De-standardizing Higher Education: How Test-optional Admission Policies Increase Accessibility and Promote Success to Students from Historically Marginalized Communities

Though the United States continues to become more diverse, college campuses remain homogenous. Enrollment professionals have been working on ways to increase accessibility to higher education, and through the last 20 years, test-optional policies have been gaining traction. Today, institutions are faced with a tough decision to make to continue requiring test scores, or to introduce policies with less focus on standardized testing. This study portrays how test-optional policies work at eight institutions around the country and whether they promote accessibility or not. In this thesis, I focus on individual policies while illustrating society's deep reliance on standardized testing. Participants shared advice and reflected on the responsibility enrollment professionals have to further diversity, equity, and inclusion. Additionally, I explore how the COVID-19 pandemic has affected the world of admissions, an impact that has altered the status quo in the industry. Lastly, I reflect on what colleges and universities should do moving forward. Commitment to access is not just some words to add on a mission, commitment to access means commitment to change and a commitment to all.

Running head: DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION De-standardizing Higher Education: How Test-optional Admission Policies Increase Accessibility and Promote Success to Students from Historically Marginalized Communities. Valentina Rojas Westminster College A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment for the degree of Master of Arts in Community Leadership Westminster College Salt Lake City, Utah May 2021 i DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION ii Abstract Though the United States continues to become more diverse, college campuses remain homogenous. Enrollment professionals have been working on ways to increase accessibility to higher education, and through the last 20 years, test-optional policies have been gaining traction. Today, institutions are faced with a tough decision to make; to continue requiring test scores, or to introduce policies with less focus on standardized testing. This study portrays how test-optional policies work at eight institutions around the country and whether they promote accessibility or not. In this thesis, I focus on individual policies while illustrating society’s deep reliance on standardized testing. Participants shared advice and reflected on the responsibility enrollment professionals have to further diversity, equity, and inclusion. Additionally, I explore how the COVID-19 pandemic has affected the world of admissions, an impact that has altered the status quo in the industry. Lastly, I reflect on what colleges and universities should do moving forward. Commitment to access is not just some words to add on a mission, commitment to access means commitment to change and a commitment to all. Keywords: standardized testing, test-optional policies, admission, enrollment, thick description, interviews. DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION Dedication A Rodrigo, Inés, Asseneth, Elias, Manuel y Jerry – mis ángeles de la guarda – my guardian angels. To all immigrants and children of immigrants – si se puede y si se pudo! Papá y mamá, gracias. iii DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION Acknowledgements Jamie Joanou, gracias por no dejarme rendir. Without you, this would not have been possible. The participants, the raison d`être of this study. Alvin H. Clemens Jr., my best friend, confidant, and partner. Thank you for not letting me give up and for being by my side through the finish line. Catalina Rojas, my life sister. Thank you for letting me always call you anytime and for your unconditional love. To Q and Alexa, the sounding boards, and listeners of my rants. Without your constant support and kind words, this study would not exist. To friends, all and new. The Rojas, Gutiérrez, Portillo, Clemens, Buitrago, and all other families who have been next to me since day one. In loving memory of Blanca Inés Sánchez Fernandez and Luis Rodrigo Rojas Carrasquilla. iv DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION v Table of Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................. ii Dedication ............................................................................................................ iii Acknowledgements ................................................................................................iv Chapter I: Purpose and Significance ....................................................................... 1 The Study .................................................................................................................................... 3 Significance.............................................................................................................................. 4 Organization ............................................................................................................................ 5 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 6 Chapter II: Review of the Literature ....................................................................... 7 History of Standardized Testing ................................................................................................. 8 The Case Against Standardized Testing ...................................................................................... 9 White Supremacy in Higher Education .....................................................................................10 Diversity in College Campuses ................................................................................................... 11 The Test-Optional Movement .................................................................................................... 12 Gap in Literature ........................................................................................................................ 14 Root Causes ................................................................................................................................ 16 Justification for My Study ..........................................................................................................18 Chapter III: Methods ............................................................................................ 19 Research Context ...................................................................................................................... 20 Participants ............................................................................................................................... 20 Methods..................................................................................................................................... 22 Analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 23 Validity Measures ...................................................................................................................... 23 Ethical Concerns ....................................................................................................................... 24 Issues & Challenges ................................................................................................................... 24 Limitations ................................................................................................................................ 24 Chapter IV: Findings ............................................................................................ 26 Culture of Standardized Testing ............................................................................................... 26 Test-optional Admissions .......................................................................................................... 31 Impact of COVID-19 on Standardized Testing ......................................................................... 36 How to Make College Admissions More Accessible.................................................................. 42 DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION vi Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 47 Chapter V: Discussion .......................................................................................... 49 Backtracking Test-optional Policies .......................................................................................... 49 Implication ............................................................................................................................ 49 Recommendation .................................................................................................................. 50 Not Introducing Policies to Make Admissions More Accessible .............................................. 50 Implication ............................................................................................................................. 51 Recommendation ................................................................................................................... 51 Lack of Financial Inclusive Aid Policies .................................................................................... 52 Implication ............................................................................................................................ 52 Recommendation .................................................................................................................. 52 Limitations ................................................................................................................................ 53 Future Research ........................................................................................................................ 53 Learning Objectives................................................................................................................... 54 Self-reflection ............................................................................................................................ 55 References ............................................................................................................56 Appendix A: Recruitment Email ........................................................................... 61 Appendix B: Personal Introduction ..................................................................... 62 Appendix C: Consent Form .................................................................................. 63 Appendix D: Interview Guide ................................................................................65 Appendix E: IRB Approval Form .......................................................................... 66 Appendix F: NIH Certificate .................................................................................. 67 DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION 1 Chapter I: Purpose and Significance Americans have always been taught that to succeed is to live the American Dream, a narrative which asserts that if a person works hard, they can achieve great things in life; things that can only be achieved in the United States of America. Along with this idea, comes the understanding that an education is important in the path to success. Today, it is virtually impossible to get an entry-level position without a bachelor’s degree. However, higher education in the US is still out of reach to many Americans, particularly people from low-socioeconomic backgrounds, historically marginalized communities like Latinx, Black, African American, and Indigenous folks, and first-generation college goers, “inequality in higher education persists because college education is not universal” (Alon, 2009, p. 732). To many within these populations, higher education is simply out of the question and perceived as an unattainable dream. And they are not fully wrong; the price of higher education is disproportionate to today’s wages, students are losing interest in education at much younger ages, and barriers continue to pile up making it harder for students to earn the coveted college degree — one of them being standardized testing: “poor students, among who Black and Hispanics are overrepresented, average lower test-scores than their wealthy and nonminority counterparts because they are significantly more likely to attend underperforming, resource-poor schools.” (Alon & Tienda, 2007, p. 491). By not scoring on par as their white and privileged counterparts, these students continue to be left out of college campuses. The Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) and its counterpart the American College Test (ACT) came to life in 1926 and 1959 respectively to homogenize the college application process. Before then, America’s elite institutions offered their own entrance exams, making it harder for students who wanted to apply to as many institutions as they could (Buckley et al., 2018). In theory, the creation of these exams was a way to bridge the gap in higher education accessibility, which then allowed students from all walks of life to apply to selective institutions. Today, most DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION 2 institutions of higher education in the U.S. require students to submit test scores from either the SAT or the ACT to be considered for admission (Atkinson & Geiser, 2009). However, these companies have lost sense of their original intentions – to bridge the gap in higher education accessibility – and now are profit-making, nonprofit organizations (both the ACT and The College Board have 501(c)(3) status) fixating in thriving economically (Atkinson & Geiser, 2009). The SAT and ACT’s base prices are $49.50 and $55.00 respectively, for each time a student takes them (ACT, n.d.; College Board, n.d.). High school students are encouraged, and sometimes expected, to take these tests multiple times, which can be very costly to families. Virtually the only way to prepare for these exams is by buying practice books (prices can range from $15 to $400), or by hiring a private tutor which can cost at least $50 per hour. Some welloff public schools have enough resources to teach ACT/SAT prep as part of their curriculum, but even then, it is restricted to students who are already taking the most challenging courses offered (Sackett et al., 2012). Though these exams were meant to make the college application process more streamlined, proponents of standardized admissions testing have long argued that tests such as the SAT and ACT are a vital tool for admissions offices at selective institutions because they most efficiently address the dual challenges of uniformity and fairness in the allocation of the scarce resource of college admission. (Buckley, et al., 2018, p.2). Today, they are just another barrier students must get through. In 1969, Bowdoin College in Brunswick, ME became the first US college to make the ACT and SAT optional for admission (Buckley et al., 2018). During the early 2000s, a test-optional movement ensued across the nation, increasing the number of institutions that stopped relying solely on these exams (Epstein, 2009). As the spring of 2020 arrived with the COVID-19 pandemic, most colleges and universities across the nation vowed to not consider the ACT or SAT for fall 2021 applicants, all due to the constant cancelation of these exams. As an DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION 3 enrollment professional and a student from a historically marginalized community, I am a firm believer that test-optional policies are made to bridge the gap in access to higher education — I benefited from this policy back in 2012 when I was applying to colleges. I also believe that in conjunction with other policy changes, test-optional approaches can make higher education attainable to all. The Study Colleges and universities around the country have spent plenty of time and resources on plans to diversify their student bodies. Institutions with large endowments have even gone as far as meeting all financial aid needs for top students who do not have the economic resources to attend (Alon & Tienda, 2007). However, many colleges and universities still require their applicants to submit their ACT/SAT scores. If these institutions are not practicing a holistic approach — the review process in which admission professionals look at all aspects of a student’s application and not only their grade-point average and test scores — students will continue to fall through the cracks. It is because of this reason that I sought to understand how institutions who have made test scores optional are opening their doors to students from all walks of life. The research questions that guided this study are, “How do test-optional admission policies increase accessibility to students from historically marginalized communities in higher education?” and, “What type of policies and procedures have institutions put into place to better support the students who benefit from a test-optional process?” To answer these questions, I conducted eight, 45-minute, semi-structured interviews with admission professionals in leadership positions — directors, deans, vice presidents — from institutions around the country who have had a test-optional policy for at least five years. This time frame is important because it includes at least two graduating classes with students who benefitted from the test optional policy. Beyond the admission policy, I was interested in learning what other policies, procedures, and/or programming these institutions launched to better support these students — scholarships, specialized centers, pre-orientation programming, DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION 4 etc. Making higher education more accessible does not end during the application process, campuses need to be ready to support and help succeed all their students. Significance Existing studies show that the ACT and SAT are not the right indicators for success in higher education (Alon & Tienda, 2007; Berry & Sackett, 2009; Geiser & Santelices 2007). Students from historically marginalized communities tend to test lower than their more privileged