For the last few years, the test-optional debate has often been framed as a simple yes-or-no question: should colleges require the SAT or ACT, or should students be allowed to decide whether scores strengthen their applications? The latest wave of admissions-policy reversals suggests that the better question is more specific: which colleges benefit from requiring scores, and which colleges benefit from remaining test-optional?
The findings summarized by Guidewell Education point to a clear shift among highly selective institutions. The article highlights three lessons:
- Test scores have remained powerful predictors of college performance.
- Many students misunderstand what “optional” really means.
- Some colleges gain institutional advantages from keeping tests optional, including larger applicant pools and higher reported score ranges (since students with lower scores will opt not to submit them).
Yale’s internal review, as reported by Guidewell, found that students who did not submit scores had a much lower admit rate than students who did, raising a transparency concern. “Optional” may have sounded neutral, but in practice, the admissions office saw scores as meaningful evidence.
That is why the next phase of test-optional admissions will not be a broad, uniform return to the pre-pandemic norm. Instead, it will be a split market. More highly selective colleges, STEM-heavy institutions, and competitive public flagships are likely to return to required or “test-flexible” policies. However, most U.S. colleges will likely remain test-optional or test-free because their enrollment incentives, applicant pools, and access goals point in the opposite direction.
The Data Decides
The strongest argument for reinstating the SAT or ACT is not an insistence from seasoned faculty members. It is data. Dartmouth, one of the most visible schools to reverse course, said its research showed that high school grades combined with standardized testing (SAT by itself explains 22% of the variance) were the most reliable indicators of success in Dartmouth’s curriculum (combined variables explain 25% of the variance), and that scores could help identify high-achieving students from low- and middle-income backgrounds, first-generation students, and students from less familiar schools. Dartmouth then reactivated its testing requirement beginning with applicants to the Class of 2029.
UT Austin reached a similar conclusion from a public-university perspective. After four years of test-optional admissions, the university announced that it would again require scores beginning with Fall 2025 applications. Its internal analysis found that students who opted to have scores considered had a median SAT of 1420, compared with 1160 among those who did not, and that students who opted in had an estimated first-semester GPA 0.86 points higher, controlling for factors such as high school GPA and class rank. UT also found that those students were 55% less likely to have a first-semester GPA below 2.0.
Those numbers matter because selective admissions offices are not only choosing students; they are trying to predict who will thrive in demanding programs. At institutions where many applicants have near-perfect GPAs, rigorous course loads, polished essays, and strong recommendations, standardized tests provide one more comparative data point. That is especially useful where grade inflation has weakened the ability of GPA alone to distinguish academic readiness. UT’s explanation was blunt: With so many high school GPAs clustered around 4.0, the SAT or ACT can serve as a differentiator for admission, major placement, and early academic support.
Transparency is Key
The second argument for requiring scores is transparency. MIT made this point early, reinstating its SAT/ACT requirement in 2022. MIT argued that tests helped assess academic preparedness and identify socioeconomically disadvantaged students who lacked access to advanced coursework or other enrichment opportunities. MIT also stated a requirement was “more equitable and transparent” than a test-optional policy because it reduced uncertainty about whether students should submit scores.
This transparency issue is central. In a test-optional system, students with strong counseling often know when to submit and when to withhold. Students without that advice may under-submit, mistakenly assuming that “optional” means “irrelevant.” Harvard made a similar point when it reinstated required testing for the Class of 2029, saying that students who withhold scores may be leaving out information that could help their applications when interpreted in context. Harvard also cited research suggesting that other application components, such as essays, extracurriculars, and recommendations, can be at least as shaped by family resources as test scores.
That does not mean test scores are perfect. They are not. Access to test prep, repeat testing, transportation, fee waivers, and informed advising still varies widely. But the emerging view among many selective colleges is that scores are flawed but useful, especially when interpreted in context. Brown’s review reached that conclusion. The university reinstated testing for the Class of 2029 and said academic outcomes were strongly correlated with test scores across subgroups, including students from less-advantaged high schools and historically underrepresented groups.
What Increasing Policy Reversals Mean
The policy reversals have continued beyond the first wave. Caltech reinstated its standardized-test requirement for applicants beginning in fall 2024, saying standardized tests provide admissions officers and faculty with useful information about academic preparedness. It also noted that more than 95% of its most recently enrolled class had taken standardized exams, even while scores were not visible to admissions. Penn reinstated testing for students applying for fall 2026 admission, saying the shift would bring “clarity and transparency” to the process. Cornell will require SAT or ACT scores for first-year applicants beginning with Fall 2026, after a multiyear study found that scores, reviewed in context, helped complete the picture of an applicant.
Princeton’s decision is especially telling because it gives the market a longer runway. Princeton remains test-optional for applicants seeking to enroll in fall 2026 or fall 2027, but it will return to required SAT or ACT scores for the 2027-28 admission cycle, after a review of five years of test-optional data found stronger academic performance among students who submitted scores. Stanford and Johns Hopkins have also moved back toward required testing for fall 2026 admissions, adding to the sense that the most selective tier is normalizing a return to scores.
Does that mean test-optional admissions is collapsing? No. Nationally, the opposite is still true. FairTest reports more than 2,085 accredited bachelor’s degree-granting institutions with ACT/SAT-optional or test-free policies for students seeking to enroll in Fall 2026 or beyond, including more than 2,010 test-optional institutions and more than 75 test-free institutions. FairTest also says more than 90% of colleges have retained or extended test-optional or test-free policies.
The key distinction is that the most visible colleges do not represent the entire market. Highly rejective universities can require scores and still fill their classes many times over. Less selective private colleges, regional publics, and institutions facing demographic pressure may have a stronger incentive to keep barriers low. Test-optional policies can increase applications, reassure anxious students, and help colleges compete for applicants in a shrinking or uneven high school population.
Guidewell’s article makes this point well. Test-optional admissions can deliver institutional benefits such as higher reported average scores because lower scores are withheld, larger applicant pools, lower admit rates, and a competitive advantage over colleges that require testing. Those incentives are difficult for many colleges to give up, even if internal data shows that scores have predictive value.
That creates the most likely forecast that more reversals are coming, but they will be concentrated. Expect additional highly selective private universities, competitive engineering schools, and flagship publics with capacity constraints to adopt required, test-flexible, or test-preferred policies. These colleges have the most to gain from additional academic information and the least to lose from smaller applicant pools. They can also frame the change as an equity move, arguing that required scores prevent under-submission by talented low-income students.
At the same time, most colleges will not abandon test-optional admissions. For many institutions, the SAT and ACT are not central to enrollment management. Their challenge is not choosing among tens of thousands of academically indistinguishable applicants. Their challenge is attracting, admitting, and enrolling enough qualified students. For them, requiring tests may create friction without enough predictive payoff to justify the loss of applicants.
The End of Test-Optional?
The better phrase for the future is not “the end of test-optional.” It is “the end of one-size-fits-all testing policy.” Students applying to the most selective colleges should increasingly assume that testing matters, even where scores remain technically optional. Students applying to a broader range of colleges will still find many places where scores are optional, irrelevant, or not considered at all.
In short, more colleges will revert to test requirements, but not most colleges. The return of testing will be real, influential, and heavily concentrated at the top of the selectivity ladder. Test-optional admissions will remain the national majority, but at the most competitive institutions, the word “optional” is losing its power.
