Translated from Swedish with the help of AI. Read the orgininal op ed published in Svenska Dagbladet. 

The Swedish Schools Inspectorate has reported likely occurrences of grade inflation in upper-secondary schools. This led us at the Stockholm School of Economics to ask ourselves: can we trust the grading system? In a meritocracy, access to top educational programs should be based on competence, performance, and qualifications – not on wealth, personal networks, or social background.

Given this skepticism, we introduced an additional eligibility requirement for this year’s bachelor admissions: a minimum score of 1.25 (out of 2.0) on the Swedish Scholastic Aptitude Test (Högskoleprovet). Not an especially high threshold, considering the exceptionally high grade point average required for admission – this year, 21.9 out of 22.5 for our largest program. The move was intended as a signal against inflated grades and a clear stand for meritocracy. To our great satisfaction, the government launched an inquiry into grade comparability shortly after we communicated our requirement.

But following this autumn’s admissions, we saw a sharp drop in diversity. Half of our admitted students came from just ten schools in central Stockholm. The proportion of women dropped by 10 and 13 percentage points in our two bachelor programs, and the number of applicants from our outreach initiative targeting students from non-academic backgrounds fell by 20 percent.

Simply put, this year’s admissions resulted in a more homogeneous student population. We see that as a serious problem. Talent, ambition, and drive are found in many parts of society.

Diversity among students and faculty matters in education. When individuals come from different backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives, classroom discussions, seminars, and group work become more dynamic. As a privately funded institution, our corporate partners also expect that our graduates are not all cut from the same cloth. They demand – and financially support – our ambitions to reach prospective students from non-traditional academic backgrounds. Reflection, multiple perspectives, and cultural understanding are even written into SSE’s educational mission, known by the acronym FREE.

We were frankly surprised by the drop in diversity. Among students with high grades (above 21.8) who scored at least 1.25 on the test, 53 percent were women. When both women and men with high grades took the test, there were only small differences in how likely they were to meet the threshold – women actually performed slightly better. The problem is that women with top grades take the test far less often. Nearly 70 percent of students with grades of 21.8 or higher who did not take the test were women. So, in short: women with high grades were slightly more likely than men to meet the requirement – but they were much less likely to take the test at all.

Our highest academic body, made up of professors from all departments and student representatives, unanimously decided to remove the test as an eligibility requirement. The collective assessment was that the test requirement had too many negative consequences.

Some critics now argue that by removing the requirement, we are endorsing the idea that group identity trumps individual achievement. Some even claim we are choosing diversity over competence. That interpretation is far from how we view meritocracy. What we want is a truly meritocratic admissions process – one in which individuals are assessed using the same yardstick. We thought the test requirement would be a cost-effective and simple way to calibrate grades. We’ve never criticized the design of the test itself. The problem was that the yardstick never got used. The group that actually reached the measuring station was too homogeneous.

In short, our attempt to use 1.25 on the test as a way to safeguard meritocracy led to fewer applicants from non-academic backgrounds, more men, and more students from a handful of elite schools in central Stockholm.

At that point, we had to ask: is this really what meritocracy looks like? We are convinced we missed out on talented prospective students. Talent exists outside of Stockholm, among students with no academic family background, and certainly among driven, talented, and ambitious women.

Could we really say one of the core pillars of meritocracy – that social background shouldn’t matter – was still intact? The answer was no. The test requirement seemed to work against meritocracy. That’s why we decided to remove it.

Did we act too fast? We could, of course, have stepped up our efforts to encourage a more diverse group of students to take the test. But we concluded that, as a small institution, it would be difficult to carry out such a large-scale information campaign on our own. If other Swedish universities had joined us, the effort might have worked. But we saw no signs of that. Instead, we watched top-performing students opt for programs that did not have this requirement. That’s why we felt it was better to minimize the damage and remove the requirement before it did more harm.

We’re not backing down in the face of public opinion. If we were sensitive to that, we would never have introduced the requirement in the first place. We will continue working to improve our admissions process. It’s a continuous effort – an ongoing exploration and evaluation aimed at achieving true meritocracy. The goal is to reach and attract the most capable students. And we know they’re out there – in many, sometimes unexpected, places in society.