Students pursuing professional and graduate education can face enormous consequences when a testing organization challenges the validity of an exam result. Getting a good score and getting it on time can mean the difference between gaining admission to law school, medical school, an MBA program, or another graduate program and having to wait out an entire admissions cycle.
In recent years, we have seen an increase in situations in which testing organizations rely on allegations of irregularity, misconduct, or other supposed testing violations to withhold or invalidate scores. Sometimes the evidence supporting those decisions is thin. Sometimes the student is given little explanation, limited access to the evidence, and even fewer meaningful options.
If you are taking the MCAT, LSAT, GMAT, GRE, or another high-stakes exam, it can be difficult to imagine that the organization administering the test might refuse to release the score you earned. But it happens. Sometimes you have to fight to get a testing organization to deliver what you worked for and paid for.
Our firm recently represented a student facing exactly this type of challenge.
A High-Scoring Student and a Withheld Score
The testing organization alleged that circumstances surrounding the student’s examination warranted withholding the score, even though the student had earned a score well beyond the 96th percentile.
At first, the organization’s position was essentially: believe us, we know what we’re doing.
But it refused to provide meaningful support for its decision. As the case developed, it became clear why. The evidence behind the organization’s position was meager.
The consequences for the student were substantial. A withheld score can interfere with application deadlines, admissions decisions, scholarships, and carefully made academic and professional plans. In this case, the testing organization’s decision threatened to derail years of preparation and hard work.
We Challenged the Decision in Arbitration
Rather than simply accept the testing organization’s determination, we challenged it in arbitration.
Our team conducted a detailed review of the evidence, the testing organization’s procedures, the applicable policies and contractual provisions, and the stated basis for withholding the student’s score.
We identified significant weaknesses in the organization’s position and presented those issues through the arbitration process.
Testing organizations have legitimate reasons to protect exam security and investigate possible misconduct. But they can also get things wrong. An allegation of a testing irregularity does not establish that a test taker actually violated the rules, particularly when the supporting evidence is weak.
In this case, the testing organization had written the governing contract to give itself the benefit of an extremely lenient standard of proof.
We prevailed anyway.
The Evidence Still Matters
One of the most important lessons from this case is that the evidence matters.
Testing organizations often control the initial investigation, much of the information available to the test taker, and the procedures used to review their decisions. That can make the process feel decidedly one-sided.
When a testing organization withholds, cancels, or invalidates a score, some of the important questions include:
- What exactly is the organization alleging?
- What evidence supports that allegation?
- Has the student been given a meaningful opportunity to respond?
- Did the organization follow its own policies and procedures?
- What standard is the organization using to make its decision?
- What process is available to challenge it?
The answers depend on the testing organization, its governing agreement, and the circumstances of the particular case. Some matters may involve an internal review or appeal. Others, as this one did, may ultimately proceed to arbitration.
Testing Organizations Are Not Infallible
Students and other test takers understandably tend to assume that large testing organizations know what they are doing and that there is little point in challenging them.
This case is a reminder that those organizations can get things wrong.
A concern about test security can be based on incomplete information or weak evidence. A student who receives an adverse decision should not assume that there is no way to challenge it simply because the decision came from a major testing organization.
The student in this matter was represented by Tiffany N. Lawson, Associate at Allen Harris Law, who advocated for the student throughout the arbitration process.
You Have Options
When a testing organization takes action that could jeopardize your academic or professional future, it is important to understand both the evidence against you and the procedures available to challenge the decision.
These matters can involve complicated testing policies, contractual provisions, evidentiary issues, strict deadlines, and sometimes labyrinthine arbitration requirements.
Allen Harris Law represents students facing high-stakes academic and professional challenges, as well as professionals whose educational and career plans are at risk. If a testing organization has questioned your score, alleged testing misconduct, withheld or invalidated a score, or taken action that threatens your educational or career plans, you may have options.
You do not necessarily have to accept the testing organization’s decision as the final word.