The Make-Up Test brings academic rivalry into an adult literature PhD program, where two former lovers compete for the same research opportunity. Allison Avery wants a career studying medieval texts; Colin Benjamin brings a painful shared history into her new graduate cohort. Their professional competition supplies a direct academic-rivals fit, with second-chance romance adding a separate question about trust.
This researched assessment recommends it selectively for readers drawn to a fat-positive heroine, literary references and family boundaries. The central reservation is Colin’s redemption: independent critics disagree sharply about whether his changed behavior earns the renewed relationship. That disagreement matters more to choosing this book than the attractive campus setup alone.
A mixed adult academic romance with a compelling heroine and meaningful family material; the case for giving her ex another chance is its most disputed element.
Provisional Eikna score: 3.0/5. Four core dimensions cover 85% of the quality weight. Ending satisfaction and reread appeal remain unscored; heat is excluded. Researched editorial assessment; no firsthand reading claimed. Evidence confidence: moderate.
A numeric heat level has not been established. Read the review’s heat and content discussion for attributed descriptions before choosing. An unknown level is not a closed-door or no-spice promise.
The heat-level guide explains detail and frequency; the glossary entry for spice separates sexual content from quality.
The romantic outcome is not established in this summary. A romance label does not independently confirm an ending. Consult the discussion before choosing if closure is essential.
For the difference between romantic commitment and wider plot closure, compare HEA, HFN and cliffhangers.
Standalone or continuing-series status is not established in this summary. Read the existing format and series guidance for any available context; do not assume a missing series entry means the book stands alone.
The series-order guide explains what to check when a complete romance belongs to a connected world.
| Title | The Make-Up Test |
|---|---|
| Author | Jenny L. Howe |
| Inspected edition | English US paperback · ISBN 9781250837868 |
| Publication scope | Published 13 September 2022 · checked 11 October 2026 |
| ISBN-13 | 9781250837868 |
| Edition page count | 336 pages |
The author or publisher evidence identifies the work. Publication dates refer to the stated edition or release scope, not automatically the first appearance of the story. Unknown identifiers and formats are left open.
Allison enters Claymore University’s literature PhD program hoping to work with a professor whose medieval scholarship she admires. Discovering Colin in her cohort makes that fresh start more difficult. They become teaching assistants for the same professor, and a single research-trip place raises the competitive stakes.
The romantic leads are fellow graduate students. Their professor controls an opportunity; she is not part of the central couple. This distinction separates the book from professor–student romance and from novels that merely use a university as background. Exact protagonist ages remain unverified.
Publishers Weekly enjoys the present-day competitive relationship while finding the explanation for Colin’s improvement unconvincing. That split supports a useful boundary: enjoying the new banter does not necessarily mean accepting the repair of an old hurt.
Selina Falcon finds his development persuasive and enjoys the eventual gesture. Melanie at SmexyBooks remains unconvinced by the reconciliation. Readers who want substantial accountability should weigh both responses before choosing this as a comforting reunion story.
Courtney Reads Romance values Allison’s ambition and generally confident relationship with her body, while noting vulnerabilities within her family. Dedra at A Book Wanderer finds her resistance to a shaming father particularly effective. Those responses support the heroine’s personal arc as a distinct reason to read.
Even the strongly negative SmexyBooks assessment appreciates family boundaries and a supportive friend. Courtney, however, wants fuller engagement with unequal privilege in academia. The competitive premise can feel personal and recognizable without constituting a comprehensive treatment of university power.
Dedra finds the interactions among students and professors convincing and responds to the couple’s connection. For readers who enjoy literary coursework inside a romance, that setting can be part of the pleasure rather than background decoration.
GoodeyReads instead feels literature discussion and social games occupy space without building enough romantic investment. Selina finds Allison’s wider life emotionally affecting. Our mixed craft judgment preserves the distinction between a substantial personal story and a romance that keeps every reader engaged.
GoodeyReads reports an open-door scene, and Dedra describes sexual intensity. These are selected reading accounts, not a full explicitness audit. Sexual content is reported; a numeric heat level, complete scene count and timing remain unknown. GoodeyReads ARC criticism. A Book Wanderer: Dedra ARC criticism.