counterparts for many reasons including the lack of accessibility to test-prep and tutors and not enough funds to take the tests multiple times. It does not matter how smart these students are, without access to test prep their success in standardized tests can’t be guaranteed – “even among those with strong academic preparation, low-income students have poorer college outcomes than their more affluent peers” (Hoxby & Turner, 2015, p. 514). It is not that these students are not prepared for higher education, it is just that higher education as a system was created by and for white men and even though American college campuses look more diverse, the systems at play are still rooted in colonial and white supremacy mentalities (Buckley et al., 2018). Having multicultural recruitment plans is not enough, colleges and universities need to unveil their systemic injustices and create policies that support all students, no matter their background. Existing literature (Alon & Tienda, 2007; Berry & Sackett, 2009; Buckley et al., 2018; and Geiser & Santelices 2007) about test-optional policies focus on the admission side of the issue while overlooking the other efforts colleges and universities have introduced as part of their new identity. Therefore, my pursuit was to present a case in which colleges and universities need to work together, no matter their department, to fully support students who otherwise would not have been admitted. Moreover, existing research mostly speaks about well-known, prestigious institutions while ignoring other lesser-known colleges that have implemented remarkable policies and procedures (Epstein, 2009). My original intent was to highlight all types of institutions; however, all my participants worked at private institutions, mostly liberal DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION 5 arts and sciences colleges. The end goal of this project was to provide test-optional aspiring colleges and universities a plan of action, and perhaps inspire colleges and universities that still require the ACT/SAT to make those optional. Organization This project attempted to assist Westminster College (Salt Lake City, UT) as it embarks on its first year as a test-optional institution. Westminster is a small, private, liberal arts college located in the foothills of the Wasatch mountains. In the summer of 2020, Westminster officially launched its test-optional policy — a policy that was thought of before the COVID-19 pandemic. Westminster is interesting in that, even though it is a PWI (predominantly white institution), has great resources for students from historically marginalized communities. One of these resources is the Legacy Program — a program created to support, mentor, and help succeed first-generation plus students. The description in their webpage states, Your success as a first-generation college student is important to Westminster College. The valuable and unique talents, strengths, and story that you bring to Westminster have an important place in the campus community. Everyone's path to college is unique, but that does not mean that you are alone in your experiences. As you prepare yourself for who you want to be and what you want to accomplish after Westminster, you will receive hands-on support and devotion from faculty and staff mentors as well as your peers. There is no challenge or accomplishment that you have to face or celebrate on your own. Low-income and/or traditionally underrepresented first-generation students can apply to receive mentor support and other program benefits through one of 2 initiatives: Legacy Scholars [first-year students] and Legacy STEPS [transfer students]. (Westminster College, n.d.). Most of my work through this research was with the Office of Admissions, trying to find ways in which the College could highlight the Legacy Program as part of a recruitment plan. My Westminster mentor was the Director of Admissions, who I assisted in creating a recruitment DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION 6 plan that highlights the new test-optional policy and ways in which Legacy can help reach students who are now able to apply to the college without their test scores. Working with Westminster helped the college implement an inclusive test-optional policy and think of ways to grant more support to students. On the other hand, working with an institution who had specialized programming even before having a test-optional policy allowed me to envision what institutions are capable of. The end goal was to create plans that will better support students from historically marginalized backgrounds as they transition to a Westminster education, while drafting a test-optional implementation document that colleges and universities can reference as they take a step into this direction. I believe it is the duty of institutions to work in bridging the gaps of accessibility to higher education while making sure students are supported and fostered while on their campuses. Conclusion This study derived from an effort to understand and change oppressive admission tactics. As mentioned previously, standardized testing is not the only reason why American higher education is not representative of our current demographics, but it is certainly one that is tangible enough to study it. By removing barriers individually, it is quite possible to create a system that benefits all students no matter what their socioeconomic status, race, or ethnicity are. Moreover, changing admission policies alone is not a feasible solution — implementing support and success systems as part of a new era in an institution, is a better way to create accessibility and assure the academic prosperity of all students. This project was meant to shine a light into the reality behind standardized education and to provide a way to change practices to ones that better represent institutional values. DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION 7 Chapter II: Review of the Literature As American demographics continue to change and students from historically marginalized communities are applying to college at higher rates, it is essential to understand the systems that keep these same students out of higher education. In many cases, the type of high school students attend plays a significant role in their access to higher education — some schools have more resources for advanced placement and college prep classes (Geiser & Santelices, 2007; Kugman, 2011). Access to those resources leads to students with significantly higher test scores than their less privileged counterparts. By requiring standardized tests for admission, American institutions are playing a crucial role on the lack of accessibility to students from all backgrounds(Hoxby & Turner, 2015), a practice that derives from the early 1900s. For almost one hundred years, exams like the SAT and ACT have dictated whether students are ready for college (Atkinson & Geiser, 2009). For students who do not have the economic resources for tutoring or multiple testing (taking the ACT or SAT more than once), this means that they are automatically at a disadvantage in testing well. In an effort for equity and inclusion, colleges and universities are moving to more holistic admissions approaches, which include policies where the focus is not on test scores but on more individualized characteristics like essays, letters of recommendation, portfolios, and of course, grades (Furuta, 2017). Through this study I was able to gain insight on the impact that standardized testing has on accessibility to higher education while also understanding how history has shaped the way we perceive these exams. DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION 8 History of Standardized Testing As the desire for higher education grew among young Americans during the beginning of the 20th century, the very prestigious IVY Leagues and Seven Sisters realized1 they needed a more streamlined process for admissions (Atkinson & Geiser, 2009). Since they shared many of the same applicants, the College Board was created to design a test that would standardize admission, the predecessor to the SAT (Atkinson & Geiser, 2009). Less than one thousand applicants participated in the first College Board test in 1901 (Atkinson & Geiser, 2009). However, it was not until 1926 that the SAT – Scholastic Aptitude Test – made its first appearance, replacing the College Boards (Atkinson & Geiser, 2009). This new test was based on the structure of the IQ tests two million soldiers took during WWI (Atkinson & Geiser, 2009). In 1948, the Education Testing Service (ETS) was founded as the official developer of the SAT (Alon & Tienda, 2007), and in 1959, the American College Test (ACT) made its first appearance as the SAT’s competitor (Atkinson & Geiser, 2009). Given that each high school is vastly different from each other, these tests were set up to be an equitable measure of academic ability and intelligence. The number of colleges requiring the ACT and SAT in 1955 were 299 and 143 respectively – by 1967, 1,425 colleges required the ACT and by 1990, 1,839 institutions required the SAT (Furuta, 2017). Also in 1990, to keep up with its evolution, the College Board renamed the SAT the “Scholastic Assessment Test,” and then fully removed the name in 1996 leaving initials with no meaning (Atkinson & Geiser, 2009). As more institutions began requiring standardized tests, more students were taking them – the number of SAT takers grew seventy times between 1947 and 2001 (Alon, 2009). The continued increase of standardized testing requirements during the second half of the 20th century is in part owed for colleges to fight grade inflation — the concept that high Ivy League schools: Brown University, Columbia University, Harvard University, Cornell University, Princeton University, Yale University, and Dartmouth University. Seven Sisters: Mount Holyoke College, Vassar College, Smith College, Wellesley College, Bryn Mawr College, Barnard College, and Radcliffe College. 1 DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION 9 grades like ‘As’, have lost their prestige and are awarded more often than before (Hurwitz & Lee., 2018). To combat the inflation, admission professionals must rely heavily on standardized test scores to make more equitable decisions (Hurwitz & Lee, 2018). But some experts argue that a combination of standardized testing and high school grades, is the best way to assess college preparedness (Berry & Sackett, 2009). College entrance tests have come a long way since their founding and today, more than 3.5 million students take them (Maguire, 2018), however their main themes and concepts remain unchanged – themes and concepts that favor students from affluent backgrounds with access to more education resources than their less privileged counterparts (Freedle, 2003). The Case Against Standardized Testing Higher education in the United States was founded at a time that only white, wealthy men were allowed to be educated (Atkinson & Geiser, 2009). Even though by the time the SAT first originated white women were already admitted into American colleges and universities, the concept of the exams remains very much focused on its original intended audience (Buckley et al., 2018). As more nonwhite and low-income students apply to colleges, it becomes more evident that the tests are disproportionately biased against them (Alon & Tienda, 2007). It does not mean that the ACT and SAT have questions that are unfair to non-white students, but these populations have less access to resources that better prepare them understand the unique way questions are worded. Moreover, some questions on the SAT and ACT are focused on mainstream American, white culture while continuing to ignore other cultures – making it difficult for some students to grasp their meaning (Freedle, 2003). Alon (2009) argues that 70 percent of seniors from privileged backgrounds use at least one type of test preparation — tutors, test prep books, test prep courses, and the like. Moreover, students from lowsocioeconomic (SES) backgrounds — where Black and Latinx students are overrepresented — tend to test lower than their more privileged counterparts. This is partly due to under-resourced schools which, in addition to other programs, do not have the budget for college-prep and access DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION 10 programming (Alon & Tienda, 2007). Thanks to this, Sackett et al. (2012) argue that relying heavily on standardized test scores will continue to filter out students from historically marginalized backgrounds. Students from these populations are also more likely to fall victim to stereotypes and stereotype threat — the concept that the negative stereotypes of a person’s identity can become tangible and eventually be confirmed (Rodriguez, 2014). Black and Latinx students constantly face negative stereotypes, particularly regarding their academic achievements — they are not “smart,” they are “lazy,” they do not “test well,” and “won’t go to college” (Brown & Lee, 2005). Students are told from a young age that the ACT and SAT will dictate their future, causing them to feel enormous stress to test well. In many cases, the pressure can induce stereotype threat to Black and Latinx students (Brown & Lee, 2005). Furthermore, these exams have penetrated our societal membrane so deep that certain states including Colorado, Illinois, Michigan, and Utah require their seniors to take the ACT to graduate, even if their postsecondary plans do not include higher education (Atkinson & Geiser, 2009). A more ethical way to review applicants would be to put as much weight on high school grade point average (HSGPA) as it is put on test scores, especially when we factor in the matter that these tests capture the knowledge a student retrieved on a Saturday morning for three hours (Furuta, 2017). Moreover, these tests may not reflect students’ potential academic achievement, but test preparedness (Berry & Sackett, 2009). On the other hand, HSGPA captures knowledge through the span of four years and can give a better sense of overall academic greatness. This continued focus on standardized testing promotes the exclusion students who have historically tested low into higher education, while maintaining a lack of diversity. White Supremacy in Higher Education Higher education is rooted in white supremacy as it was originally intended to only educate white, wealthy men. The admission process is just a miniscule part of the bigger DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION 11 problem that affects college campuses across the nation – the lack of representation. Institutions continue to be mostly white, not only within their student bodies but including faculty and staff members. Colleges and universities are not outright keeping nonwhite students out, but family expectation of college attendance tends to be higher within white families, “HighSES families and children are better equipped to seek out educational opportunities wherever they exist” (Kugman, 2011, p. 805). Children of white parents, especially those from affluent communities, are groomed from a young age to be “better” admission candidates by promoting numerous co-curricular involvements, leadership positions, and stellar transcripts. And since higher education in the US is not universal, inequality continues to persist (Alon, 2009). When standardized testing is added to the mix, it becomes a recipe for disaster. Kugman (2011) argues that white, high-SES families have better resources to position their students to be outstanding applicants, which in turn, leads to greater accessibility to higher education. This concept of being born on third base benefits only a fraction of the American population while maintaining the status quo of whiteness in academia — a concept Alon (2009) calls social closure, “a process whereby social collectivities seek to maximize rewards by restricting access to resources and opportunities to a limited circle of eligible individuals.” (Alon, 2009, p. 735). Given the biases that the ACT and SAT have against students from historically marginalized backgrounds, these students continue to be underrepresented in college campuses across the nation. Diversity in College Campuses Due to the impact admission policies like standardized testing requirements have on accessibility to higher education, college campuses across the nation continue to misrepresent the demographic makeup of the United States. Though the number of nonwhite college-age students grew from 16 percent in 1970 to 35 percent in 2000, these numbers are not reflected in the percentage of nonwhite students in higher education (Alon & Tienda, 2007). For example, Latinx/Hispanic Americans have become the largest minority group in the nation, making up DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION 12 around 13 percent of the population (Schmidt, 2003). However, only 35 percent enroll in college (Oliva & Nora, 2004), making them the least educated group, particularly among women (Schmidt, 2003). It is important to state that standardized testing is not the only aspect keeping Latinx students out of college campuses, in many cases expectations to help support their families trumps the idea of post-secondary education (Boden, 2011). College and university officials are aware of the lack of diversity in their campuses and have tried to implement systems that can change this. Many institutions have restructured their missions so that they support student personhood and individualism, which in turn has led to the adoption of student support services like centers for diversity, equity, and inclusion, and decolonial curricula like Latinx/Chicanx departments — systems that empower students (Furuta, 2017). Alon and Tienda (2007) explain that the desire to explicitly diversify campuses began in the 1970s, when admission professionals began to understand that the ACT and SAT were not leveling the playing field for nonwhite applicants. Because of this, colleges and universities began implementing holistic approaches where the sole focus was not standardized testing, but where applicants were reviewed on more than academic achievements. One of the biggest issues in academia