Is it b) or not b)? That is the question.

At least it’s the question on the minds of millions of SAT and ACT test-takers every year.

The SAT and ACT are the faces of the standardized testing phenomena, often considered one of the more important criteria for a college application. This is no different for the University of California system. For years, the UC system has used standardized testing as a factor to judge applicants. It represents a single standard to predict a student’s academic success within a college setting.

However, there’s been a growing dissent with the way colleges use standardized testing because of biases in the testing system.

A lawsuit filed Dec. 10 challenged the notion that standardized tests are really “standardized.” The suit claims that the SAT and ACT systematically and disproportionately discriminate against college applicants on the basis of race, ethnicity and socioeconomic status.

Furthermore, the complaint holds that standardized testing isn’t an accurate predictor of success in college. Because of this, the plaintiffs claim there is no real place for these tests in the UC system – and for that matter, in the United States.

What the lawsuit fails to consider is the lack of anything else “standardized” in the college admissions process.

And that is the crux of the issue. The SAT and ACT are the most standardized measures of judging people across different backgrounds. And while those backgrounds may never be similar, these tests aren’t at fault for inherent problems characteristic of the U.S. education system. Standardized tests are a common factor among all applicants to the UC system and should remain so for the foreseeable future.

And the UC is well-equipped to deal with the issues that accompany standardized testing.

The UC system utilizes 14 different factors to properly judge the merits of an applicant, including grade point average, academic rigor and extracurriculars, among others.

When looking at an element such as GPA, there’s clear disparity across different schools, systems and even states. A public school could have a GPA scale of 4.0, while another might have a completely different numeric system. GPA is often considered to be the second-most standardized part of a college application next to these supposedly evil tests.

But that’s far from the truth.

An Le, a first-year mechanical engineering student, said that circumstances differ tremendously for similar students, depending on their backgrounds.

“We had grade inflation at our school; even the AP exams were easy,” Le said. “At another school 10 minutes away from me, a GPA of a 3.5 there was considered great.”

This points to one of the biggest problems that standardized testing addresses: a lack of a single standard. GPAs and academic rigor are highly subjective, even from school to school. Combine this with the fact that there’s a distinct correlation between affluence and future school, and it becomes clear that these problems run far deeper than the problems with standardized testing.

The main complaint about these tests is focused on their discriminatory nature, but the real question should consider their ability to predict success.

“The University of California … can continue to rely on standardized tests so long as they are used in a nondiscriminatory way,” said Rachel Moran, a distinguished professor of law at UCLA School of Law, in an emailed statement. “If the tests serve a valid purpose in screening applicants, they can be a part of the admissions process even if they have some disparate impact on underrepresented groups.”

This implies that if there is no intent to discriminate, or if the standardized tests could potentially predict success, they can be used in some capacity. As such, if there is even a slight correlation between predicted success and standardized test scores, the SAT and ACT have a place in students’ applications.

Claire Doan, a spokesperson for the UC Office of the President, said in an emailed statement that standardized tests are only one factor in admissions. Among the 14 factors the UC considers in applications are the location of the student, as well as extenuating circumstances in a student’s life that may have made academic accomplishments more distinguished.

And that causes less adversity than any adversity score ever could.

It’s evident that the UC system actively tries to evaluate a student’s standing on multiple levels when judging them as an applicant. The UCs want to recruit a diverse student body comprised of various backgrounds, and that isn’t accomplished from numbers alone.

A commonly held belief is that standardized test scores need to more accurately reflect the population, both in terms of class and race. In reality, it’s the other way around – institutions need to be uplifting underrepresented students instead of assuming that the death of standardizing testing will solve the systemic issues at hand. There’s still a tremendous amount of progress to be made, beyond simply using an adversity score to qualify and categorize scores.

Granted, solving systemic issues won’t happen overnight – but there are immediate solutions at hand. One way to improve inherent discrimination within the SAT and ACT would be to use the knowledge of an applicant’s socioeconomic status when evaluating how important these tests should be. Weighing this information would heavily counterbalance the systemic differences of standardized test scores between different groups.

Even if the basis for this lawsuit were substantive, the target is clearly the wrong one. A system that uses standardized testing can’t be held at fault for discrimination, particularly when the UC is actively trying to alleviate disparities in admissions.

The SAT and ACT are the most comprehensive ways of judging applicants by a single standard.

Whether 2 is b) or not, it’s still important that students know the answer.