From time to time, I watch the traditional speeches by heads of government in different countries. A few weeks ago, I rewatched Angela Merkel’s New Year’s address from 2020. It was full of confidence that the 2020s would become a great decade. Reality turned out differently: a pandemic, Russia’s war against Ukraine, the war in Gaza, armed conflicts in several regions, and growing geopolitical uncertainty. One lesson has become evident: even stable systems become vulnerable when they rely too heavily on a single country, route, or provider—whether for energy, supply chains, technology, or security.
Over the past year, U.S. political debates have highlighted how strongly global institutions remain tied to American decisions. For higher education, this raises a quiet but important question: Where do we depend on the U.S. more than we realize—and where would diversification increase resilience and strategic autonomy?
The hidden dependency: admissions testing
One of the least discussed dependencies sits inside admissions processes. When universities evaluate international applicants, many rely on U.S.-developed standardized tests such as the SAT, ACT, GMAT, and GRE. These tests have helped increase international student mobility and created a shared global language. At the same time, they can create:
- structural dependence on a small number of U.S. providers,
- procedural dependence on U.S.-based availability, pricing, and policies, and
- conceptual dependence on constructs shaped by U.S. educational contexts.
In a more multipolar world, a practical question emerges: Should admissions remain so tightly linked to one country’s measurement ecosystem?
Why independence matters—and how it can be achieved
Independence is not only about politics. It is also about risk management and institutional fit:
- Availability & delivery risks Test dates, capacity, and international delivery can change with provider priorities.
- Data protection & regulatory mismatches Many services operate under legal and commercial environments that may not align with your country’s data-protection expectations and regulatory requirements.
- Cost & equity concerns Fees can be prohibitive for applicants in certain countries. Fee policies are not necessarily optimized for global access, and high trainability fuels the test-prep industry—often reinforcing social inequities.
- Cultural validity & predictive fairness A test calibrated to U.S. schooling or curricula does not automatically predict performance elsewhere. In particular, verbal components were designed primarily for native English speakers and may disadvantage non-native speakers.
- Strategic autonomy Just as organizations diversify suppliers, universities may benefit from diversifying admissions tools.
Reducing dependence does not require abandoning U.S. tests. In many cases, it simply means adding choice—for example, by using complementary instruments alongside U.S. tests. Choice can increase both resilience and fairness.
Alternatives exist—often overlooked
Many countries have long-standing local exams (e.g., Gaokao, YÖS, JEE, ENEM, TAGE-MAGE, TMS). In addition, Australia, Germany, and the UK have developed scientifically validated admission tests that became globally accessible when online proctoring expanded during the pandemic.
Examples include:
- GAMSAT – reasoning in biological and physical sciences, as well as in humanities and social sciences
- GTEBS (Graduate Test for Economics & Business Studies) – verbal, quantitative, and critical reasoning relevant to business/economics
- ITB-Business – business-relevant reasoning, critical thinking, and core competencies for business/economics
- ITB-Technology – scientific reasoning, critical thinking, and core competencies for STEM programmes
Depending on institutional goals, such instruments can serve as alternatives, complements, or a neutral bridge for international applicants. In one of my recent newsletters, I shared a list of globally available tests.
Why this matters in a fragmenting world
Higher education thrives on international cooperation. But cooperation benefits from plurality, not monopoly.
If the world is moving toward competing geopolitical blocs, universities face a choice:
- inherit dependencies passively, or
- build resilience proactively.
Admissions is a core strategic capability. Diversification may become as important in admissions as it already is in supply chains and technology.
A simple question to ask
The SAT, ACT, GMAT, and GRE have strong psychometric quality, have delivered value for decades, and will likely continue to do so. But it may be worth asking: If our admissions rely heavily on tools from a single country, how resilient are we?
Is your institution exploring options beyond U.S. testing frameworks—for strategic, pedagogical, or regulatory reasons? I would be happy to share insights, data, and examples from universities worldwide.
