Compared to high school performance, standardized admissions assessments (such as the SAT/ACT) have sparked debate and policy actions (such as test-optional policies) in response to their criticism as potentially biased and inadequate measures of postsecondary promise. Referring to the predictive validity of standardized assessments, it is utmost to consider substantial differences in results across subgroups of students such as who are defined by socioeconomic status (SES). The charge of this paper is to provide an analysis of standardized assessments and to examine if the application of standardized assessments truly offers a common ground to serve the interest of students. In addition, the paper places test-optional practices within the evolution of college admissions by investigating the role of test-optional policies in promoting selective college access. Lastly, it points out the potential implications for further practices in college admission processes. The main argument of this paper is that standardized assessment should not be evaluated in isolation, but rather in conjunction with contextualized variables such as high school academic records, resource availability, and demographics like zip codes. The current higher education admission system underscores the necessity of a comprehensive approach to standardized assessment, wherein the integration of contextual factors alongside test scores can yield a more equitable evaluation of student potential. Furthermore, the paper advocates for future research to explore how the presence or absence of standardized assessment affects underrepresented populations across various types of institutions.