Test scores only: University of Austin debuts ‘merit-first admissions’ policy

By Jennifer Kabbany

The College Fix

March 31, 2025


‘We care about two things: Intelligence and courage,’ university stated in announcing policy


No essays. No recommendations. No resumes. No GPA. Just test scores.


That’s a quick breakdown of a new admissions policy rolled out Monday by the University of Austin, a relatively new independent university that prioritizes free speech, academic inquiry and intellectual diversity.


The independent-minded university bankrolled by center-right billionaires aims to break new ground with this policy, which will grant admissions for applicants, ages 17 and 23, whose standardized test scores are at or above 1460 on the SAT, 33 on the ACT, or 105 on the CLT.


For those below that threshold, the policy will look at student applicants’ AP scores and three sentences about their achievements.


The “Merit-First Admissions” policy was announced as Ivy League university acceptance decisions are being rolled out, with some stories making the rounds of highly qualified students being rejected.

TAX campus leaders bill it as the most meritocratic admissions policy in the country.


“We care about two things: Intelligence and courage. Intelligence to succeed in a rigorous intellectual environment (we don’t inflate grades). Courage to join the first ranks of our truth-oriented university,” the university stated on X on Monday.

A copy of the three-page policy, provided to The College Fix, also points out a few qualifiers, such as applicants must possess a high school diploma or GED equivalent, they must disclose any disciplinary, criminal, or unethical conduct history, and administrators reserve the right to ask for an interview.


While some of the documentation needed to confirm these measures include information on a student’s grade-point average, the university’s website notes that “GPA is not a criterion for admission to the University of Austin.”


Critics of affirmative action praised the development in emails Monday to The College Fix.


“For decades, research has shown consistently that standardized testing is a better predictor for academic success and preparedness in college than high school GPA, essays and recommendation letters,” Wenyuan Wu, executive director of Californians for Equal Rights Foundation, said via email.


“With the widespread problem of grade inflation in which some schools’ ‘straight A’ students fail state standardized tests, test scores are becoming ever more important. UATX is taking a strong stand against the ideologically motivated war on merit and taking responsibility for the students it pledges to educate. Way to go!”


And Nan Zhong, whose son earned a near perfect 1590 score on his SAT yet he was rejected by 16 colleges he applied to, told The College Fix he thinks there are many benefits to the policy.


“Perhaps counterintuitively, this simpler admission process could actually benefit students from low-income families by making expensive private college admissions counseling largely irrelevant. Additionally, it may improve students’ mental health by significantly reducing the unpredictability and stress associated with the current admissions process,” he said via email.


In recent years, a parade of Ivy League universities and other elite schools re-instituted policies requiring the SATs, including Stanford, Harvard, and Yale. The schools had dropped the requirement after the COVID pandemic.


For years standardized tests were deemed by progressives as inherently biased, but more recently even left-leaning scholars have acknowledged that a student’s future academic success can be measured most accurately by standardized tests such as the SAT and ACT.


They have also argued that requiring the test actually improves student body diversity.


MORE: Teen hired by Google was rejected by 16 colleges. Now he’s suing for discrimination.


IMAGE CAPTION AND CREDIT: Students take a test inside a classroom; Panitan Photo / Shutterstock


Test scores only: University of Austin debuts ‘merit-first admissions’ policy | The College Fix

Where Liberty and Learning Endure

June 29, 2026
As America commemorates 250 years of independence, we reflect on the enduring principles of liberty and learning that have defined Davidson College for nearly two centuries.

