A Test Which Failed Us All: How New York’s Specialized High School Exam Became a Blueprint for Inequality
On a chilly December morning, 13-year-old Maria Lopez boards the subway in the Bronx, clutching a prep book for New York City’s Specialized High School Admissions Test (SHSAT). Her mother, a home health aide, scraped together $900 for a six-week tutoring course—a steep price for a family living paycheck to paycheck. Across town in Manhattan, 14-year-old Ethan Chen has been prepping for the same exam since sixth grade, attending private classes four days a week. Their stories, though separated by geography and resources, converge at a single truth: a test designed to identify “gifted” students now mirrors the city’s stark divides in race, class, and opportunity.
The Origins of a Well-Intentioned System
When New York City established its specialized high schools in the 1930s, the goal was noble: create elite public institutions to nurture the brightest minds, regardless of background. The SHSAT, introduced in 1971, aimed to standardize admissions, replacing opaque selection processes with an objective measure of merit. For decades, schools like Stuyvesant and Bronx Science became symbols of academic excellence, producing Nobel laureates, tech innovators, and leaders.
But over time, the test’s promise of fairness unraveled. What began as a tool for equity became a bottleneck, filtering out students from marginalized communities while favoring those with access to expensive test prep. By the 2000s, the racial and economic disparities in admissions were impossible to ignore.
The Numbers Don’t Lie
Today, New York’s specialized high schools are among the most segregated in the nation. At Stuyvesant High School, Asian students make up 60% of the student body, while Black and Latino students—who represent 67% of the city’s public school population—account for less than 4% combined. At Brooklyn Latin, another specialized school, only 12% of students come from low-income households, compared to 73% citywide.
Critics argue the SHSAT doesn’t measure intelligence or potential—it measures privilege. A 2019 report by the New York City Comptroller found that students from the wealthiest districts were seven times more likely to gain admission than their peers in poorer neighborhoods. The exam’s heavy focus on abstract math and verbal puzzles, which rarely align with standard public school curricula, gives an edge to families who can afford $200-an-hour tutors or years of prep courses.
The Tutoring Industrial Complex
Walk through Flushing, Queens, or Brooklyn’s Sunset Park, and you’ll find storefronts plastered with ads for SHSAT prep academies. These businesses thrive on parental anxiety, promising to crack the “code” of the test. For many immigrant and middle-class families, investing in tutoring is nonnegotiable—a cultural expectation tied to upward mobility.
But for low-income families, the math doesn’t add up. The average cost of SHSAT prep ranges from $1,500 to $5,000—equivalent to a month’s rent or a year’s worth of groceries. Even free city-sponsored programs, like the Department of Education’s DREAM initiative, are oversubscribed, leaving thousands on waitlists. “We’re not competing on a level field,” says Sharon Dunn, a Bronx parent and education advocate. “The test pretends everyone starts at the same line, but some kids are already miles ahead.”
Attempts at Reform—and Resistance
In 2018, then-Mayor Bill de Blasio proposed phasing out the SHSAT, replacing it with a system that admits top performers from every middle school. The plan aimed to diversify enrollment without lowering standards. But backlash was immediate. Alumni groups and some Asian American organizations argued that scrapping the test would punish hardworking students. The debate grew toxic, pitting communities against one another in a zero-sum battle over fairness.
Meanwhile, other cities have found alternatives. Boston uses grades and essays to admit students to its exam schools. San Francisco overhauled its system during the pandemic, prioritizing geographic and socioeconomic diversity. These models aren’t perfect, but they acknowledge a truth New York struggles to accept: no single test can capture a child’s ability.
Rethinking Merit Beyond a Single Test
The SHSAT controversy isn’t just about admissions—it’s about how we define merit. Is a student who aces a high-stakes exam more deserving than one who excels in robotics, art, or community service? “We’re reducing kids to a number,” says Dr. Pedro Noguera, dean of USC’s Rossier School of Education. “Talent is multidimensional, but our system is one-dimensional.”
Some educators propose hybrid models: keeping the SHSAT but weighting it alongside grades, portfolios, or interviews. Others suggest expanding the number of specialized schools to meet demand. But these fixes avoid the root issue: a test that perpetuates cycles of advantage.
A Path Forward
Maria Lopez didn’t get into a specialized high school. She now attends a general-education program where overcrowded classrooms and outdated textbooks are the norm. Ethan Chen, meanwhile, is thriving at Stuyvesant, with access to robotics labs and college-level courses. Their outcomes aren’t failures of individual effort but symptoms of a system that confuses privilege with potential.
New York’s specialized schools were meant to be engines of opportunity. Instead, they’ve become monuments to inequality. Until the city confronts the myth of the “neutral” test, it will keep failing students like Maria—and the ideals it claims to uphold.
The lesson is clear: When we mistake a single exam for fairness, we all lose.
Please indicate: Thinking In Educating » A Test Which Failed Us All: How New York’s Specialized High School Exam Became a Blueprint for Inequality