is the lack of accessibility and success for Latinx and other nonwhite students, and there is much more that institutions can do to truly be more equitable (Oliva & Nora, 2004). The Test-Optional Movement In a move to increase diversity among their campuses, colleges and universities across the nation have adopted test-optional policies where students choose to have their ACT or SAT considered for admission or not. It all began in 1969 when Bowdoin College in Maine introduced the first test-optional policy in the U.S. (Atkinson & Geiser, 2009) when Bowdoin admission officials realized that the ACT and SAT were a barrier for many students, and their commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion has allowed students from all backgrounds to attend the College. In 1989 Bates College, also in Maine, followed suit (Buckley et al., 2018). This move did DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION 13 not gain traction until the 1990s when other name institutions implemented test-optional policies, and though the movement was originally led by liberal arts colleges, in the last two decades it has gained traction among all types of institutions (Lucido, 2018). In 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic both the ACT and SAT canceled most of their examinations, a decision that pushed most colleges and universities to adopt test-optional policies even if temporarily. As of today, many of those institutions with temporary policies, have expanded them for at least a year or two. Experts have tried to understand if these tests predict academic performance, for which Maguire (2018) argues that students who do not submit their test-scores are as likely as their test-submitter counterparts to persist in higher education. Furthermore, Geiser and Santelices (2007) explain that predictive-validity (how certain measures predict behavior in the future) studies have shown that HSGPA is the best indicator of college academic success. But beyond focusing on first year academic success, admission professionals should be more concerned on overall academic persistence at their institutions. Bowen et al. (2018) analyze how colleges should rely on high school grades as better predictors of four-to-six-year graduation rates than test scores, mainly because grades evaluate understanding of academic content. The authors argue that colleges and universities have spent too much energy on predicting first-year grades and not on overall academic success through test scores, whereas grades are a much robust predictor of comprehensive academic achievement. On the other hand, some experts argue that test scores play a crucial role in predicting academic success. Shaw (2018) indicates that since every high school is different, it is difficult to compare academic profiles in an equitable manner. By using standardized tests, colleges and universities have a more uniform way of comparing applicants. Furthermore, the author contends that every question in the ACT/SAT has been pretested and is basically immune to biases. Likewise, Hurwitz and Lee (2018) explain that grade inflation makes it more difficult to differentiate between students who truly deserve A’s and those who benefit from this inflation. DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION 14 Since this phenomenon is common around the country, the authors argue that admission staff need to rely on standardized testing to better evaluate academic achievement. Additionally, Sanchez and Mattern (2018) evaluated the discrepancies between high school GPA (HSGPA) and test scores, which can be understood with three scenarios. First, some students perform roughly the same on both their tests and in school and they are referred to as “consistent achievement;” second, some students get higher grades compared to their tests scores and they are called “HSGPA discrepant;” lastly, there are students who score higher on their tests than their academic performance and they are called “test score discrepant.” (Sanchez & Mattern, 2018, p. 121) This shows that in some cases test scores are needed to supplement HSGPA and vice versa. Even though colleges and universities can review applicants without their test scores, many still require them for merit-based scholarships. Jacobs et al., (2018) explain that scholarships are used as a recruitment and yield method, but that it is almost impossible to grant these without the knowledge of standardized tests, which I found to not always be the case thanks to my findings. Research like that of Freedle (2003) focused on ways to eliminate test biases by proposing a way to reevaluate SAT answers and removing systemic biases. The author explains that there are some questions, particularly in the English section, that put BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and people of color) students at a disadvantage. By using this reevaluating method, students can be evaluated more fairly on sections they are more likely to test well on, the author argues. Although test biases are an enormous issue in standardized testing, this method does not address the overall issue of accessibility. Gap in Literature Even though standardized tests were created to equalize the college admissions process, research continues to overlook the fact that reliance on these tests only benefits students from privileged and well-off backgrounds (Kugman, 2011). These students most likely attend public high schools in affluent neighborhoods or private schools that have support and test preparation DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION 15 as part of their curriculum. In addition, these students tend to have at least one parent who attended college, which serves as guidance through the admissions process. Students from affluent communities are more likely to take both the ACT and SAT multiple times and presumably will have private tutoring or test prep. By being able to access these and many other opportunities, students will most likely test better than their least privileged counterparts. Testoptional policies can level the playing field for both advantaged and disadvantaged students and strive to make higher education more equitable (Sackett et al., 2012). On the other hand, research focused on the success of test-optional policies tend to disregard the systems that colleges and universities have unveiled to better support students who are benefitting from these policies. For example, are these institutions creating more individualized advising? Are they implementing programs in which the focus is retention and success for students who wouldn’t be there if it were not for test-optional policies? How are colleges filling in gaps of cultural capital that these students may have as they join their new communities? All of these are important questions because accessibility does not end at the admission process. Colleges cannot, and should not, vow to “diversify” their campuses without systems in place that will promote and guarantee the success of all students. Furuta (2017) recognizes that test-optional policies may be a result of institutions focusing on student personhood; the idea that students are unique people and cannot be evaluated just on their grades. This concept can urge colleges and universities to offer services that support student personhood and the success of all students. Due to COVID-19, many institutions around the U.S. adopted temporary test-optional policies, however, many still require tests for scholarship awarding. Admissions professionals know that whether students submit their test scores or not, there must be a policy in place to award merit-based financial aid. Some schools have managed to find a way to award scholarship money without the use of the ACT or SAT, but research has not focused on this aspect of the DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION 16 admission process. I sought to find out what institutions have implemented to award students without needing their test scores. Root Causes It is very difficult to know how to make higher education more accessible without understanding what has caused it to be so inaccessible to certain populations. When Harvard university was founded as America’s first institution of higher learning in 1636, it only admitted white, wealthy men into its ivy-covered buildings. Even though society has progressed in the last four hundred years, higher education still benefits mostly white folks, and except for HBCUs (historically Black colleges and universities), institutions remain mostly white across the country. Though Latinx-Americans are the largest minority, they remain the least educated group with only 35 percent of their population enrolled in college (Oliva & Nora, 2004; Schmidt, 2003). Students who had at least one parent attend college are more likely to attend themselves, maintaining a cycle of low education levels and poverty for students without that type of cultural capital and from historically marginalized communities (Bui & Rush, 2016). Given the white, privileged identity that has maintained higher education as an exclusive service, it is possible to pinpoint three main root causes — euro/western-centrism, coloniality, and racism. American higher education was founded with the European ideals of the era in mind, those that focused on educating the rich and wealthy (Atkinson & Geiser, 2009). Today the system remains the same, a system that focuses on the west as a hub of power and knowledge while silencing minority and indigenous voices (Buckley et al., 2008). According to FigueroaHelland and Lindgren (2016), Euro/western-centrism cultivates the current world order while, “shaping a global class structure and division of labor privileging the west over the rest, placing the western and westernized at the core of the world-capitalist-system” (Figueroa-Helland & Lindgren, 2016, p. 440). By continuing to maintain these as the main ideals in higher education, non-white Americans are suffering the repercussions of a system that was not made for them. DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION 17 This Euro/western-centrism then makes way to coloniality and its oppressive practices, in this case, those which preserve education as an elite institution and that, “have been built on an intersection of oppressive systems like the imperial/colonial world order under Euro/western-centric domination and hegemony, leading to the subjugation, extermination, enslavement, destruction, destructuration, and/or marginalization of the non-western, nonwhite and non-urban.” (Figueroa-Helland & Lindgren, 2016, p. 440). A colonial world order that has caused low enrollment of students from historically marginalized communities – one that feels threatened when programs like Affirmative Action2 are introduced to level the playing field. Decolonizing education by introducing practices that resemble our current demographics is a step into making this basic human right accessible to all. Moreover, these colonial practices are plain and simply racist. Solely relying on standardized test scores to see if a student is going to be successful at an institution or not, while ignoring other factors like GPA (grade-point average) and personal qualities, are leaving capable and bright students behind (Sackett et al, 2012). Colleges and universities who vow to become more inclusive while maintaining their oppressive practices are intensifying the problem, which has “entrenched hierarchically racialized systems of power/oppression privileging a socio politically constructed and materially/economically entrenched ordering where Euro/western and white supremacy rests on the subjugation of ‘non-white/southern other(s)’” (FigueroaHelland & Lindgren, 2016, p. 440). Standardized testing has deep capitalist ideologies where their main goal is to make a profit and not make education more accessible. The ACT and the College Board make millions of dollars a year just through their tests. According to their 2019 Form 990, the College Entrance Examination Board, or College Board, received $403,601,000 from assessments alone (while also paying their CEO and Trustee, David Coleman, $1,418,038 as compensation) even though they are a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization (GuideStar, n.d.). A set of laws that promote the increase of underrepresented populations, i.e., women, Latinx, African American students in American higher education. 2 DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION 18 When colleges and universities stop requiring standardized tests for admission, these companies will lose their main economic drivers. Understanding that the issues of accessibility in higher education are rooted in western centrism, coloniality, racism and capitalism, allows us to dissect and grasp ways in which we can make the system better, equitable and just. Justification for My Study Although there is plenty of research on the benefits of test-optional admission policies, there are not many studies that focus on what institutions are doing to assure the success of students once they are on campus. The existing literature better informed how I approached my own research, as it shows the different perspectives on test-optional policies and their impact, but I believe that I was able to show a different side of the benefit of not requiring standardized testing as an entry to higher education. Learning about test optional policies plus systems established to support students give a better picture of what colleges should strive to do. Chun & Dickinson (2010) argue that a sense of belonging promotes better academic achievement and retention, particularly in Latinx students. By setting up expectations that test-optional policies go in conjunction with support systems, colleges and universities will be more successful at diversifying their student bodies and assure their success. DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION 19 Chapter III: Methods During my undergraduate years, I was a tour guide and an intern in the office of admission, a job that gave me some insight into the way higher education works and sparked my interest in the field. Soon after graduation I was offered a position in that same office as an Admission Counselor. This role opened my eyes to what accessibility, or the lack thereof, in higher education looks like. Through my profession, I have strived to support students from historically marginalized communities, because I identify with them and believe education is for all. As I began to understand the barriers that continue to keep these students out of colleges and universities, I realized that standardized tests like the American College Test (ACT) and the SAT play an enormous role, and as explained on Chapter II, these exams have a history of marginalization. At the beginning of the twentieth century, American colleges and universities needed a way to be more accessible to students from all over the country, which led to the creation of admission standardized tests. Today, most institutions of higher learning continue to serve mostly white students while leaving behind other racial and ethnic groups. Thus, my research questions are, how do test-optional admission policies increase accessibility to students from historically marginalized communities in higher education? And what type of policies and procedures have institutions put into place to better support the students who benefit from a test-optional process? While gathering my data and conducting interviews, I was able to learn more about the reasoning behind institutions going test-optional and what that has meant for overall accessibility. I also learned of different initiatives institutions have introduced to ensure the retention and success of all their students. With test-optional admissions being at the forefront of enrollment news, I believe that this project is ever evolving, and I am excited to continue to work on making higher education more accessible. DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION 20 Research Context Even though the demographic makeup of American college-aged people is very diverse, institutions of higher learning continue to misrepresent this. High school and income inequality are some of the reasons why colleges and universities continue to primarily serve, white, affluent students. And because I had to narrow my focus for the purposes of this project, I chose to focus on college-entry standardized testing alone. There are several nationwide initiatives that promote higher education accessibility like Upward Bound and Trio, and though with high success rates, some students are still left behind because the systems in place prefer it this way. Through this project I sought to learn what professionals think of all this, what test-optional policies mean, and what the future of academia looks like, while also focusing on what about standardized testing is blocking accessibility. The participants of this study provided insight on whether test-optional policies promote access or not, while sharing what each of their institutions has done to support students from all backgrounds. Introducing de-standardizing admission policies can only be successful when campuses come together to ensure the success of all students. Participants An important part of this project was to talk to people in enrollment management leadership positions like deans and directors of admissions, folks with a wealth of knowledge of the industry. In my professional experience, these are the people who are effecting change, who are proposing new policies to be more equitable; they are the gatekeepers. Someone in an entrylevel enrollment role would not have the knowledge needed for this project. It was also crucial to have a group of diverse institutions, varying in size, type, and geographic location. Lastly, these participant institutions must have been test-optional for at least five years. This deliberate time would have included at least two graduating classes who had the option of applying test optional. The ideal number of participants ranged between eight and ten. DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION 21 To cast a wide net, I relied on FairTest’s yearly list of