Wake Forest University and Smith College announced recently that they would no longer require applicants to submit standardized-test scores. Those announcements are “part of a backlash against the use — and misuse — of the SAT,” according to an online editorial published on Tuesday by The New York Times.

But how, exactly, does one measure a backlash?

Critics of the tests, including some college presidents and admissions deans, have described the growing number of “test-optional” institutions as a sign that faith in standardized tests is eroding nationally. They predict that many more colleges will stop requiring the exams, which disproportionately benefit wealthier students.

On the other side, plenty of presidents and admissions deans insist that the ACT and SAT, while not perfect, are here to stay at a majority of selective colleges. Although the Times wrote that the SAT “is widely touted as a sacred index that tells all,” it would be difficult to find a college official who describes the test in that way. (Even the College Board does not claim that its test tells admissions deans everything they need to know about an applicant.)

That long-fractious testing debate has certainly intensified since the College Board’s recent announcement that the revamped SAT was no better or worse a predictor of student success than the old version. But short of Harvard, Yale, and Princeton Universities’ suddenly abandoning the SAT, what would it take to significantly alter the dynamics of the testing debate? What do readers think? —Eric Hoover