Swarthmore College will continue its test-optional admissions policy for up to five more years. The move aligns the school with many of its peer institutions that chose to de-emphasize SAT and ACT scores amid shifting access, evolving test design, and questions about long-term implications of scores on outcomes.
The decision, confirmed by Dean of Admissions Jim Bock ’90, follows nearly three years of internal analysis and consultation across campus. In a statement to The Phoenix, Bock emphasized that the college’s choice was neither reactive nor symbolic but grounded in “performance and retention data” tracked since the policy was piloted in 2020.
Over this period, Bock, Director of Admissions Istheir Chaudhury and analysts from the Institutional Effectiveness, Research & Assessment (IERA) office met with faculty leadership across divisions and the Summer Scholars Program, along with senior administrators and board members, to evaluate how students admitted without test scores were faring. The findings, according to Bock, show that both test-submitters and non-submitters are “overwhelmingly doing well,” with retention rates remaining high for both groups.
Bock noted that while students who applied without scores have exhibited slightly lower first and second year GPAs on average, this gap was “not worrisome.” IERA also compared outcomes for non-submitters with those of students whose test scores were lower than most applicants’, and found that both groups showed similar academic trajectories.
These analyses, Bock said, strengthen the college’s confidence that “informed [admissions] decisions can be made with or without scores.” Swarthmore remains test optional, not test blind, allowing students to submit SAT and ACT scores at their discretion and continuing to consider AP exam results, IB predicted scores, and country-specific high school leaving or graduation exams when offered.
Although headlines in the past year have framed the ongoing debate within higher education about test-optional admissions as trending back to pre-pandemic norms of required testing, Bock argued that this perception is misleading. Many peer institutions, such as Amherst, Bowdoin, Carleton, Pomona, and Williams, have reaffirmed test-optional policies.
In 2023, Columbia University adopted a fully test-optional stance indefinitely, becoming the last Ivy League university to keep the policy. The University of Michigan continues to operate under test-optional admissions, and the entire University of California (UC) system remains test-free under the terms of a 2021 settlement agreement. The agreement required the UCs to end the use of SAT and ACT scores in admissions and maintain a score-free process through at least 2025. Unlike test-optional policies, the UCs’ test-free approach means scores cannot be submitted at all. The agreement effectively locked in the UCs’ move away from standardized testing and set the precedent for many other institutions to follow.
Research on the broader impact of test-optional policies remains mixed. A 2021 study from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that test-optional practices led to increases in applications from low-income and underrepresented minority students; however, test scores are strongly correlated with first-year GPA at one studied college. The authors caution that yield and enrollment patterns vary across institutions. Meanwhile, the National Association of College Admission Counseling maintains that standardized test scores often mirror family income and access to preparation resources rather than academic potential.
Recent studies and policy briefs, however, suggest that while test-optional admissions have improved access in some contexts, they may not deliver the equity gains many anticipated and may introduce unintended consequences.
A brief from the Campaign for College Opportunity warns that test-optional policies “may have a limited impact on student demographics … without significant investments in financial aid and support.” Moreover, research compiled by the Law School Admission Council found that among 180 selective liberal arts colleges, dropping the test requirement did not meaningfully increase enrollment of students with financial need or minority students, and in some cases may have reinforced stratification by shifting emphasis to credentials like curricula and extracurriculars that favor more advantaged applicants. Other commentators, still, have defended the SAT and other standardized tests, pointing to research that suggests they are more equitable than many other factors considered for college admissions.
Swarthmore’s reasoning also reflects a less-discussed logistical barrier: the shrinking availability of testing seats, particularly in states like California. When the UCs ended their SAT/ACT requirements, the state’s demand for testing dropped sharply, and so did the number of schools willing to administer exams.
Testing centers rely on a combination of staff availability, institutional interest, and expected turnout. Once the UCs announced they would no longer consider scores, many California high schools scaled back or stopped offering the SAT entirely because fewer students needed it for in-state admissions.
As a result, the remaining centers now face capacity strain, leaving “not enough seats for all high school SAT test-takers,” as Bock explained. Families with greater financial means have begun reserving seats at under-resourced high schools or traveling out of state for tests, a pattern that risks widening inequality. California remains one of Swarthmore’s largest applicant markets, making restricted access a significant concern.
Compounding this uncertainty is the ACT’s recent acquisition by a private equity firm and its decision to remove the science section. Because these revisions have not yet been studied for reliability or aligned with updated concordance tables that show how ACT scores translate to SAT equivalents, colleges still lack evidence about whether the redesigned exam measures what it claims to measure. “It is unclear when new validity testing is occurring,” Bock said, noting the admissions office’s hesitation to rely on rapidly shifting assessments.
For students who applied without scores, the policy has changed the admissions process beyond providing a simple option. “I have never been a strong test-taker,” said Elisabeth Ferris ’27, who noted that applying test-optional let her focus on her “writing, coursework, and growth as a student” rather than “a single score dependent on three hours on a Saturday morning.” She described the option as both stress-reducing and more representative of who she was academically.
Y’onna Hale ’26 echoed that sense of relief. “Applying without test scores wasn’t that stressful,” she said. “I did well on the ACT, but I didn’t want my ability to take a test to influence my overall academic success.” Hale added that avoiding the pressure to pursue a “perfect score” allowed her to approach the application process with more confidence and less anxiety.
Others shared the same feelings, describing the freedom as relieving, while others framed it as a calculated risk. Still, others see it as a practical necessity given cost or access.
By extending the policy for up to five more years, Swarthmore aims to track graduating-class outcomes with greater precision from the expanded data. The college will continue to monitor academic performance, retention, and six-year graduation rates across submitters and non-submitters while watching for changes in test design, availability, and national trends.
For now, the decision places Swarthmore alongside several peer institutions that see test-optional admissions not as a temporary pandemic artifact but as an ongoing strategy to preserve equitable access. As Bock put it, the policy aligns with the college’s “continuing mission of broad access” — one that, in his view, cannot hinge on the stability of an assessment landscape still in flux.
