Back

SAT Myths vs Facts

The SAT is valued globally by K–12 and higher education. Nearly 2 million students in the class of 2023 took the SAT, more than any other standardized assessment.  

Myth #1: The SAT is a barrier for students in the college admissions process.  

Fact: SAT scores help many students show their strengths to colleges and scholarship providers.   

  • The SAT measures the math, reading, and writing skills students are learning in high school—the same skills and knowledge needed for success in college and career.  
      

  • In 2023, 1.3 million U.S. high school graduates had SAT scores that validated or exceeded their high school GPAs—meaning their scores were a point of strength in their college applications (College Board, 2023). Among these students, 440,000 were African American and Latino, 350,000 were first-generation college students, and 250,000 were from rural communities.   
      

  • Students can opt in to Student Search ServiceTM when they take the SAT on the weekend. Students who participate in Search receive 29% more college admissions offers than those who don’t, and when colleges reach out through Search college outcomes are improved—especially for underrepresented student groups (College Board, 2022; Howell et al., 2021). 

  

Myth #2: The SAT is biased against socioeconomically disadvantaged students.  

Fact: SAT performance differences are not a product of test bias but reflect genuine inequalities in K–12 education.  

  • In all academic measures, including grades, students from wealthier backgrounds have advantages long before taking college admission exams (Reardon & Portilla, 2016). 

  • Research shows differences in family wealth only slightly affect SAT scores ( Chetty et al., 2020). 

  • While the SAT is a standardized, objective measure of achievement, other parts of a college admission application—like essays, extracurriculars, letters of recommendation, and availability of advanced coursework—are more skewed by income. (e.g., Alvero et al., 2021; Camara & Schmidt, 1999; Kim et al., 2024; Marini et al., 2018; O’Boyle & McDaniel, 2009; Park et al., 2023; Zwick, 2002). 
      

  • SAT questions are carefully developed and rigorously reviewed for evidence of bias and any question that could favor one group over another is discarded.   
      

  • Colleges consider SAT scores within the context of where students live and go to school, and an SAT score should never be a veto on a student’s plans or ambitions.  
      

Myth #3: Expensive test prep is the only way for students to raise their scores.  

Fact: Effective preparation for the SAT doesn’t need to be expensive.   

  • Students taking the digital SAT have access to 6 full-length practice tests in Bluebook—the same application students use on test day.  
      

  • One of the most widely used SAT practice resources is free, and comes from a yearslong partnership between College Board and Khan Academy®—now called Official Digital SAT Prep on Khan Academy.  
      

  • Research shows that students can achieve similar gains to expensive test prep just by retaking the SAT. (Becker, 1990; Briggs, 2005; DerSimonian & Laird, 1983; Powers & Rock, 1999.)

References 

Alvero, A. J., Giebel, S., Gebre-Medhin, B., Antonio, A. L., Stevens, M. L., & Domingue, B. W. (2021). Essay content and style are strongly related to household income and SAT scores: Evidence from 60,000 undergraduate applications. Science Advances, 7(42). Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abi9031. 

Becker, B. J. (1990). Coaching for the Scholastic Aptitude Test: Further synthesis and appraisal. Review of Educational Research, 60, 373–417. 

Briggs, D. C. (2005). Meta-Analysis: A Case Study. Evaluation Review, 29(2), 87–127.   

Camara, W. J., & Schmidt, A. E. (1999). Group Differences in Standardized Testing and Social Stratification (College Board Research Report No. 99-5). New York: The College Board. 

Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., Saez, E., Turner, N., & Yagan, D. (2020). Income segregation and intergenerational mobility across colleges in the United States. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 135(3), 1567–1633. 

College Board. (2022). New Research Links Student Search Service Participation to More College Admission Offers (All Access). Retrieved from https://allaccess.collegeboard.org/new-research-links-student-search-service-participation-more-college-admission-offers. 

College Board. (2023). SAT® Scores and High School Grades: The Benefits of Multiple Academic Measures (College Board Research Note). New York: College Board. 

DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. M. (1983). Evaluating the effect of coaching on SAT scores: A meta-analysis. Harvard Educational Review, 53(1), 1–15. 

Howell, J., Hurwitz, M., Mabel, Z., & Smith, J. (2021). Participation in Student Search Service® Is Associated with Higher College Enrollment and Completion (College Board Research Report). New York: College Board. 

Kim, B. H., Park, J. J., Lo, P., Baker, D. J., Wong, N., Breen, S., Truong, H., Zheng, J., Ochs Rosinger, K., & Poon, OY. (2024). Inequity and College Applications: Assessing Differences and Disparities in Letters of Recommendation from School Counselors with Natural Language Processing. (EdWorkingPaper 24-953). Retrieved from Annenberg Institute at Brown University: https://doi.org/10.26300/pmv2-r349. 

Marini, J. P., Shaw, E. J., Young, L., & Ewing, M. (2018). Getting to Know Your Criterion: Examining College Course Grades and GPAs over Time (College Board Research Report). New York: The College Board. 

O'Boyle, E. H., Jr., & McDaniel, M. A. (2009). Criticisms of employment testing: A commentary. In R. P. Phelps (Ed.), Correcting fallacies about educational and psychological testing (pp. 181–197). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 

Park, J. J., Kim, B. H., Wong, N., Zheng, J., Breen, S., Lo, P., Baker, D. J., Ochs Rosinger, K., Nguyen, M. H., & Poon, OY. (2023). Inequality Beyond Standardized Tests: Trends in Extracurricular Activity Reporting in College Applications Across Race and Class (EdWorkingPaper 23-749). Providence, RI: Annenberg Institute at Brown University: https://edworkingpapers.com/sites/default/files/ai23-749.pdf 

Powers, D. E., & Rock, D. A. (1999). Effects of coaching on SAT I: Reasoning Test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 36(2), 93–118. 

Reardon, S.F., & Portilla, X.A. (2016). “Recent Trends in Income, Racial, and Ethnic School Readiness Gaps at Kindergarten Entry.” AERA Open 2(3):1-18. 

Zwick, R. (2002). Fair game? The use of standardized admissions tests in higher education. New York: Routledge.