RECENT MOVES by Harvard, Yale, Brown and others to reinstate a standardized testing requirement for admissions may help them identify a few more low-income students who can succeed there. But until elite colleges address the deeply flawed way they define “excellence,” the policy reversal will do little to meaningfully expand opportunity. Moreover, it begs the real question: Why does every viable measure of student performance favor the rich? What we measure tells us what we value. Might it be that when we say we value excellence, we really mean we value wealth? 

That the SAT primarily measures family wealth is incontrovertible. Even the College Board’s own data confirms that scores closely track parental income. So why do the universities think that by reinstating the requirement it will help combat inequality? Because, they now admit, all their other measures are even worse; every metric, from GPA to letters of recommendation to extracurricular activities, advantages the most privileged. Claims that test requirements benefit lower-income students are part of a misguided mindset equating equity with marginal increases in economic diversity. 

When wealthy institutions engage in practices such as discontinuing the expectation of student loans or meeting full financial needs, it ultimately amounts to little more than offering a handful of lifeboats while the ship is sinking. And, like the Titanic, the first-class passengers already occupy most of those seats.

So let’s get rid of the ship and build something new, something that works for all students rather than institutional reputations. Instead of tinkering around the edges of admissions policies, elite colleges need to completely rethink what it means to be prepared for success. Instead of “prove that you fit our needs,” the application process should ask students to show how their lives will be transformed by an experience only these schools can offer. Look for the students who, given resources for the first time, will accomplish something extraordinary. Advocate for students whose talent has gone undernourished. In short, rethink assumptions of what it means to be “qualified” for an elite education.  

It is possible to approach selective admissions without equating excellence to wealth. Berea College only admits low-income students and charges no tuition, using its $1 billion-plus endowment to make excellence accessible.

Other colleges, such as Salem, Hampshire, Millsaps, and Beloit, have grown their Pell-eligible student enrollments dramatically in the last decade because they have centered their missions on doing so, even with exponentially fewer resources than the Ivy League.

These institutions holistically consider academic, intellectual, and social potential, treating each applicant as an individual, and listening carefully to their distinctive stories in ways that reveal complexity rather than reducing excellence to a metric.

And this is possible at scale. California’s universities are renowned for effectively creating social mobility; the decision of the system to refuse to accept standardized test results reflects those principles. These examples offer proof that bold approaches can directly benefit students. 

In his recent book, Attacking the Elites, former Harvard president Derek Bok justifies the great inequality in higher education by claiming that few individuals have the exceptional ability to make significant contributions to society. Even if Bok’s aristocratic assertion were correct (and we should be skeptical), is it remotely plausible that these few extraordinary individuals are predominantly the children of the wealthy? Measuring ability and making admissions decisions based on accomplishments dependent upon familial resources will obviously not identify extraordinary potential, and is guaranteed to be wrong. Unless, of course, we accept the profoundly undemocratic premise that rare talent descends from rare wealth.

Institutions need to take consequential steps to win back public trust. Elite universities can’t change the obscene inequality that characterizes American society, but they can change who has access to the power to do so. If colleges truly want to diversify their populations, they should look to those leading the way. It’s ultimately not about tests, extracurriculars, or essay questions. It’s about redefining who gets a seat at the table in the first place.

Edward Wingenbach is president of Hampshire College in Amherst.