Say what you want about the SAT and ACT, but at least they don’t pretend your “group project participation grade” is a reliable measure of brilliance.

Whether or not to keep standardized testing is a question that has been hotly debated, as many colleges and universities have decided to go test-optional and test-blind. But people often ignore the benefits of standardized tests for applicants.

I always hear the argument that some people aren’t good at tests, but some people are good at tests, and they should get the opportunity to showcase their strengths in their college applications. At the very least, schools should be test-optional and let students who are good at test-taking show it.

With grade inflation (the phenomenon where schools and universities feel pressure to give out higher grades so the average grade rises), there are only a few areas where we still see a range of scores, even within talented students. Many college applicants have the same GPA, and standardized tests like the SAT and ACT provide a more in-depth range. It isn’t as hard as it once was to have over a 4.0 GPA, so testing really lets top students shine. We should let the curve happen. 

We also hear the argument that it is not an accurate measure of intelligence. Although it may not be accurate in all cases, it does allow many applicants to display their intelligence.  In addition, test-taking is a critical component of many college classes, so exams like the SAT and ACT are strong predictors of college academic performance and GPA, even more so than high school grades. It also shows how students perform under pressure and under time constraints, both things they will face in college.

Standardized tests like the SAT and ACT are also objective. Grades may vary based on the teacher, grading policy and course rigor. Even the AP tests don’t provide a level playing field as well as the SAT or ACT, because a score could depend on how well a teacher prepared you for that test. It is a common, comparable metric that would be otherwise lacking.

This would also make college admissions more transparent and consistent. Because tests are an objective measure, they would show any biases that colleges have, because there would be a difference from the norm for that school. In other words, if a college admits students with much lower scores than expected, it would be clear that something besides academics is at play.

It also helps under-resourced, underserved and unmotivated students who have talent get identified. They may not have access to extracurriculars or harder classes, but they can take the test and do well. They also have a chance to do well and improve their score, much more than in other aspects of the application process.

While wealthy students may have more access to resources that would help them do well on the SAT or ACT, less wealthy students can go to a library and check out a book to help them study, or use the free Khan Academy. The SAT and ACT also test on a more standardized scale, which can be beneficial to underserved applicants. They also offer fee waivers, so lower-income students can take the test multiple times. 

Even if it is not required, you should still take the SAT or ACT, because it can add something to your application, differentiate you from other applicants, offer career insights and provide scholarship opportunities.