test-optional institutions. Fair Test, a nonprofit organization, collects and maintains a robust list of American colleges and universities who are at least partly test-optional. Though a helpful tool, given the temporary test-optional policies in 2020, the list included numerous institutions that would not qualify to be a participant. I manually filtered out the list of institutions that were test-optional prior to COVID-19 and had at least five years of policy experience, but human error is inevitable, and the list was by no means perfect. Prior to conducting general outreach, I reached out to professionals whom I had worked with in the past and some others recommended to me. I then sent out an email (see Appendix A) to eighty-two institutions, directed to their leadership teams. I heard back from twelve people, with a final number of eight participants – all from private institutions. After agreeing on a date and time, I provided each participant with a consent form (see Appendix C) and a Zoom link. Each interview lasted between 45-minutes to an hour and was recorded via Zoom and Otter.ai (https://otter.ai/), a voice notes and transcription software. Though my participants all work at independent institutions, not one is the same as the other. They consisted of the Director of Admission at Our Lady of Perpetual Responsibility College, a small, private, religious, liberal arts college in the Northeast; the Assistant Vice Provost of Undergraduate Admissions at Sounder University a medium-sized, private, research university in the Mid-Atlantic; the Director of Admissions at Turquoise College, a small, private, liberal arts and sciences college in the Midwest; the Director of Admission at Purple College, a small, private, liberal arts college in the Midwest; the Director of Admission at Sugarloaf College¸ another small, private, liberal arts college in the Midwest; the Director of Admissions at Carmine College, a small, private, religious, liberal arts college in the Mid-Atlantic; the Associate Vice President for Admissions at Pacific Northwest College, a small, private, liberal arts college in the Pacific Northwest; and the Director of Admission at Hobbs College, a small, private, religious, liberal arts college in the Pacific Northwest. Please note that the terms admission and DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION 22 admissions are both correct and varies among institutions. To protect confidentiality, each institution’s name is a pseudonym chosen by the participant or assigned by me. The demographic makeup of my participants resembled that of American’s colleges and universities – mostly white. One the participants was African American, while the remaining seven were white. Three of the participants were women. All participants ages were around 35 to 40-years-old. And all had at least a master’s degree. Methods I chose interviewing because it allowed me to have frank and semi-structured conversations with my participants while learning in-depth the way their polices work. I was very intentional about using an ethnographic approach to interviewing, one that allowed me to create rapport with my participants while gathering the necessary information (Spradley, 1979). During each interview, I asked participants to share what the journey to test-optional was like, what prompted the institution to go in this direction, and how long ago had that happened. Though most of them were not present when these decisions were made, they provided as much knowledge as they had. I also asked them about financial aid policies, student support systems/services, and what they envisioned for the future of standardized tests at their colleges or universities (please see Appendix D for a complete list of questions). Some of the participants even shared institutional data in the way of reports with information of number of test-optional applicants, applicant pool demographics, and success rates. These data allowed me to put their narratives in a more quantitative way, but the only pieces of information from there that I used were demographic breakdown and percentage of students applying test optional. The interviews were conducted between January and March of 2021, lasting around forty-five minutes to an hour each. Given the difference in time zones, most interviews happened during the workday, with the exception of one happening on a Saturday. Thanks to the technology of Otter.ai, the transcription process was much quicker than anticipated. Though there were some minor changes I had to do to the text, I spent around two 23 DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION hours revising each transcription. Each interview was then coded and added to a master spreadsheet with all codes and quotes – a total of fourteen parent codes which included test- optional policy, admission policy, financial aid policy, cultural capital, student support services, current events, access, and demographics (Kvale, 1996). Analysis Once I completed my interviews, transcribed, and coded them, I compared all the institutions to analyze if test-optional policies are more inclusive, (i.e., if their policies have allowed for students from historically marginalized communities to not only be admitted, but thrive at the institutions). To code, I started looking at possible answers to my research questions in the interview transcriptions – were there policies specific to admission or financial aid? What were the reasonings to go test-optional? Were my participants sharing the same information throughout the interview? As I coded more interviews, I began to breakdown some of those codes into smaller ones as I deemed appropriate. During the interviews, I took notes on things that stood out to me – this was particularly helpful as I put my codes into the larger context of this study. Relistening to the interviews helped me understand concepts that may have been misinterpreted on the transcriptions. While presenting the data as a narrative, or thick description (Creswell & Miller, 2000), I was able to pinpoint four main themes; the culture of standardized testing, the test-optional admissions, how has COVID-19 impacted standardized testing, and how can colleges be more accessible. Lastly, I presented the implications and potential recommendations to move forward with accessibility. Validity Measures To ensure the validity of my findings, I sent transcriptions to a couple of my participants for member checking, which is the process in which participants review the research and results and share if it is accurate or not (Creswell & Miller, 2000). By having some of the participants read the transcripts and provide feedback, I was able to remove any biases that I could have had DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION 24 while analyzing my data. This process was vital in ensuring that I using their responses and changing its context, but the original intent was kept. After I received feedback from these participants, which was very positive, I felt confident on moving along with the data analysis. Ethical Concerns Given that the enrollment world is very small, I knew that participants wished to remain anonymous without any identifiable information. To protect them and their institutions, I chose to use pseudonyms and use general characteristics for each institution. The data gathered is not to be shared with anyone else and I am the only person who has access to their true identities. Maintaining confidentiality also gave a sense of comfort for my participants to share information that would not have been shared if their institutions’ names were exposed. Though most of the information from my participants can be easily found on websites, their personal opinions would be something that needed to be protected from being identified. Issues & Challenges Given that most institutions with established test-optional policies are private, this presented an issue on the types of participants I was able to recruit. Moreover, liberal arts colleges tend to be at the forefront of these progressive policies, which then led to seven of my participants belonging to private liberal arts institutions. This time of the year is incredibly busy for admission professionals, an explanation as to why only eight people agreed to participate on this project. Overall, I believe I had a strong and knowledgeable set of participants, and I am content with my final data. Limitations Institutional information can be found in a college website. However, when it comes to internal data regarding applications and enrollment, institutions are not required to share these data with the public. I asked my participants to share information regarding their test-optional policies that may not be accessible to people outside of the institution. Through maintaining DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION 25 participant and institution confidentiality, I was able to offer a safe space for this information to be shared. Even though the test-optional movement gained traction in the early 2000s, most of the colleges and universities who have taken this approach are private — not many public institutions have adopted a test-optional policy since it is up to the state government to make such decisions. This presents a limitation in that these policies may work completely different at public institutions. As more colleges and universities adopt test-optional policies, I hope I can create more universal recommendations. Another limitation was the geographic diversity of participants. Though I was able to get representation from the northeast, pacific northwest, and mid-Atlantic, I was faced with a cluster of participants in the mid-west. This presented a problem in that the results are not representative of test-optional institutions around the country but are specific to a region. A future study would be more intentional on having geographic diversity. Lastly, many institutions may not work as closely with other offices around campus as others, and though I originally thought this was going to be a barrier, my participants were able to share what campus partners are doing to better support their students. DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION 26 Chapter IV: Findings This chapter presents findings from analysis of eight interviews of enrollment leaders (directors, associate vice presidents, and associate vice provosts of admissions), and illustrates the experience these institutions have had with their test-optional policies. All eight interviews were attentively analyzed, and the findings demonstrate that the culture of standardized testing in the country is embedded beyond higher education, rooting from capitalism, white supremacy, and the unequal access to college-prep resources. Companies like the ACT, College Board (GuideStar, n.d.), and ETS make billions of dollars on the creation and assessment of tests alone, proving their deep capitalist interests. White supremacy is evident within the history of these tests and how, to this day, they continue to disfavor students from historically marginalized communities. Lastly, the lack of cultural capital is apparent when students from affluent communities have access to extensive test-preparation, take these exams multiple times, and have the cultural and familial knowledge to test higher than their less privileged peers. In the subsequent sections, connections are made between the interviews of all eight participants and the impact of standardized testing among students from historically marginalized communities. Culture of Standardized Testing As mentioned on Chapter II, the SAT was created to standardize the application process for some of the country’s most prestigious institutions, which quickly followed up with the creation of the ACT. Even though the popularity of these tests rapidly increased, experts argue that they disfavor students from historically marginalized communities (Alon & Tienda, 2007). The recognition of the importance of standardized testing is one that runs deep in American culture, as it is just another part of the rite of passage into higher education. Students are told from a very young age that they need to test well to go to college. Even though some colleges and universities have robust test-optional policies, most of their DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION 27 applicants continue to submit their scores because of how they are perceived – the requirement of test scores for admission is a given when students and their families are navigating this process. When institutions announce that these are no longer a requirement, there is pushback due to the untrustworthiness and lack of understanding of test-optional/free processes. Purple College shared that students may not realize that test-optional policies are real, “that's one thing that we kind of struggled with is, students still have a perception that test scores are required and that institutions are lying, essentially, when we say that they’re test-optional.” By having dedicated curricula to test-prep (Sackett et al., 2012), students almost have an expectation that exams will be required, and it makes it very difficult for institutions to finds creative and rewarding ways to communicate otherwise. In addition to institutions, other parties like outside scholarships and the NCAA still require test scores, and this lack of uniformity can only be confusing to students. Our Lady of Perpetual Responsibility College explained that multiple players make it harder to communicate the policy, The messaging around what you might need a test for, is still something that takes some work. I think about our prospective student athletes primarily, you know, they don’t have to submit a standardized test score, but being a Division II school, students do need to submit standardized tests to the NCAA. So, we always make that clarification that, you know, regardless of whether you think yours scores are going to be good or not, you need to take the test, not miss the boat on that. Because every institution has their own unique policy, students may not truly grasp what being test-optional means and opt for the safe choice – submitting their test scores. So much so, that the number of test-submitters (prior to COVID-19) within my participants ranged from 10 to 30 percent, the lowest being Turquoise College at around 5% and the highest being Purple College at about 30%. These numbers indicate that even if test-optional policies exist, many students will continue to prioritize their scores. DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION 28 Misunderstanding of policies is not the only reason why students choose to submit test scores, but perception of institutional stature is another argument for this choice. Sugarloaf College indicated that some applicants may see test-optional schools as less prestigious, particularly when wanting to be compared to some more selective institutions. In addition, Sugarloaf indicated that some key players in the admissions process still see standardized testing as the only good predictor of academic success, There are still a subset of counselors, students, parents, you know, some of the stakeholders in this industry that think that testing is the only variable that is equal among all applicants and that GPA is unreliable and rigor is unreliable, and all these different things that we can measure everybody equally on the same playing field with testing, and so they think it's the only real valid measure of a student's academic ability, so we know for many reasons why that's debunked. Students who have worked hard in high school are very much capable of succeeding in college regardless of a “good” test score or not. Changing the narrative and finding ways to better communicate test-optional polices will allow families and stakeholder to truly understand the benefits of these policies while removing their stigma. Prestige and stature may not only be important for students and their families, but the desire to be ranked by known publications continues to dissuade institutions from going test optional. Every year publications like US News, Niche, The Princeton Review, and Fiske produce an extensive list of the best colleges and universities in the country. To most institutions, if not all, being part of these rankings is an important way to bring students in. In fact, younger generations are taking these rankings into consideration to facilitate their decision on which college to attend (Sackett et al., 2012). To be considered within these rankings, colleges and universities must provide at least 75 percent of their first-year students’ test scores — whether these were taken into consideration for review or not. For institutions that are proud in their test-optional/free policies, having to submit test scores is a hurdle to maintaining good rankings DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION 29 and an acceptable reputation. Carmine College expressed how difficult this could be for institutions who are considering getting rid of standardized testing requirements, The fact that all school rankings like US News and World Report require that we have received 75 % of our test scores from our incoming students in order to be higher ranked, that is a massive barrier to colleges for going test-free. We even still feel the pressure, as much as we do not want to play the rankings game, that we need to collect those after admissions. It does not have any effect on the students, but we still feel this pressure to collect them in order to play the rankings game. Even if colleges indicate their indifference for rankings, many students and their families make decisions on where to apply based on these lists (Sackett et al., 2012), making it very hard for institutions to walk away from standardized testing, even if they know these policies only benefit students who are currently being left out college campuses due to their test scores. Rankings are not the only argument keeping institutions from fully going test-optional, but the desire to not be the exception when requiring tests, is preventing institutions from introducing test-adverse policies. Sugarloaf College is a prime example of holding back, We