Bankruptcy and Higher Education

June 21, 2026
By Todd Zywicki The Wall Street Journal June 21, 2026 Auburn University is known for its agricultural and STEM programs, its flight school and athletic programs. But the land-grant university recently became notable for another reason: The board of trustees is taking control of the school back from its faculty. The board began seizing the university’s academic programs—including curriculum, course offerings, degree requirements and academic credentials—at its June 5 meeting. The board also dissolved the faculty senate and replaced it with an advisory council to the president, which includes two faculty members from each of the university’s colleges and additional members appointed by the president. The board’s assertion of authority mirrors incoming mandates by the Alabama Legislature restricting the role of faculty senates in the state’s public university system. Predictably, Auburn’s faculty has responded with howls of outrage, decrying these intrusions on the faculty’s authority over academic operations. How could outsiders appointed through a political process have the expertise to make such delicate decisions? I’ve been a professor at a state university for almost 30 years, and I am sympathetic up to a point. But before becoming a professor I was a bankruptcy lawyer. And bankruptcy law teaches an important lesson for how academia can respond to this moment. Bankruptcy gives businesses an opportunity to admit mistakes, reform and emerge stronger. Successful enterprises don’t need bankruptcy lawyers. But when an enterprise loses its way, it goes into receivership. Most universities aren’t financially bankrupt but have lost their mission and direction. Society has long recognized certain institutions’ authority to manage their own affairs. Two notable examples are licensed professionals—such as doctors and lawyers—and universities. Universities, even state universities, have run their enterprises with minimal external oversight. Faculties enjoyed substantial rights of self-governance because they committed to higher standards than those required by ordinary jobs. Professors would establish and maintain standards of scholarly integrity, freedom of speech and inquiry, and rigorous dedication to merit-based assessment of research in specialized areas. They policed their own house, enforcing norms of truth-seeking, maintaining scholarly integrity and rigor, and ensuring that students emerged with basic knowledge, employable skills and civic competency. But over the past several decades, commitment to those values collapsed. Surveys by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression consistently reveal fear among students and faculty around expressing unfashionable ideas. Universities have seen shout-downs, cancellations and even violence against speakers. Merit and quality yielded to “diversity” and “equity.” Truth-seeking has been displaced by faddish theories and ideologically charged teaching and research. Professors design esoteric departments and teach niche classes to cliques of activist students while the needs of other students and taxpayers for real education go unaddressed. Like companies I represented, universities have lost their way. And many have proved either unable or unwilling to self-correct. When that happens, it is appropriate to put institutions into receivership until they reform and rededicate themselves to their mission. At Auburn incoming students must now take certain required civics and history courses to master basic competency in U.S. history and government. To ensure the classes actually meet that objective, professors will have to make their syllabi publicly available. In the classroom, instructors will be expected to stick to the matter at hand and avoid free-ranging political punditry. Just as other companies can learn from the ones that go bankrupt, other institutions of higher education can learn something from Auburn: Fix what’s broken, or someone else might fix it for you. Mr. Zywicki is a professor at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School. He was a Dartmouth College trustee, 2005-09. https://www.wsj.com/opinion/bankruptcy-and-higher-education-4c2b178e

Race Preferences Are Falling Nationwide

June 19, 2026
By the Editorial Board The Wall Street Journal June 19, 2026 The Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling against racial preferences is turning out to be a landmark with profound consequences as its influence spreads. On Thursday the famously progressive Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a state program that issued scholarships based on race violates the U.S. Constitution. Justice Annette Ziegler wrote for the court that the Constitution requires “that every person ‘must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race,’” and that the state cannot “use race as a factor in affording educational opportunities among its citizens.” That must have been painful for the activist liberal majority on the court. In a concurrence, Wisconsin Chief Justice Jill Karofsky took some shots at Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College (2023) before acknowledging that “I am bound by the precedent set forth in SFFA” and other Supreme Court rulings “when interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment.” The case was brought by the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty against a 1985 Badger State law that reserved need-based scholarships through a grant program for “Black American,” “American Indian,” “Hispanic” and some Southeast Asian undergraduate students enrolled in Wisconsin’s private and technical colleges. Last week the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that a scholarship program earmarked for black University of Iowa students studying physical sciences was “impracticable” under SFFA. State governments would be wise to repeal these discriminatory grant programs, or the courts will do it for them.
Show More