Leveling Up Test Prep: Data, Games, and Real Access for First-Gen Students

Why standardized testing still matters—and how TRIO programs can make it an equalizer

For a few years, it felt like standardized testing was on its way out.

During the pandemic, colleges rapidly shifted to test-optional admissions policies, and many educators—especially those working with first-generation and low-income students—welcomed the change. The SAT and ACT have a complicated history, and for many students, removing the test requirement felt like one less barrier in an already difficult process.

But the landscape is shifting again.

Across the country, more colleges are returning to test requirements, and even when schools remain test-optional, test scores are still shaping scholarship eligibility and admissions outcomes. For students who stand to benefit the most from selective colleges and strong financial aid packages, this is not a minor detail—it is often a deciding factor.

The challenge is simple:

Standardized tests still shape access to selective colleges, but the students who stand to benefit most are often the least likely to receive engaging, strategic preparation.

The Testing Landscape: What the Numbers Say

Many educators assume testing is mostly “gone.” In reality, policies vary widely—and the number of schools returning to test-required admissions is rising.

Across 434 tracked four-year institutions, current testing policies break down as follows:

This matters because the colleges most likely to require tests tend to be the same colleges with the strongest selectivity, the most prestige, and often the most generous financial aid resources.

“Test Optional” Doesn’t Mean “Test Doesn’t Matter”

One of the most common misconceptions in college advising is the assumption that “test optional” means standardized tests no longer play a role in admissions.

But when colleges publish admissions outcomes comparing applicants who submitted scores vs. those who did not, a clear trend appears: students who submit scores are admitted at higher rates.

Here are examples from selective universities that published this data:

• USC: admit rate 13.9% with scores vs. 10.9% without scores

• Tufts: admit rate 10.8% with scores vs. 7.2% without scores

• UPenn: admit rate 7.0% with scores vs. 4.0% without scores

• Boston College: admit rate 25.7% with scores vs. 9.6% without scores

Across the colleges shown, the average admit rate was:

• 16.99% for students submitting test scores

• 8.0% for students not submitting test scores

That represents a 112% advantage in admissions outcomes for score submitters in the published dataset.

To be clear: this does not prove test scores are the only reason students were admitted. Students who submit scores may also have stronger academic profiles overall. But it strongly suggests that a solid score can increase competitiveness, particularly at selective institutions.

Scholarships: Where Testing Quietly Becomes Required Again

Even when colleges do not require the SAT or ACT for admission, many still require test scores for scholarship eligibility.

In the tracked dataset, 18% of colleges require SAT/ACT scores for scholarships, even if they are test optional for admissions.

This is especially important for students exploring tuition exchange programs such as WUE (Western Undergraduate Exchange), where some institutions require test scores for reduced tuition eligibility.

The takeaway is simple:

A student may be able to apply test optional—but still lose significant financial opportunities without scores.

The Bigger Equity Issue: Selective Colleges Are Often the Most Affordable

For many low-income families, private universities look unaffordable. Sticker prices can feel discouraging, unrealistic, and out of reach.

But selective colleges often have the strongest endowments and the largest financial aid budgets. In many cases, they provide aid packages that cover far more than tuition—sometimes including travel, books, supplies, and personal expenses.

The problem is not that students cannot succeed at these schools.

The problem is that many students never apply—or apply without the strongest possible academic portfolio—because they were never guided toward that level of opportunity early enough.

Standardized Tests and College Success: The Correlation Is Real

One reason many selective universities are returning to testing is that standardized exams correlate strongly with college academic performance.

Data comparing test scores and GPA indicates that ACT/SAT scores correlate more strongly to first-year college grades than high school GPA does.

That relationship remains even when controlling for disadvantaged versus advantaged student groups.

One particularly important finding from the National Bureau of Economic Research: high-achieving disadvantaged students submit scores at significantly lower rates, but are 3.6 times more likely to receive an admissions offer when they submit scores to a test-optional college.

That is a major equity concern—not because disadvantaged students are less capable, but because they are less likely to participate in a system that can reward them.

Engagement Starts Before Test Prep Begins

Effective test prep is not just a classroom issue. It is a culture issue.

If students view testing as irrelevant, unfair, or disconnected from their goals, they will disengage long before the first practice exam.

Programs can strengthen engagement by focusing on three upstream levers:

• creating a college-going culture

• building parent buy-in through parent education

• leveraging external partnerships and relationships

These shifts are especially important in the first two years of high school. Waiting until junior year is often too late to build the academic confidence, goal clarity, and family support required for selective admissions pathways.

The Engagement Problem Isn’t Laziness

Students rarely disengage because they are lazy.

They disengage because test prep often feels:

• generic

• remedial

• disconnected from personal goals

Many students do not know:

• what their score means

• what score would actually help them

• whether effort will realistically pay off

Without clarity, test prep becomes hoop-jumping.  With clarity, test prep becomes strategy.

Not Every Student Benefits Equally (and That’s a Good Thing to Admit)

One of the most important program decisions is recognizing that test prep is not equally impactful for all students.

The highest return tends to come from students who are aiming for the most selective 20% of colleges—and who are already within realistic striking distance of competitive scores.

In many cases, the greatest ROI begins around:

• SAT ~1200+

• ACT ~25+

This does not mean other students should be excluded from support. It means some students may benefit more from tutoring, GPA interventions, credit completion support, or targeted academic coaching.

Equity is not providing identical services. Equity is providing the right service for each student’s pathway.

Defining “Striking Distance”: When Score Gains Actually Change Outcomes

Not all score increases create the same result.

A 100-point SAT increase can be modest in one range but transformative in another. Programs can improve student engagement dramatically by defining “striking distance”—the score bands where improvement opens new admissions and scholarship opportunities.

Examples:

ACT

• 19 → 22: limited change

• 22 → 25: major admissions shift

• 25 → 27: scholarship leverage

SAT

• 1050 → 1150: modest

• 1150 → 1250: meaningful

• 1250 → 1350: selective access

This framework makes goal-setting more realistic and helps students understand what they are working toward.

How to Teach Test Prep Without Losing Students

The most effective test prep instruction is not based on long lectures or heavy front-loading.

Instead, it focuses on:

• minimal front-loading

• patterns and repetition

• decision-making

• efficiency and pacing

This approach aligns with how standardized tests actually work. Success often comes less from mastering every content standard and more from recognizing patterns and making strategic choices quickly.

Games Aren’t the Point. Engagement Is.

Games are not “extra.” When used intentionally, they mirror the real test environment.

They create:

• timed pressure

• competitive energy

• peer-to-peer explanation

• immediate feedback

Most importantly, games make learning active. Students begin developing strategies naturally, and teachers gain real-time insight into student strengths and gaps.

Example: The Math Whiteboard Game

The ACT includes a wide range of math categories—many of which appear only once per exam. In a diverse classroom with limited instructional time, it is difficult to review everything efficiently through traditional lectures.

The Math Whiteboard Game solves this by creating a fast-paced, team-based competition where students rotate through topics quickly, revealing:

• what students already know

• what they struggle with

• which topics require deeper review

Because the game includes strategic “outs” (team assistance, looking at other boards, etc.), even students who are not confident can participate without embarrassment.

Example: The Grammar Game

Grammar is one area where test prep is often not “review” for students. Many have never been explicitly taught the rules being tested.

A structured Grammar Game builds repetition and engagement by turning error recognition into a competitive team challenge.

Over multiple rounds, the game progresses from:

1. spotting the error

2. spotting and fixing the error

3. spotting, fixing, and naming the grammar rule

This progression builds mastery while keeping students active.

What Happens When Engagement Is Real

When students understand what’s at stake, voluntarily opt in, and are taught with active strategy-based methods, programs see consistent results:

• stronger attendance

• sustained effort

• measurable score gains

• increased confidence

Outcomes from TRIO test prep programs show:

These gains are not accidental. They come from combining culture-building, goal clarity, and instructional methods that keep students engaged.

Call to Action: Testing Can Be an Equalizer

Standardized testing is not perfect. It never has been.

But the current admissions reality is that many low-income students are missing out on selective universities and scholarship pathways not because they lack ability—but because they are disengaged from testing and not supported with strategy.

Programs can change this by committing to:

• creating a college-going culture

• prioritizing parent buy-in

• leveraging external resources and partnerships

• educating students about what scores matter

• making preparation voluntary, targeted, and structured

• teaching through engagement-based tactics rather than remediation-based lectures

When implemented thoughtfully, standardized testing can function as more than a gatekeeper.

It can become an equalizer.