had had conversations about going test-free and I do not think that that is too extreme of an option, honestly. I think the only reason that we do not do it right now is because we would feel like a pretty significant outlier, and we are willing to be outliers when we think it is absolutely the important and the right thing to do. But in this situation, it might just cause more questions than we are actually answering, and we do get students who are proud of their test scores, and they want that to be a factor of their admission decision. Getting rid of standardized testing requirements overall is not a foreign concept but knowing that some applicants want to share their scores since they see them as accomplishments may delay the next steps of the movement. Carmine College explained that, given the number of testsubmitters they have, it will take some time to go test-free, DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION 30 but I think you are right because we have put so little weight in the test scores, and the fact that typically in non-pandemic years, we are still seeing a pretty high percentage of students submitting scores even when they are optional. I do not know how quickly it would be to go test-free. Though the desire exists, standardized testing is very much embedded in today’s culture, and it will be very hard for all stakeholders to get onboard with test-free policies. The pushback for test-optional/free policies also vary depending on the type of institution. Public schools must rely on the legislature to make policy decisions, while private schools have more leeway – partners like faculty review committees, boards of trustees and cabinets have the final say. Even with this flexibility, some stakeholders at private institutions are hard to convince to not require tests, as many still rely on tests for academic placement and success prediction. Sugarloaf College, explained that these are the hardest stakeholders to convince to get rid of standardized testing, “I will say, I think that most admission offices have had at least somewhat of a desire to move to test-optional and all the resistance has been primarily among faculty, cabinets and trustees at most institutions.” If colleges and universities want to shift to test-optional policies, they may have to convince some hesitant decisionmakers. If public institutions wanted to introduce changes in the admission process, stakeholders outside of the university would have the ultimate word. But there are states willing to make unprecedented decisions like that of the University of California system which announced a testfree policy at the beginning of 2020 — a decision that, according to Sugarloaf, will impact schools in California and across the country, I think that, you know, so many schools, especially in the state of California and just on the West Coast period, follow the UC system because the fact is that almost every student applying to those schools or is applying to UC school as well. So, I think it is going to be really difficult to backtrack if you are a California school. DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION 31 Institutions who share applicants with the University of California system will have to follow the patterns of the consortium if they want to be considered as competitors, since their shared applicants may not consider applying if there are more requirements than UC’s application. At the beginning of 2021, almost 250,000 students had applied to any of the UC campuses, a record number indicating the impact of test-optional/test-free admissions nationwide (University of California, Office of the President, January 2021). To the contrary, the state of Florida decided to maintain standardized test requirements for its colleges and universities, even though the pandemic has made it incredibly difficult for students to be able to test (Jaschik, 2020). Test-optional Admissions As a result of the need to find better academic predictors than standardized testing (Sackett, et al., 2012), colleges and universities began to introduce test-optional policies — a movement that truly gained traction in the early 2000s. Today, most private, liberal arts and sciences colleges are test optional. All participants in this project have policies that were introduced between forty years and five years ago and were able to explain what the effort to accessibility has been like, while acknowledging that it is an ever-evolving effort. Having test-optional policies does not equate mistrust on standardized tests. Test scores remain part of the review process when available. When reviewing applications, enrollment professionals try to assert whether a student is going to be successful in that specific academic setting or not. And for many institutions, standardized tests have been the main method for making this prediction. However, the SAT and ACT reflect the knowledge a student has during test day and not of their entire high school career and cannot be a reliable source for academic predictability (Bowen et al. 2018). Geiser and Santelices (2007) demonstrated that standardized tests do not predict first year academic achievement, and while most participants in my project agree with the existing literature, Carmine College argued that these tests may be able to predict math proficiency, DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION 32 I think, at the very least someone who does very well on math or not so well on math, that is probably the one still little indication that they may struggle in our math classes, and we may need to provide them more assistance when they get here. The math section in these tests may be the only category that can help admission professionals get an understanding of a student’s grasp of mathematics concepts. While taking test scores into consideration, admissions professionals need to be aware of the impact that privilege has on higher education access. Pacific Northwest College made the connection between privilege and access, I am sure it is connected to the fact that students who have access to preparation for testing also have had access to a lot of different things, and I think all it does is kind of reinforce that testing is associated with access, and the ability to test highly is associated with privilege and access. Having access to test-preparation resources does not necessarily mean that these students are better test takers, but getting that extra support sets them up to secure higher scores. Alon (2009) and Kugman (2011) reiterate that students born in privileged families can prepare more thoroughly for the SAT and ACT. To eliminate those gaps, institutions have introduced testoptional policies that allow an equal opportunity to less-privileged students. When establishing said policies, colleges and universities tend reason them with desire to be more accessible and diverse. Our Lady of Perpetual Responsibility College, agreed with this idea and explained their reasoning for introducing a test-optional policy, There was certainly a lot of interest in you know, both becoming more accessible to a range of students and removing some barriers. I think that they are both access oriented, and process oriented for students. Because it certainly simplifies things. And, you know, I am sure that you know the appeal of getting more applications from students that, you know, would have had this barrier and would not have been able to apply before. DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION 33 Institutional commitment to access is evident when colleges and universities are launching initiatives that benefit populations that have been underserved in higher education. But access initiatives may not be the only reason institutions have chosen this path, and the truth is much more self-centered. When asked about the original intent of the institution to go test-optional, Pacific Northwest College indicated that the potential to increase application numbers in the 1990s was the driver, Well, a lot of the rhetoric right now around test-optional policies, is about expanding specifically to underrepresented students in higher education. I am not sure that was the rationale here, I think it was more about just increasing applications overall and believing that tests were a barrier in general, not so much that they were a barrier for particular populations. The desire to increase the number of applications an institution receives may allow them to look more selective — increased numbers of applications while admitting roughly the same number of students, leads to a lower acceptance rate — which could mean that these institutions become more desirable. But simply to have a more diverse, in all meanings of the word, application pool. Even experienced institutions do not introduce successful policies and may need to adjust them. Sounder University’s beta policy only allowed students applying early decision to have the option to not submit their scores. Sounder explained, So initially, when they rolled out the process, they did it as a pilot, they did it only with early decision students. Those who are on staff recognize that the challenge with just limiting it to an early decision population, that is not typically as diverse from a racial standpoint, from a socio-economic standpoint. And so, they did a quick adjustment the following year to expand that to all applicants to the class. The issue with Sounder introducing this new policy only to early decision applicants was that those applicants were already very competitive and likely did not benefit from the new policy. By DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION 34 introducing the policy to all students, their desire to increase accessibility was more feasible and equitable. Other beta policies may consist of replacement models in which students were required to submit additional materials in lieu of their test scores. Purple College asked their applicants to submit a portfolio instead of their test scores, When we started with our test-optional policy, we created a portfolio that students had to use. And this was something that could have been creative, a video, it could have been a picture portfolio. And at the end of the day, it was just a little bit more confusing, we found it is more of a barrier as to why students did not want the test-optional policy versus wanting to do it, and the purpose behind it was to create something that replaced test scores. While Purple introduced their policy to all applicants, the replacement model ended up harming students as it created another barrier — many students may not have access to video editing software or may not be aware of how a portfolio works. This replacement model quickly went away and left decision makers to reevaluate their commitment to accessibility through testoptional policies. Sometimes beta policies can last for almost three decades. Up until 2020, Pacific Northwest College maintained their replacement model, one that required their applicants to submit substantial additional materials if they chose to not submit their test scores, We were test-optional, but we were a replacement model. So, if you did not submit test scores, we asked you to submit additional teacher recommendations and academic work samples. So, we wanted to see a great writing sample, something you turned in for a class, a report, and we wanted to also see some sort of math or quantitative sample. So, while we have been test-optional for a long time, we were not just going without test scores, we were asking students to give us something else that functions to basically replace those scores. DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION 35 It took Pacific Northwest almost thirty years for them to realize that their replacement model was creating more barriers for applicants who did not want to submit their test scores. Finally moving away from extra requirements will allow Pacific Northwest to see a more diverse group of applicants who were previously dissuaded due to test scores or additional materials. With more institutions joining the movement, professionals have started to think about the future. Four participants indicated that they hope their institutions go test-free, a practice in which standardized tests are not considered at all. I would like to note that some participants refer to test-free policies as “test-blind,” a term I will refrain from using since it is ableist against blind and visually impaired communities, therefore the exact verbiage of the interview has been altered. Sounder University expressed interest in going in this direction, but also indicates that this may not be the right time, You know, as we have experienced with this current year [2020-21] with more data that we have available, it would be great if, at some point, we could go test-free... but that may come about in future terms, but we are not quite there yet. Thanks to the increase in test-optional applicants, admissions professionals will have access to data that demonstrates if test scores matter in academic success. Pacific Northwest College shared that newer data would show that test scores do not play a big part on the admissions review process, which will make going test-free much easier, Well, I think at this point what I would like to see is that we just go test-free. Okay, and partly that is because I think we are going to find that this year's reading process, testing was hardly a part of that. And it is like, I am not concerned about it. Although these desires exist, it will take some time for institutions to shift in this direction. But the introduction of similar policies by name institutions like the University of California and Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) will most likely accelerate this process as data of their success becomes available. DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION 36 Impact of COVID-19 on Standardized Testing When the COVID-19 pandemic reached the United States in the spring of 2020, many high school juniors had to deal with their ACT and SAT tests being canceled due to local ordinances on group gatherings. Because of this, most colleges and universities announced temporary test-optional policies for the 2020-21 application cycle. A year later, these same institutions have expanded their temporary policies for at least another cycle, as the ACT and the College Board scramble to offer tests and combat cancelations. Though immediately these temporary policies may look like a commitment to accessibility, they really were an emergency response to test cancelations. Our Lady of Perpetual Responsibility College indicated how accessibility was not the main reasoning for temporary policies, You know, I think this most recent wave of COVID-19, it is not always because they want to serve underrepresented students better, but it was in response to a logistical problem that, you know, testing centers were not able to offer all the tests that they could before. Or a student who thought they were going to take a standardized test on Saturday, on Friday realizes there is a COVID outbreak among the proctors, and they do not have the bandwidth to offer that, so I think in many ways, colleges have had no choice but to become test-optional and that is a hard thing to walk back. Temporary test-optional policies were introduced to respond to the logistical emergencies of a global pandemic and not necessarily as a desire to increase accessibility in higher education. Due to the urgency, the impact on application numbers because of temporary policies was hard to predict. Many institutions, particularly those that are well-known, have experienced a surge in applications. Sugarloaf College alluded to this phenomenon across the industry, What we are seeing happening this year is that, especially among that group of more selective schools, your top 20 or 30, you know US News whatever schools, are seeing massive increase in applications this year, 20-30%. And I can tell you just through the DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION 37 grapevine, talking to colleagues across the industry that those who are seeing huge increases, and I am sure that is attributable to a few things, but I think test-optional is the absolute number one contributor for that. Although these institutions adopted test-optional policies to better support all applicants, there was no way to predict that application numbers would be greatly impacted. Colleges and universities that had been test optional prior to COVID, have not seen a significant increase in the number of applications during this cycle, and Pacific Northwest College shared their thoughts on this, My theory is, if you were already a test-optional school, then you did not see a huge increase in applications as a result of going test-optional, but you did see a vast majority of your students not submitting scores, because you were already test-optional. The institutions that have been able to fully benefit from test-optional policies this cycle have been those with temporary policies and not those with existing ones – experiencing a record surge in application numbers is a perk only some are enjoying. Though established test-optional institutions are not reaping the same benefits, they were able to experience an increase in the number of applicants not submitting test scores. Temporary policies are taking the spotlight away from institutions who prided themselves on being different. Carmine College explained how this affected the institution, “before this past year, when everyone else went test-optional we were unique, we were different and so we would attract students that were unique and different.” And this has impacted the way students perceive institutions. COVID-19 has changed the way we live our lives and has made room for new opportunities. In the case of enrollment management, temporary test-optional policies are bringing attention to the flaws of standardized testing. Carmine indicated that the pandemic would change the world of enrollment as we know it, DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION 38 The test optional world changed everything for enrollment management in the past year, the number of very prestigious, very selective colleges that have seen just triple, quadruple digit percentage increase in their applications, has changed everything for every college. And it makes the demographic cliff that is coming in five, four years now a lot less terrifying, because we are already going through such a massive upheaval. And we are seeing more and more colleges designed to continue test-optional for another year or two years, or beyond. And so, I think that the shape of enrollment management and the shape of colleges is getting a much needed facelift but is very terrifying and going to change things dramatically in the next couple of years. The pandemic has already made enrollment management change its ways. More institutions will move to more holistic review processes with a deeper focus in personhood. Though helpful, temporary policies have also presented a challenge to students. Since every institution creates its own policy, students are left confused. Purple College talked about how non-test-optional institutions had to create policies within days and may have not rolled out the most encompassing ones, And one thing that's been pretty frustrating for me is that when COVID happened and schools switched to test-optional, and many very quickly — it took us a while to kind of gather the data and figure out how we were going to do it — the schools that switched did it a number of different ways, there is no uniform way of doing it somewhere, 'hey! we're test-optional for admission, but you still have to submit test scores for scholarships.' Well, I cannot imagine that they are sticking with that, because either they are going to have to change their scholarship ranges, because their test scores are going to be nowhere near accurate, or they are going to have to take that away. But at this point in time, I feel like the damage is done, essentially, putting the doubt in the students minds that they cannot apply without test scores. DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION 39 Not being transparent on new policies is only harmful to the student, particularly if institutions are still requiring test scores for specific programming or for merit-based scholarships — these institutions can and should not call themselves test-optional if it is not an all-encompassing policy. Though many colleges and universities have announced the expansion of test-optional policies for another couple of cycles, there is still uncertainty in knowing whether temporary policies may become permanent. Given the benefits institutions have encountered, like an increase in application numbers, it may be hard to backtrack temporary policies. Sugarloaf College shared that it will be very difficult for institutions to say they prefer to go back to their old ways and bypass receiving more applications, And so, I think that it is going to be very difficult for colleges to suddenly say we do not want all those new applications, for enrollment managers, for vice presidents to say, you know, okay we are going to go and get fewer applications in the future because of this. Whether previous knowledge on the increase in application numbers existed or not, institutions will have to admit that temporary policies were, if anything, beneficial to them. A year later, colleges and universities can gather data and assess how difficult it was to evaluate students without their test scores. Turquoise College explained that data will only help the case for test-optional admission policies, We are confident that after this goes through, that we will have the data that we need to then show our campus partners that, hey, this worked. And you know, we can look at retention data from freshman to sophomore year, we can continue to not just have this be like, hey, we are doing this for one year, because in my opinion, if you can do it for one year, why can't you do it for the rest of the years? With one year of experience in a test-optional world, institutions can use data to roll out policies that make more sense to them and are not guided by the pressure to present a policy. DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION 40 Though the institutional benefits have shown to be numerous, some schools with temporary policies may go back to pre-COVID-19 requirements. Sugarloaf shared that the need to stand out as a ‘prestigious’ institution may instigate the rollback of temporary policies, I do think there will be a handful of places that will fully intend to go back that direction. Because the faculty and the board just have, you know, the voices are too strong there. And I could name a few off the top of my head but there are places where the testing piece is just so deeply rooted in how they make their admission decisions and how they value themselves as institutions. I mean I can tell you from experience that other institutions that I have worked at that even, our ACT average going up five tenths was reason for massive celebration for the board of trustees even though it means nothing. But yeah, so they are places that we are going to definitely go back. Being able to report that their applicants have the highest ACT and SAT scores puts institutions higher on the lists of rankings I previously mentioned, and some may even rollback temporary policies to maintain their so-called prestigious status. Besides the importance of rankings, some institutions truly rely on standardized tests as assessment pieces. Carmine College asserted that these schools may reverse their temporary policies, I think that there are some that struggled quite a bit in assessing students just for their own systems. They have been so test-reliant to place students into freshmen English and math classes it all came down to tests, and those test scores, and I have worked at those types of institutions, and I think some of them are just going to need to go back to that for a lot of different reasons. Relying on test scores so deeply is a barrier for the introduction of permanent test-optional/free policies. Furthermore, there will not be real, substantial data regarding the 2020-21 admissions cycle for another three to four years, which means we will not be able to know how impactful emergency test-optional policies have been, this also means some institutions will require tests again because they did not experience any particular benefit on being test-optional. DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION 41 The push to require tests may not necessarily come from the institution itself but from other key players like the ACT and the College Board. College counselors are having a hard time advising their students as they may not be able to predict where they are going to get in, that is, of course, if students have access to a college counseling program. Therefore, these counselors may insist that institutions go back to requiring test scores. But it is obvious who is already pushing the hardest, and that is the companies that profit from these tests. One benefit that the College Board has over the ACT is that they also have other sources of revenue, although less profitable than the SAT, like AP tests, Landscape, and other resources that colleges can use for recruitment. Pacific Northwest College argued that the combination of the ACT, SAT, and counselors may effect some change, “I think it's possible, believe or not, that the combination of the College Board meeting to make sure that they're still viable and counselors feeling like they have no idea what to do with students might actually push back.” All we know right now, is that this is the beginning of a significant change in the way enrollment professionals evaluate students. Pacific Northwest agreed that this is a catalyst for the whole industry and the way enrollment professionals do their job, This is a moment that we will look back on and know that was when the shift happened, or what set off some kind of shift. I think what is possible, is that many schools say, 'yep, we can do this without test scores, and it's simplified the process for students.' I am hoping that we say it contributes to less stress for students and less concerns around, you know, mental health because they do not have to spend all that time focused on taking tests. COVID-19 may have changed the way that college admissions work in the United States forever, a change that many in the industry argue was a long time coming. But the future of testoptional/free practices remain unknown. Besides, the conversation about making higher education more accessible should not focus on admission policies but must include other practices. DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION 42 How to Make College Admissions More Accessible Test-optional policies are just some of the many policies institutions have introduced to be more accessible. When asked, the participants of this project agreed that application fee/fee waivers, type of applications, self-reporting test scores and grades, and financial aid initiatives are as important as standardized testing procedures. Having to pay application fees is a barrier to many students across the nation — the average application fee is $50. Eliminating application fees, or introducing more transparent fee waivers, allow students to apply to more institutions without having to worry about the economic impact. Participants are aware of this hurdle and share what their institutions are doing to alleviate it. Sounder University, for example, still has an application fee, but is very flexible with fee waivers, I think we are very flexible and open to fee waivers. We may publicly post how a student can get a fee waiver. And there really are not any hurdles that students have to jump, or hoops that they have to jump through to receive a fee waiver. Sounder’s policy, though not completely inclusive, is accessible to all who need it. Our Lady of Perpetual Responsibility College has a similar fee waiver policy as Sounder, but with more accessible pieces, We honor the Common App's application fee waiver. So, you know, above and beyond generous with fee waivers. Pretty generally, anybody who comes on a campus visit, anybody who is nominated through a few of our referral pipelines, special awards for high schoolers like our Junior Book Award. You know, there is a number of different fee waivers, but anybody who says they are on free and reduced lunch, or they are part of a Trio or Upward Bound program, or they, you know, have any of those qualifications that would the Common App to ask a fee or to request a fee waiver on their behalf, we automatically waive that fee. DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION 43 Both Sounder and Our Lady of Perpetual Responsibility’s policies are a good compromise for institutions who still want to have an application fee, while being accessible to all. Other participants, however, agree that the best solution is to not have an application fee at all. Sugarloaf College explained the importance of not having an application fee while admitting that it may be another way of increasing application numbers, We do not have an application fee. That is another important piece for us, we do not require students to go out and seek a waiver or provide any proof or anything like that we just totally eliminate the application fee. And that is another one that I see more and more colleges moving towards again both selfishly and altruistically, because you do get more applications when you eliminate an application fee. Eliminating application fees, or at the very least offering fee waivers, gives peace of mind to students who wish to apply to multiple schools without it being an economic burden. However, for institutions to keep their doors opens they need to keep up with their enrollment numbers. By eliminating completion barriers like application fees, colleges and universities are more likely to increase the number of applicants and fulfill enrollment numbers. Just like any other policy, colleges and universities choose the type of application they use – an in-house application, or large platforms like the CommonApp or the Coalition Application. Applications like The CommonApp allow students to only fill out the questionnaire once and submit it to up to twenty institutions, which saves students a lot of time. All participants in this study used the CommonApp and Pacific Northwest and Our Lady of Perpetual Responsibility used the platform exclusively, allowing students to streamline the application process and not have to worry about different kinds of applications. The Coalition Application is another platform that institutions use to host their application. Like the CommonApp, Coalition allows students to submit their application to several different institutions, but it also provides them with free college counseling and application preparedness, while reaching communities that may not have access to this type of support. Carmine, Purple, DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION 44 and Sounder are all Coalition members. Being able to provide students with application options, is another step institutions can take in becoming more inclusive. If a student fails to list the schools they are applying to on their SAT/ACT registration, they will have to pay the companies every time they want their scores to be sent out (around $12 each time). For students in low-socioeconomic communities, it can be very costly and can get in the way of them finishing their applications. To combat this hindrance, institutions may allow students to self-report their test scores — they can send a screenshot of their testing portal, add a breakdown of their scores in the application, or even have them included in their high school transcripts. Sugarloaf College argued that this is another initiative that has been gaining traction in the industry, “There's been a movement in the last five years or so to move towards accepting self-reported test scores.” Some institutions may accept self-reported scores at the review process but will require official scores when the students enroll. Turquoise College used to ask their admitted students to submit official test scores — those coming directly from the College Board or ACT — after enrolling, “So previous to this year, every student who enrolled we would require that they would end up submitting to us their official test scores.” This is partly due because US News, Fiske, and other college rankings publications require institutions to submit these scores to be ranked. Institutions without self-reporting policies are at least considering them, Sounder University still requires official test scores, but it is a policy they wish to amend, “we are looking at ways that students can self-report.” Like test scores, high school transcripts can be an impediment for application completion, particularly during the pandemic. Some institutions have found ways to review application without official transcripts with screenshots of their school portal and grade reports. Purple College is one of the institutions that allows students to self-report but only if they are having their test scores considered for admission, So, students can self-report their GPA and test scores. For test-optional we do require an official transcript. The number of core courses is something that we use to determine DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION 45 admission and aid. And so, students can send that in on their own, they do not have to go to a teacher or counselor to sign a transcript. So, we will make admission decisions purely on unofficial information. Purple’s policy, though somewhat accessible, may be a barrier to students who wish to not have their test scores acknowledged. If a student wishes to pursue the test-optional path for Purple, they must deal with the caveat of submitting official transcripts, which can create more barriers to the student. Similarly, Carmine College has some caveats regarding their unofficial transcript policy. We will look at unofficial transcripts, we prefer that they come from the high school, even if they are coming through email and they are a photocopy. If a student is sending them and they are unofficial, it depends on the quality of the transcript, and it is revealed that it's a valid unofficial transcript. If the student is not submitting an illegible copy, Carmine will accept unofficial transcripts for reviewing. The Department of Education requires that colleges and universities collect official final transcripts of their new students, to have proof of graduation and to disburse federal financial aid. The initiative participants agreed is the most important is access to scholarships and financial aid. Private institutions, like the ones the participants work in, have the benefit of not needing to abide by state regulations on how to employ their funds, but they tend to be more costly since most of their funding comes from tuition and donations. Even though private school scholarships tend to be more competitive, many students must close the gap with federal and/or private loans. There are some institutions around the country that can fill these gaps for students thanks to high endowments and generous donors. Out of all eight participants, only one can meet full demonstrated need of all its applicants — Sugarloaf College, Sugarloaf is one of several, but you know, a minority of schools certainly throughout the country that meets full demonstrated need for every admitted student. So, we always DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION 46 know that our financial aid is going to be really top notch and competitive and we can support students all the way through, obviously most colleges are not in a financial position to be able to make that commitment. Being able to cover the financial gap of all admitted students, puts institutions at a much more ambitious level, making it harder for other institutions to compete for the same students. But it is possible for institutions without enormous endowments to support some students financially, through initiative like matching government grants, something Carmine College does, “And so, thanks to a very generous donor, we have a Pell matching grant, so we double students