What 'Merit' Really Means In College Admissions — The Surprising Truth

Last spring the University of Austin in Texas announced a controversial "merit-first" admissions program that admits students solely on the basis of high standardized test scores, explicitly excluding essays, extracurriculars and GPAs. That policy echoes broader federal efforts to prioritize ostensibly "objective" measures of achievement and to restrict consideration of race or gender in admissions.

Policy Push And Institutional Responses

The Trump administration’s Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education champions reliance on standardized tests and other "objective criteria," and criticizes admissions processes that consider protected characteristics. Settlement agreements with Columbia, Northwestern and Brown required those institutions to adopt "merit-based" admissions that avoid racial preferences and any "proxies for protected characteristics," and to report admissions data by race, GPA and test performance. The administration has since moved to collect similar data from colleges nationwide.

Why "Merit" Is Hard To Define

Merit is not a single, clear-cut attribute. Grades and standardized tests provide useful information about academic preparation, but each has limits. High school grading standards and course rigor vary widely across schools and teachers, and grade inflation has eroded the predictive value of GPA at the most selective institutions. While standardized tests tend to predict college GPA and correlate with post-college outcomes, they also correlate strongly with socioeconomic advantage.

"Standardized tests may tell us as much about a student’s access to resources as they do about her potential."

Access, Opportunity And Unequal Preparation

Wealthier students typically attend better-resourced schools, have more time for study, and can afford tutoring and test preparation. As a result, a policy that admits students exclusively by test scores or raw grades is likely to amplify existing advantages for affluent applicants and undercount achievement that arises despite fewer opportunities.

Holistic Review And The Goal Of Building A Class

At the most selective colleges, many applicants have near-perfect academic credentials. Admissions officers therefore assess broader qualities — recommendations, extracurricular engagement, work experience, family context and demonstrated resilience — to identify how applicants have made the most of their opportunities and how they might contribute to a campus community. This "holistic review" is intentionally contextual and partly subjective, because colleges are assembling a diverse class with varied talents and experiences.

Legal Landscape And Race-Neutral Strategies

After the Supreme Court ended race-conscious affirmative action, many selective colleges have intensified efforts to increase socioeconomic diversity. The administration warns that race-neutral criteria used as proxies for race can be unlawful, citing geographic targeting or prompts about obstacles overcome. Still, the Court’s rulings do not prevent universities from redoubling race-neutral recruitment of lower-income students — a permissible approach for diversifying campuses that the Court described as "commendable" when done without racial classifications.

Conclusion

Confining admissions to test scores and GPAs may simplify decision-making, but it risks reinforcing socioeconomic inequities and shrinking the kinds of merit colleges value. Retaining a contextual, multifaceted admissions process — imperfect as it is — better equips institutions to identify potential, assemble balanced classes, and serve both students and society.

Authors: Glenn C. Altschuler is the Thomas and Dorothy Litwin Emeritus Professor of American Studies at Cornell University. David Wippman is emeritus president of Hamilton College.

Copyright 2026 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved.