Arguments suggesting it *might* help include:
* Removal of the penalty for incorrect answers in the multiple-choice section: This could reduce anxiety and potentially benefit students from disadvantaged backgrounds who may have less access to extensive test preparation.
* Emphasis on evidence-based reading and writing: This shift arguably focuses on skills developed through education rather than solely memorization, potentially leveling the playing field for students with different learning styles and resources.
* Optional essay: This reduces pressure and allows students to choose whether the essay adds value to their application, potentially benefiting students who may not have access to essay preparation resources.
However, arguments suggesting it *might not* have a significant impact include:
* Test preparation is still crucial: High-scoring students still benefit significantly from test preparation, and access to expensive tutoring remains unevenly distributed, potentially perpetuating existing inequalities.
* Holistic admissions remain central: Many colleges use a holistic review process considering factors beyond test scores, like extracurricular activities, recommendations, and essays. While the SAT may be one piece of the puzzle, its influence on final admission decisions is lessened by the holistic approach.
* Underlying systemic inequalities: The SAT itself doesn't address deep-rooted inequalities in access to quality education, resources, and opportunity that disproportionately affect underrepresented minority groups.
In conclusion, the redesigned SAT aimed to improve fairness and potentially contribute to greater diversity in college admissions. However, its effectiveness is uncertain and likely overshadowed by broader systemic issues within education and access to resources. More research is needed to definitively assess its impact on college diversity.