Pell automatically for the next 10 years at least.” The Pell grant is a government grant offered to students with significant financial need. By being able to match these grants, Carmine is ensuring competitive financial aid packages to many students. Some colleges and universities have recently been rolling out initiatives to mitigate economic burden. Pacific Northwest College just revamped their financial model and expanded the number of students they can fully financially assist, What we are doing at this point is, anybody who meets any number of categories for priority consideration, and is an array of different kinds of categories, they are going to get their need met at a much higher level than the rest of the population. And for a good probably 400-500 of them, is essential for them to be meeting full need. It is essentially the definition you use, which is that includes federal loans, and we are setting. The important piece about Pacific Northwest’s financial aid policy is that it includes federal loans as part of their packaging – loans are considered part of the grand total. Institutions like Sugarloaf exclude federal loans thanks to their substantial funding. Though standardized tests have an impact on accessibility, financial need is a considerable barrier students face. Finding solutions should not be exclusive to one issue – Sugarloaf College argued that testing policies must go together with financial aid policies, DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION 47 And so I think that conversation about access to college as it relates to colleges being test-optional, it's all also tied up in that students are already seeing, you know, a smaller and smaller number of schools that both, they are a fit for academically, as in they are going to look at their records in their application and say, ‘yes, that's the student we want here,’ and from a financial standpoint and say, ‘yes, we can support you for all four years with a level of financial aid that you actually need. From the conversations with my participants, I gathered that test-optional policies are just a piece in the accessibility puzzle. But even with prove of their success, standardized tests remain a uniquely American tradition. Pushback from different stakeholders will continue to exist as institutions strive to introduce more progressive policies. Companies’ revenues like that of the ACT and College Board will be negatively impacted as less students take the tests. The COVID-19 pandemic gave strength to a movement that was slowly changing enrollment practices, a push that will change the field completely. But if experts are wrong, and the status quo continues instead, what are the implications for students from historically marginalized backgrounds? What are the effects on people born in areas where poverty is intergenerational and there is no option to escape? To progress as a country, education needs to become available to all who want to pursue it, and change begins institutionally. Conclusion There are many ways in which colleges and universities can strive to be accessible. Eliminating standardized testing requirements as part of the admission process is just part of a much bigger effort. The eight participants of this study provided their points of view regarding whether test-optional policies promote access to students from historically marginalized communities or not. By learning and understanding what some colleges and universities are doing to level the playing field among all students, institution in the process of introducing testoptional policies are able to have more clarity onto what works and what doesn’t. Being able to DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION self-reflect on their institution’s practices, allows for better collaboration and support to all students. 48 DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION 49 Chapter V: Discussion Though test-optional policies’ original intent was to increase accessibility, there is no real answer as to how effective they are. Institutions are not to blame as the regard for standardized tests prevail in American society. Current events have shone a light on the injustices and biases that standardized-based admissions carry against students from historically marginalized communities and have led to an increase in test-optional policies. If this new test-adverse movement comes to a halt in a post-pandemic world, enrollment will go back to the current status quo, faced with a bigger accessibility dilemma. Chapter IV concludes with the argument that test-optional policies cannot be the sole resolution to increase accessibility – colleges and universities must find ways to alleviate the rising costs of education. The following sections will introduce several implications and potential recommendations. I do not want the findings of this project to go unnoticed, but for them to gain traction and effect change in enrollment. Backtracking Test-optional Policies Prior to COVID-19, numerous colleges and universities around the country required students to submit either the ACT or SAT to be considered for admission and merit-based scholarships. The cancelation of tests due to the pandemic, gave way to temporary test-optional policies. But as many participants said, there is a chance that some of these institutions go back to requiring tests. Implication For at least the 2020-21 cycles, institutions with temporary test-optional policies have been able to review their applicants without their test scores. This allowed for an increase in application numbers as students were able to apply to more colleges without their test scores. If colleges backtrack these decisions, students who have not been able to test will be put under enormous stress. Institutions will also face the pressure of following on the steps of their peer DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION 50 institutions – going back to requiring tests may no longer situate them in a competitive position. Lastly, the COVID-19 pandemic has not ended, and testing can be risky for students with compromised immune systems. Recommendation For the sake of better supporting students through the college admissions process and to not add more stress, colleges and universities should maintain their test-optional policies permanently. This is not a suggestion to implement test-free policies right away since some students are proud of their scores and want them to be considered. Allowing students the choice of whether to submit their scores is a fair way to break down barriers. Continuously to the spring of 2020, the country’s most prestigious institutions required all students to submit standardized test scores. As a result of the pandemic, temporary testoptional policies granted students the chance to apply and be admitted without their ACT or SAT scores. Existing literature has indicated that test-submitters versus non-submitters do not have a significant academic difference (Geiser & Santelices, 2007). Colleges and universities in the country should continue their test-optional policies, even if it is to reap the benefits of increased application numbers. Test-optional policies have allowed ambitious and capable students the opportunities to receive a quality education without the stress of a test score. It allowed me to receive an education when I thought my test scores defined my intelligence. Not Introducing Policies to Make Admissions More Accessible This project highlighted the various ways in which institutions have made their application process more accessible. Not every college or university in the country has similar policies in places, which continue to exclude students from historically marginalized communities out of their campuses. This section explores the consequences of not having inclusive practices for students at the point of application. DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION 51 Implication The average college application costs $50. As an enrollment professional, I have witnessed the pressure students are put under to apply to at least 10 to 12 schools to have options – which could end up costing students around $500. Many students and their families do not have the resources to cover these expenses and leaves them with limited options and the need to strategically plan the application process. Most of the well-known, ‘prestigious’ institutions still require application fees – fees that do not have a significant impact on the institution’s revenue (Reed, 2019). In addition to application fees, colleges requiring test scores may ask their students to only submit official reports. These come directly from the College Board and ACT and will be sent out automatically when a student adds a college’s name to their registration. These policies are evidence that higher education continues to favor wealthy and privileged students while exclude those with less resources. Recommendation Institutions should remove application fees once and for all. And though some institutions have accessible fee waivers, seeing a payment page may dissuade students from applying. Eliminating these fees will not have a financial impact on institutions, and it will demonstrate that the school truly cares and stands for accessibility to all students. Regarding test scores, institutions who will continue to require their applicants to submit test scores should at least allow students to self-report them. For a student, being able to submit a screenshot with their scores breakdown and not have to worry about paying to send official test scores, can make the difference between applying or not. This policy allows students to apply to several institutions without having to worry about the economic impact. Colleges and universities around the country pride themselves on telling their prospective students that accessibility is central within their mission but continuing to require application fees and official test scores, is proof that their mission is just a marketing stunt. DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION 52 Lack of Financial Inclusive Aid Policies The most prominent theme that came out of the interviews was that test-optional policies alone are not going to bridge the gap of accessibility to students from historically marginalized communities. A student may have all the tools for an inclusive application and may have even found their dream school, but if that institution cannot assist the student financially, then the student has been set up for failure. Though most institutions do not have the resources to offer competitive financial aid packages, being more strategic about their awarding could alleviate some of the economic pressure. Implication Allowing students to go through the admission process to then let them down by not offering competitive financial aid awards is a disgrace and arguably unethical. Only a handful of institutions have generous donors or large endowments that are used to fully fund students. By not revamping financial aid awarding, accessibility becomes a recruitment tool but not a promise. Several students with gaps in their financial aid end up depending on private loan services with very high interest rates – decisions that are made by lack of counseling and guidance. This then leads to a lack of understanding on loans, and in many cases, student end up defaulting and continuing the cycle of American crippling debt. Recommendation If an institution does not have the resources to meet a student’s full demonstrated need, they should have access to resources that can assist students alleviate the cost. Some colleges have identified a specific group of students to cover as much as need as they can, like those who work with certain community-based organizations or attend a school the institution has a partnership with. Other institutions have created partnerships with CBOs (community-based organizations) in which they guarantee a certain scholarship to their students. These partnerships do take time and effort to be established, but they are worth it. Admissions professionals should also be able to advise students on all their options, including outside DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION 53 scholarships, how to fill out a FAFSA (free application for federal student aid), and appeal their financial aid award. Colleges and universities may explicitly vow their support to increase accessibility, but lack of financial support to students creates a juxtaposition on their values. Limitations As I proposed this capstone project, I was very clear on the amount and types of institutions I was hoping to interview. Though I reached out to over 80 institutions, only eight were willing to participate. The biggest limitation I faced was not being able to gather data from public institutions, though I knew the possibilities were slim. This is important because private institutions are not reflective of higher education in the US and having a public education perspective would be more helpful to understand the benefit of test-optional policies. Another limitation was only interviewing 8 institutions. Though this may seem like a good number, my original goal was to interview between 10 and 12 participants. The spring is a very busy time in the world of enrollment, it is understandable why so many emails were left unanswered or why some folks respectfully declined participating in this project. Lastly, finding that most applicants to test-optional institutions still submit test scores, threw a wrench in my research. Having limited data on the actual impact that test-optional policies have on increasing accessibility to higher education pushed me to pivot the purpose of my study and focus on the culture of standardized testing. Though I felt defeated for a moment, I am grateful for the way my participants allowed me a deeper insight into the way companies like the ACT and the College Board control the way enrollment professionals do their jobs. Future Research The topic of standardized tests and test-optional policies has been under the spotlight for almost three years, starting with Operation Varsity Blues in 2018 and now with the impact that COVID-19 has had on standardized testing and admissions. If I were to continue research on this topic, I would like to focus on the impact that temporary test-optional policies have had on both institutions and students. Data from the 2020-21 cycle will not be accessible for a couple of DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION 54 years, but I would be interested in learning how it will shape enrollment management. With the University of California system and Worcester Polytechnic Institute announcing their test-free policies, change is inevitable. Another way to further my research would be to focus on test-free instead of testoptional policies. These policies may not gain much traction right now, but if successful, I can envision institutions bypassing test-optional and just going test-free. Chapter IV mentions that there are several key players who may not be in support of test-free policies, delaying the traction of the movement another 2 to 4 years. For now, I am focused on learning how many institutions make their temporary policies permanent and how many go back to requiring test scores, and how different stakeholders will react to either decision. Learning Objectives The reason why I joined Westminster’s Master of Arts in Community Leadership program is because I knew I was going to gain the tools to fight for what I believe in. As a first generation, immigrant, Latina student, I learned from a very young age that higher education in the US was not created for all. As I continue my professional career in higher education, I want to be able to make it more accessible. The issue with standardized testing is just a piece in the colossal puzzle that is American education and removing the ACT and SAT from not only admission qualifications, but also as graduation requirements is a small step into the betterment of education. This program has taught me that there are multiple moving pieces which make part of a grander issue, and one must understand their intersectionality to learn how to effect change. The MACL program prepares students to work together with the community they are serving, to assist and learn from those affected by the issue. Learning how to communicate with leaders, write Op-Eds, and create impactful plans are all tools I have gained from this program and that I will continue to use as my work continues to evolve. Perhaps one day we may not have to think about higher education being inaccessible. DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION 55 Self-reflection When I chose this topic, I was sure I knew everything related to test-optional policies. My whole professional career has been working in admissions and I have been privileged enough to witness decision and policy making as they pertain to accessibility. I have been a proponent of test-optional policies as they benefitted me when I was at a disadvantage. Yet this project has taught me so much and has allowed me to understand that there are systems in place that prevent change. I expected an ordinary amount of anger as I worked on my research, but there were many times when frustration over lack of accessibility in higher education almost brought me to tears. Test-optional policies are just a grain of sand in a beach of barriers and hurdles students must go through to reach higher education. Knowing that there are stakeholders who prefer to maintain these impediments with the reasoning of maintaining prestige, discouraged me from being hopeful that change will come. However, all my participants shared the same sentiment as me and encouraged me to continue to do the work to effect change. I feel grateful to work at a place where standardized tests are not the main criteria to review a student, but that their humanity is fostered above all else. This project taught me things about myself I did not know before, and although the desire to quit was present a couple of times, I learned that I am capable of anything. I am looking forward to ways in which these findings can continue to shape my career — one filled with purpose and with the needs of students in the forefront. I am also excited to join The Rocky Mountain Association for College Admission Counseling’s Government Relations Committee as the Utah Chair, and advocate for fair admission policies and practices in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION 56 References ACT. (n.d.). Current fees and services. Retrieved October 2020, from https://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/theact/registration/fees.html. Alon, S. (2009). The evolution of class inequality in higher education: Competition, exclusion, and adaptation. American Sociological Review, 74, 731-755. Alon, S., & Tienda, M. (2007). Diversity opportunity and the shifting meritocracy in higher education. American Sociological Review, 72, 487-511. Atkinson, R. C., & Geiser, S. (2009). Reflections on a century of college admissions tests. Center for Studies in Higher Education, 4, 1-21. Berry, C. M., & Sackett, P. R. (2009). Individual differences in course choice result in underestimation of the validity of college admissions systems. Psychological Science, 20(7), 822-830. Boden, K. (2011). Perceived academic preparedness of first-generation Latino college students. