The College Board. Love it or hate it, is an organization that found a way to completely take over the college entrance process. The infamous SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) is a college entrance requirement for schools across the United States that has sparked a debate on whether there is a direct correlation between spending more money and the “dream school” acceptance rate.

A graphic illustrating the hourly wages paid to tutors (redwoodbark.org).

Unlike most tests taken during high school classes, the SAT is a test designed to measure skills rather than knowledge. This exposes the industry to a secondary market where tutors and test-prep guides teach students the methodology behind performing well on these exams. These services wildly vary in price ranging from group sessions costing $50 and programs that “guarantee” test scores such as the Princeton Review 1400+ program that cost over $1,500. The question then becomes, should monetary incentives exist in a process such as college admissions?

An advertisement for test tutoring from Test Genie (www.testprepgenie).

Cost should be separated from the college admissions process because it corrupts the procedure by providing the option to essentially “pay” to get into college. Within this solution, standardized tests are removed and admissions become more experience-based rather than solely based on test scores. Here the secondary market for tutoring and test-prep will become obsolete as the SAT will no longer be considered.

This type of shift is already prevalent as most colleges removed or made optional testing requirements during the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic inadvertently sparked a movement away from test-centric admissions and allowed universities to highlight other aspects for applicants. By having nearly two-thirds of public universities declare test optional, it illustrates how fickle test scores really are on an application, and how their absence might instill a change for the better.

The one valuable aspect that the SAT presented universities was a benchmark that was used to filter through applications. For institutions with low acceptance rates that receive tens of thousands of applications, a nearly perfect SAT score is merely a check-in-the-box. If standardized tests are abolished, what method should be utilized to separate standout applications from mediocre ones? AP and IB testing could be a potential answer, but not all schools have access to these programs, and some offer more classes than others. Evaluating individuals solely on their extracurriculars and experiences is another option, but an overreliance on this category could potentially bring on response bias if applicants know that their fraudulent applications could trick readers.

Is there a solution that levels the playing field but does not delegitimize the process? What will fill the void that could exist with no standardized admissions exams? Is there a future where costs are eliminated from the college admissions process?

Across the world, 24 countries have omitted the financial burden that receiving a degree from a higher education institution can entail. These 24 nations have made college free — well not exactly. Would adopting a “free college” system in the United States solve the student debt crisis or will it only force greater civic and economic turmoil?

One particularly interesting example of a country with “free college” is Norway, one of the few nations that offers free education to citizens and internationals. In Norway, most universities are publicly funded by the government. At these public universities, there are no formal tuition charges, and the government even offers programs where students can receive loans to cover the additional expenses and use them as stipends. With all these generous benefits, there must surely be some substantial costs, right?

Taxes. The top marginal federal income tax rate in the United States is 43.7% for individuals who make over $500,000 a year, for Norway it is 38.2% for any person who makes over $85,000 a year. That’s right, the top tax rate is applied to a much larger percentage of the population and the tuition deficit is paid by more than just the rich and ruling elite. Countries such as Norway who have adopted a socialized higher education system surely do not have a student debt problem, but they do have a social gap problem, leaving most “equally” poor.

Oslo, the capital of Norway, is divided based on class today. The “Oslo slums” are depicted above where impoverished individuals live separate from the rest of society (afroginthefjord.com).

How would this system stand in the United States? Yes, it is true that the college enrollment rate is steadily increasing, but should individuals who don’t pursue a college degree pay extra taxes for programs they reap zero benefits from? The tax rate hike bombards the middle class and, in some cases, can take just about half of what individuals make. The upside is of course more opportunities for young adults to go to college who were previously deterred by cost; however, with this new demand, would universities even be able to keep up with increased enrollment with potentially decreased funding?

Economists believe that the plan for “free college” created by President Joe Biden could be feasible in the long run based on future tax revenue generation (www.cnbc.com).

Although most people hate tuition costs, myself included, they help preserve personal choice. Going to college is a personal investment, a personal decision, and a personal commitment, so why should the public fund an individual’s college experience? The student debt problem might be stunted when tuition costs are absent, but how would consumer budgets change when they are paying more taxes?

Nothing is ever free, the costs of college are still there, just disguised better and distributed to a greater amount of people. Sacrificing personal liberties should never be the answer for solving financial deficits, making college free would undermine the very principles that separate the United States from other nations and would create new adversities for a greater amount of people.