This summer, the United States Supreme Court ruled to end race-based consideration in the college admissions process. For me, Noah Harris, a Black Harvard graduate from rural Mississippi, this decision feels like an assault on the legitimacy of my acceptance. And I know thousands of other Black and Latinx alumni feel the same.
Arguments for and against this majority decision have focused mainly on which racial groups will benefit or suffer the most — and almost exclusively at the undergraduate college level. However, graduate admissions departments are responsible for the arguably more vital task of fostering a diverse workforce. Promoting diverse representation in a post-affirmative action world will require monumental steps: In the US, a mere 5.7% of physicians, 5% of lawyers, and six Fortune 500 chief executives identify as Black.
Some graduate schools have already taken creative approaches to address these deficits. In November, the American Bar Association made significant strides by publicly exploring the possibility of eliminating the Law School Admissions Test (LSAT) as a requirement for admission. The association is still deliberating whether to implement this proposal, but its discussions have highlighted the potential benefits of de-emphasizing numerical evaluations, thereby reducing barriers for those who lack the resources to attain high scores and enhancing workforce diversity.
Shortly after that announcement, I, Cameron Sabet, argued in a Washington Post guest opinion column that the Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) should be similarly de-emphasized, but through a pass/fail format. This alternative design would strike a balance between optional and required evaluations, fostering diversity while still screening everyone for foundational competencies. In 2017 and 2018, 83% of matriculating med students ranked in the top-third of MCAT scores, suggesting an unnecessary focus on scores over holistic assessment.
But with affirmative action eliminated, the three of us now believe graduate testing organizations such as the nonprofits Graduate Management Admission Council and Educational Testing Service should make all admissions tests pass/fail, including the Graduate Management Admission Test (GMAT) and Graduate Record Examination (GRE).
Proponents of graded standardized tests assert that they allow candidates of all backgrounds to shine, offering a “level playing field.” By assuming these tests solely gauge merit, though, these arguments incorrectly attribute racial or economic disparities in test scores to personal or group failings rather than broader systemic issues.
These advocates also overlook the correlation between high test scores and economic privilege. MCAT scores, for instance, are strongly linked with household income: Since the 1980s, the percentage of medical students from the lowest income quintile has not surpassed 5.5%; for the same time frame, representation from the highest quintile hasn’t dipped below 48%. These trends perpetuate the very inequities medical schools are seeking to address, especially in a post-affirmative action landscape.
In response to my Post op-ed advocating for a pass/fail MCAT, medical student John H. Shen-Sampas asserted that the MCAT identifies candidates possessing "intellectual acuity and mental toughness," vital attributes for future doctors. Yet researchers from the Uniformed Services University and the University of Florida College of Medicine discovered the MCAT cannot reliably forecast performance on tests requiring direct clinical observation or even predict success in the first year of postgraduate training, according to program directors.
At the end of a study they published in 2015, they concluded, "The knowledge represented on the MCAT is necessary, but not sufficient," for proficient medical practice. Consequently, there's a pressing need for a pass/fail MCAT that assesses this foundational knowledge without the risk of “launder[ing]” socioeconomic factors, as Princeton Review executive director Jay Rosner highlighted in a response that agreed with my original call for a pass/fail MCAT.
Similar problems plague business school admissions. Indeed, analyses have shown the GMAT is an inadequate predictor of a student's employability or their proficiency in essential management skills like communication, leadership initiative, and organization. As Erika James, dean of the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, suggested in a 2020 interview with NPR, improved diversity in business training can foster a more inclusive culture, empowering minority students.
The GRE must also go pass/fail. It’s a catchall exam used in admissions for PhD, JD, and master’s programs, including those at business schools. As with the MCAT and GMAT, studies have shown there is a limited relationship between GRE scores and graduate student success. Unsurprisingly, GRE scores are also strongly correlated with family income. Even worse, the GRE consistently underpredicts grades for Black students in graduate schools.
The pass/fail model is not a silver bullet for rectifying decades-long workforce diversity issues. Indeed, this scoring system, which groups 70th and 90th percentile scorers together as "pass,” seemingly blurs significant distinctions. Yet mastery of professional skills often takes place within school itself, not before. Consider elite institutions like Harvard Law, which implemented permanent pass/fail grading systems even before the end of affirmative action. Similarly, most medical schools and the US Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 are pass/fail.
After the ban on affirmative action, graduate admissions councils have a unique opportunity to reaffirm their commitment to creating a future where professionals don’t simply represent numbers, but rather the people they serve.
Stay up-to-date with the politics team. Sign up for the Teen Vogue Take