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education 10(2), 96-106. Bowen, W. G., Chingos, M. M., & McPherson, M.S. (2018). Test scores and high school grades as predictors. In Buckley, J., Letukas, L., & Wildavsky, B. (Eds.) Measuring success: Testing, grades and the future of college admissions. (pp. 193-225). John Hopkins University Press. Brown, R. P., & Lee, M. N. (2005). Stigma consciousness and the race gap in college academic achievement. Self and Identity, 4, 149-157. Buckley, J., Letukas, L., & Wildavsky, B. (2018). Measuring success: Testing, grades and the future of college admissions. (pp. 1-12). John Hopkins University Press. Bui, K., & Rush, R .A. (2016). Parental involvement in middle school predicting college attendance for first-generation students. Education, 136(4), 473. DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION 57 Chun, H., & Dickinson, G. (2010). A psychoecological model of academic performance among Hispanic adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40(2), 1581-1614. College Board. (n.d.). SAT suite of assessments: Fees. Retrieved October, 2020, from https://collegereadiness.collegeboard.org/sat/register/fees. Creswell, J. W. & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Into Practice, 39(3). Epstein, J. P. (2009). Behind the SAT-optional movement: Context and controversy. Journal of College Admission, 204, 8-19. FairTest. (2020). 1,685+ accredited, 4-year colleges & universities with ACT/SAT-optional testing policies for fall, 2021 admissions. Retrieved October, 2020, from https://www.fairtest.org/university/optional. Figueroa-Helland, L. E., & Lindgren, T. (2016). What goes around comes around: From coloniality of power to the crisis of civilization. Journal of World-Systems Research, 22(2), pp. 430-462. Freedle, R. O. (2003). Correcting the SAT’s ethnic and social-class bias: A method for reestimating the SAT scores. Harvard Educational Review, 73(1), 1-43. Furuta, J. (2017). Rationalization and student/school personhood in U.S. college admissions: The rise of test-optional policies, 1987-2015. Sociology of Education, 90(3), 236-254. Geiser, S., & Santelices, M. V. (2007). Validity of high-school grades in predicting student success beyond the freshmen year: High-school record vs. standardized tests as indicators of four-year college outcomes. Center for Studies in Higher Education: University of California, Berkeley. GuideStar (n.d.). College Entrance Examination Board. Retrieved May 2021, from https://www.guidestar.org/profile/13-1623965 GuideStar (n.d.). Educational Testing Service. Retrieved May 2021, from https://www.guidestar.org/profile/21-0634479 DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION 58 Hoover, E. (2013). The uncommon rise of the Common App. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-uncommon-rise-of-the-commonapp/?cid2=gen_login_refresh&cid=gen_sign_in#:~:text=The%20Common%20App%2 0first%20went,of%20which%20joined%20in%202001. Hoxby, C. M., & Tuner, S. (2015). What high achieving low-income students know about college. American Economic Review, 105)5), pp. 514-517. Hurwitz, M., & Lee, J. (2018). Grade inflation and the role of standardized testing. In Buckley, J., Letukas, L., & Wildavsky, B. (Eds.) Measuring success: Testing, grades and the future of college admissions. (pp. 64-93). John Hopkins University Press. Jacobs, J., Brooks, J., & Thompson, R. J. (2018). Merit-based scholarships in student recruitment and the role of standardized tests. In Buckley, J., Letukas, L., & Wildavsky, B. (Eds.) Measuring success: Testing, grades and the future of college admissions. (pp. 94-117). John Hopkins University Press. Jaschik, S. (2020). Applications tank in state that requires SAT or ACT. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2020/11/09/applications-floridaspublic-universities-are-down-much-50-percent Kugman, J. (2011). How resource inequalities among high schools reproduce class advantages in college destinations. Research in Higher Education, 53(8), 803-830. Kvale, S. (1996). The interview situation. In InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing (pp.124-143). Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Lucido, J. A. (2018). Understanding the test-optional movement. In Buckley, J., Letukas, L., & Wildavsky, B. (Eds.) Measuring success: Testing, grades and the future of college admissions. (pp. 145-170). John Hopkins University Press. Maguire, E. (2018). Going test-optional: A case study. In Buckley, J., Letukas, L., & Wildavsky, B. (Eds.) Measuring success: Testing, grades and the future of college admissions. (pp. 171-192). John Hopkins University Press. DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION 59 Oliva, M., & Nora, A. (2004). College access and the k-16 pipeline: Connecting policy and practice for Latino student success. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 3(2), 117124. Reed, M. (2019). Against application fees. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/confessions-community-college-dean/againstapplication-fees Rodriguez, B. A. (2014). The threat of living up to expectations: Analyzing the performance of Hispanic students on standardized exams. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 13(3), 191-205. Sackett, P. R., Kuncel, N. R., Beatty, A. S., Rigdon, J. L., Shen, W., & Kiger, T. B. (2012). The role of socioeconomic status in the SAT-grade relationships in college admissions decisions. Psychological Science, 23(9), 1000-1007. Sanchez, E., & Mattern, K. (2018). When high school grade point average and test scores disagree: Implications for test-optional policies. In Buckley, J., Letukas, L., & Wildavsky, B. (Eds.) Measuring success: Testing, grades and the future of college admissions. (pp. 118-144). John Hopkins University Press. Schmidt, P. (2003). Academe’s Hispanic future. Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(114). Shaw, E. J. (2018). The core case for testing: The state of our research knowledge. In Buckley, J., Letukas, L., & Wildavsky, B. (Eds.) Measuring success: Testing, grades and the future of college admissions. (pp. 40-63). John Hopkins University Press. Spradley, J.P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. Orlando, FL, USA. The University of California. (2021, January 28). All-time record-high number of applicants apply to UC, with Chicano/Latino students comprising largest proportion [Press release]. https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/press-room/all-time-record-highnumber-applicants-apply-uc-chicanolatino-students-comprising-largest DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION Westminster College. (n.d.). Legacy program. Retrieved December 28, 2020, from https://westminstercollege.edu/student-life/student-diversity-and-inclusioncenter/legacy-program/index.html. 60 DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION 61 Appendix A: Recruitment Email Good afternoon [name], I hope this email finds you well and ready to enjoy a well-deserved break. My name is Valentina Rojas and I am in the capstone stage of my Master of Arts in Community Leadership at Westminster College, UT. I am looking to interview 10-12 admission professionals who work at institutions who have had a test optional policy for at least five years. My research questions are, how do test-optional admission policies increase accessibility to students from historically marginalized communities in higher education? And what type of policies and procedures have institutions put into place to better support the students who benefit from a test-optional process? I am hoping to start my interviews the week of January 11th, 2021, and these would be around an hour and a half. If you would like to participate, please let me know at your earliest convenience. Moreover, if you know of someone else who would like to participate, please feel free to send them my information. I know this is a very busy time and I would really appreciate your participation. Feel free to reach out if you have any questions. DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION 62 Appendix B: Personal Introduction Hello, my name is Valentina Rojas (she/her/hers), and I am finishing my Master of Arts in Community Leadership (MACL) at Westminster College in Salt Lake City, Utah. I have also been working in admissions for over three years, currently as Assistant Director of Admissions, and learning about the ins and outs of our has pushed me to pursue this degree. You see, the MACL program pushes you to think about the systems and root causes behind the injustices we see/face through our daily lives. In my case, I have been intrigued with why higher education as a system is not built for students from historically marginalized communities. And these injustices may not be coming directly from institutions, but we certainly play a role. I am mostly interested in the concept of standardized testing and how companies like the ACT and the College Board continue to be key players on the way we conduct the admission process. As a first-generation student, I knew I needed to test well on both exams to have a chance at higher education and scholarships. I, however, did not test as well as my classmates and my dreams were briefly crushed, until I found out that some institutions did not require me to submit my tests for admissions AND financial aid. In my case, this policy was very beneficial, but as an admission professional and graduate student, I am curious to see what the real benefits are. I am very grateful that you have decided to help me with my research by sharing valuable knowledge, data, and experiences. Without folks like you, this project would have no future — so thank you! DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION 63 Appendix C: Consent Form Westminster College Salt Lake City, UT Consent Form Study Purpose — How institutions who have made test scores optional are opening their doors to students from all walks of life. How do test-optional admission policies increase accessibility to students from historically marginalized communities in higher education? And what type of policies and procedures have institutions put into place to better support the students who benefit from a test-optional process? __I consent to participate in this study concerning test optional admission policies and accessibility in higher education. I understand that I will participate in one 90-minute interview via Zoom. Risk Mitigation — There is minimal risk with this study. All the information disclosed during the interview will be anonymous and only used by the principal investigator and co researcher. __I understand that aspects of the study may ask me to reflect on institutional policies. Voluntary Participation __I understand that I may terminate my involvement in the study for any reason without penalty. I understand that I may decline to answer any question asked of me, and that by doing so I will not be required to terminate my involvement in the study. Questions __I understand that the researcher is willing to answer any questions I might have after I have participated in the study. The researcher reserves the right to answer questions regarding the findings of the study until after the project has been completed. Confidentiality __I understand that no individual data will be reported, and that the researcher will not share my individual results with me either during or after the project. Subject codes will be used to maintain confidentiality. I permit publication of the results of the study with the agreement that appropriate steps are taken to maintain participant confidentiality. Data Management __I understand that data from this study will be kept no longer than five years after the study is complete. __I understand that data may be collected in written or digital form and the data will be stored under password protection. __I understand that data collected in this study belong to the researcher. 64 DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION __I may request to review my interview transcript and offer additional comments after the interview is complete. __I permit publication of the results of the study with the agreement that appropriate steps are taken to maintain participant confidentiality. Video and Audio __I understand that the researcher will be utilizing audio and/or video to record the session. The recordings will only be used for data analysis. Only Valentina Rojas and Dr. Jamie Joanou will have access to the recordings. The recordings will be kept for six months. Compensation __I understand that there will be no compensation for participation in this study. Contact Information __I understand that matters relating to this study can be directed to Valentina Rojas at 786.366.9510 or [e-mail], or the primary investigator, Dr. Jamie Joanou at 801.832.2485 or [e-mail]. If I have additional questions or concerns about this study, I can contact the Westminster College Chair of the Institutional Review Board, Sheryl Steadman at 801.832.2164 or [e-mail]. Age to Consent __I acknowledge that I am eighteen years of age or older, and that I have read and understand the above explanations. Voluntary __Again, I understand that my participation in this study is voluntary and that I can withdraw at any point without penalty. Participant’s Name (Print) Participant’s Signature Date I have presented this information to the participant and obtained their voluntary consent. Co-researcher’s Signature Date DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION Appendix D: Interview Guide 1. How long has your institution been test optional? 2. What prompted the institution to move in this direction? 3. Do you still require test scores for financial aid/specific programs/international students? If so, which programs and why? 4. Have you noticed a significant academic difference between your students who 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. submitted test scores and those who did not? If so, what were those differences like? What are some of the benefits your institution has experienced by being test-optional? What are some downfalls? If you had the ability to redesign your TSO policy, what would you do differently? In addition to not requiring test scores for admission, what are other policies your institution has established to be more accessible? Prior to being test optional, what was the percentage of students from historically marginalized communities in your campus? What is it today? What offices/student support services has your institution implemented to better support students who would be on your campus if it were not for your TSO policies? How are you better supporting students from underrepresented communities at your institution? How are you keeping all the promises you made while recruiting them? Is there any data you wish to share with me? (i.e., retention rates, graduation rates, graduate school acceptances and job placement numbers, etc.) Is there anything I did not ask, and you wish to share with me? 65 DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION Appendix E: IRB Approval Form 66 DE-STANDARDIZING HIGHER EDUCATION Appendix F: NIH Certificate 67 APPROVAL of a thesis/project submitted by Author(s): Valentina Rojas Gutierrez School Department: MACL Title of Thesis: De-standardizing Higher Education: How Test-optional Admission Policies Increase Accessibility and Promote Success to Students from Historically Marginalized Communities. The above named master's thesis/project has been read by each member of the supervisory committee and has been found to be satisfactory regarding content, English usage, format, citations, bibliographic style, and consistency, and is ready to be deposited and displayed in the Westminster College—Institutional Repository. Chairperson, Supervisory Committee: Jamie Joanou Ph.D Approved On 10/26/2021 5:59:21 PM Dean, School: Dr. Melanie J. Agnew Approved On 10/27/2021 9:04:36 AM STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO DEPOSIT & DISPLAY THESIS IN THE INSTITUTIONAL REPOSITORY Name of Author(s): Valentina Rojas Gutierrez School Department: MACL Title of Thesis: De-standardizing Higher Education: How Test-optional Admission Policies Increase Accessibility and Promote Success to Students from Historically Marginalized Communities. With permission from the author(s), the staff of the Giovale Library of Westminster College has the right to deposit and display an electronic copy of the above named thesis in its Institutional Repository for educational purposes only. I hereby give my permission to the staff of the Giovale Library of Westminster College to deposit and display as described the above named thesis. I retain ownership rights to my work, including the right to use it in future works such as articles or a book. Submitted by the Author(s) on 7/27/2021 12:44:49 PM The above duplication and deposit rights may be terminated by the author(s) at any time by notifying the Director of the Giovale Library in writing that permission is withdrawn.