Commentary: Let's be serious about merit-based college admissions

Citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard as its foundation, the administration of President Donald Trump has taken a number of steps in the name of merit-based admissions, with a stated goal of advancing a more meritocratic higher education system.

Not only has the administration attacked university diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs, but, most recently, it has mandated public reporting of “data disaggregated by race and sex” that includes “quantitative measures of applicants’ and admitted students’ academic achievements such as standardized test scores.” The principal expressed purpose of gathering that data is to “ensure that meritocracy and excellence once again characterize American higher education.”

But, is this mandate a serious approach to merit-based admissions? Worse, is it counterproductive to the goal of a meritocratic society?

The necessary first step toward a meritocratic society is fair access to quality education, and these decisions by the Trump administration stand in the way of that access.

One reason is the policy’s emphasis on test scores. Resistance to the new mandate could take the form of a return to test-optional admissions policies, a reversal of course that could undermine qualified but disadvantaged students’ paths to elite institutions.

In recent years, after dozens of universities eliminated the requirement that applicants submit SAT and ACT scores as part of their applications, a handful of the most selective schools reversed course for a variety of reasons. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one of the leaders in that trend, stated that research shows that standardized tests “help us identify socioeconomically disadvantaged students who lack access to advanced coursework or other enrichment opportunities that would otherwise demonstrate their readiness for MIT.”

And one college president has said that standardized tests provide “an objective reason for admissions denials” when pressure is exerted by influential parents. Thus, a return to test-optional policies — a logical counter to the new mandate — could be anti-meritocratic.

The second reason relates to GPAs. Grade inflation at secondary schools (and, for that matter, colleges) is already rampant. Will the mandate only exacerbate that problem? And doesn’t grade inflation impede judging the relative merits of students?

Finally, collecting and reporting the data and responding to governmental audits of the data will take resources away from fulfilling the academic mission of a college and contribute to what has been labeled (fairly or not) administrative bloat. Burdening underfunded colleges with additional administrative demands at a time when they are facing an enrollment cliff could lead to closures of schools that would otherwise provide opportunities to worthy students.

Does an emphasis on test scores and grades in admissions decisions serve to ensure meritocracy and excellence in higher education, as the policy promises?

The answer is “yes,” but only if one believes that grades and tests are a leading indicator of merit. Any cursory look at one’s workplace is a reminder of the fault in such thinking. Overreliance on quantitative measures denigrates the importance of assessing an applicant’s life experience and writing skills (which can be reflected in essays) and maturity (reflected in interviews) when deciding whether to admit a student to college.

Indeed, consider the following from the majority opinion in the Harvard case: “Nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.”

It is a mistake to believe that a student who has had to work a part-time job or comes from an under-resourced city or rural public high school is less meritorious than a child of an affluent family who attended an elite prep school simply because of a lower SAT, ACT or AP score or a lower GPA. That first child may be more innately intelligent and have more grit, resilience and prospects for success than the second child.

Moreover, admitting the first child over the second one — and achieving socioeconomic diversity in the student body — may contribute significantly to advancing the academic mission, preparing students to live and work in a pluralistic society, and achieving true excellence in the education to be received at the college.

The Trump mandate represents questionable public policy because it creates the potential for exacerbating income inequality. Students from affluent families have the best chance of achieving higher test scores for a variety of reasons: They can enroll in test prep courses, they can take tests multiple times and they are observed to more frequently apply for special accommodations on test days. With higher scores, they have a better chance of admission to the most selective colleges. A degree from a highly selective college can have an ongoing and long-lasting effect on income. Students from lower-income families — who are highly qualified despite, perhaps, lower test scores — deserve the same opportunity.

So, if the mandate is counterproductive and if it doesn’t achieve its principal expressed purpose and represents questionable public policy, what is it really about?

Well, there is a second expressed purpose by the Trump administration — to find information that could show if universities are using race-based preference in their admissions processes. But, as argued above, even a differential in test scores or GPA — if it exists — cannot be considered conclusive evidence of unlawful or inappropriate discrimination.

A better path to more merit-based college admissions would be the elimination of anti-meritocratic double standards that persist in a variety of contexts: in admitting legacies and the children (and grandchildren) of donors, in admitting athletes and in admitting children of faculty members. Of course, many of the candidates for admission in those categories will remain eminently qualified based upon a thoughtful and broad-based assessment and will deserve a spot in an entering class.

But students admitted using a double standard of any kind will contribute less to the academic mission (and may be in over their heads). An approach that removes these side doors to entry offers a much more serious approach to ensuring meritocracy and excellence in higher education.

Improving meritocracy and excellence in higher education is a worthy aspiration that merit-based admissions can help achieve. But it seems highly questionable that a governmental mandate that would likely lead to excessive reliance on test scores and GPAs will get us there.

_____

Thomas A. Cole is chair emeritus of the executive committee of Sidley Austin LLP, a global law firm. He is the author of “Doing Meritocracy Right: How Business Leaders Can Turn an American Aspiration into Reality (and Why They Should),” among other books.

_____