanied by investments in outreach and financial aid, since policy changes alone may not overcome informational barriers.
Passage B
The debate over test-optional admissions often assumes that standardized tests are primarily measurement tools, but they also function as common currency across disparate educational systems. Without scores, admissions offices may rely more heavily on signals that are themselves unequally distributed, such as extracurricular portfolios, unpaid internships, or letters from well-connected recommenders. In that sense, removing tests can shift advantage toward applicants with greater access to enrichment and coaching, even if the tests are imperfect.
Moreover, test-optional policies can reduce transparency for applicants: students may be unsure whether omitting scores will be interpreted negatively, which can lead to strategic behavior and anxiety. Rather than making tests optional, institutions should focus on expanding free preparation, improving score reporting to include local context, and using scores as one component among many. The goal should be to mitigate inequities while preserving a standardized reference point.
The author of Passage A and the author of Passage B would most likely disagree about
- whether standardized tests are correlated with access to preparation resources and household income
- whether making tests optional is more likely to reduce inequity in admissions than to shift reliance onto other unequal signals (correct answer)
- whether admissions reforms should be accompanied by outreach and financial aid investments
- whether the conditional approach described in Passage A requires applicants to submit scores whenever their schools have inconsistent grading standards
- whether Passage A maintains that standardized tests should be eliminated entirely from all admissions decisions
Explanation: This distinguishing points of view question asks where the authors would most likely disagree about test-optional policies. Passage A supports test-optional admissions as potentially beneficial, arguing it can help 'disadvantage capable students from under-resourced schools' and create 'a more socioeconomically diverse applicant pool.' Passage B warns that 'removing tests can shift advantage toward applicants with greater access to enrichment and coaching' and argues test-optional policies may actually increase rather than reduce inequity. The fundamental disagreement is whether making tests optional reduces inequity (A's view) or shifts reliance to other unequal signals that may worsen disparities (B's view). Choice (B) perfectly captures this core tension about test-optional policies' likely effects on equity. Choice (A) is tempting because both acknowledge tests correlate with income, but they share this understanding rather than disagree about it. Identify each author's prediction about test-optional policies' net effects before comparing their stances.