Independently reported subjects include fatphobia, verbal and psychological parental abuse, neglect, serious parental illness and on-page parental death. These notes include a family-plot spoiler. They are a partial record, not an assurance that other difficult subjects are absent. Courtney Reads Romance ARC criticism. SmexyBooks: Melanie criticism.
Best for literature graduate-school settings, ambitious fat heroines and second chances complicated by professional competition. Approach cautiously if credible accountability is essential, or if academic discussion tends to slow a romance down for you.
The inspected responses disagree about more than enthusiasm. Selina finds believable growth and strong emotion; Publishers Weekly questions the repair while enjoying the present rivalry; SmexyBooks rejects Colin as a satisfactory partner. GoodeyReads objects to the balance between coursework and couple time, while Dedra enjoys the academic texture. These selected accounts explain different reader priorities and are not a representative survey or a store-rating calculation.
Purchases through Amazon, Bookshop.org and Libro.fm links may earn us a commission. As an Amazon Associate, Eikna Romance earns from qualifying purchases, at no extra cost to you.
The inspected publisher record supplies no numbered series designation; series continuity and standalone status remain unknown. The US paperback is verified at Amazon and Bookshop. OrangeSky Audio’s NetGalley listing identifies an unabridged Stacey Glemboski recording, ISBN 9781667071428. Its Audible destination was a search page, and the exact Libro product could not be inspected, so both actions are held. Prices, stock, subscriptions and regional checkout access are unverified. Critics differ between HEA and HFN descriptions; exact ending classification remains unresolved.
The inspected Amazon product identity matches the stated title and edition. Confirm the selected format before buying; current price and stock are not established.
We may earn a commission from purchases through our links, at no extra cost to you. Check the verified Amazon edition.
The inspected Bookshop.org product is Paperback. Its title, author and ISBN 9781250837868 were checked; current price and stock are not established.
Disabled actions mean the exact destination has not been verified, not that a format is unavailable. Confirm the selected edition and format before purchasing.
Quality scale: 1 substantial weaknesses; 2 weaknesses outweigh strengths; 3 mixed; 4 strengths outweigh limitations; 5 exceptional sustained strengths. Half points are allowed. Weights: romance 30%, characters 20%, writing 20%, emotional impact 15%, ending satisfaction 10%, reread appeal 5%. A provisional overall score divides the supported weighted sum by its supported weight and rounds once to one decimal. Heat is descriptive and excluded. These scores express the evidence-based judgment explained in this review.
Competitive attraction works for some critics, but reconciliation is substantially disputed.
Provisional dimension score: 2.5/5.
Allison’s personal arc carries more consistent support than Colin’s.
Provisional dimension score: 3.5/5.
Specific academic texture, with a disputed balance of coursework and courtship.
Provisional dimension score: 3/5.
Family and professional pressure offer meaningful emotion, although the romance divides readers.
Provisional dimension score: 3.5/5.
Reported open-door content; numeric heat remains unknown.
Unscored, with differing ending labels and reactions.
Unscored; recommendations do not establish repeat-reading value.
Yes. Two graduate students who share a teaching-assistant assignment compete for a research opportunity.
No. Allison and Colin are graduate peers; a professor controls the opportunity they want.
Yes. They dated during undergraduate study before a painful breakup.
No. Independent critics describe fatphobia and harmful family behavior within the story.
No. Inspected critics use different HEA and HFN descriptions; the ending field remains unresolved.
The provisional editorial judgment covers romance, characters, writing and emotional impact, representing 85% of the original weighting. Ending satisfaction and reread appeal remain unscored; heat is excluded.
For another adult university romance, with STEM research and fake dating rather than two exes competing as literature graduate peers.
For adult romance shaped by literary work and family pain; its writing challenge takes place away from a graduate-program competition.
For direct academic competition in YA, using a graduation-day adventure rather than an adult second-chance relationship.
The academic rivals collection includes this book among other choices. Compare those options if its premise appeals but a limitation gives you pause. The Academic rivals-to-lovers guide explains the surrounding reading route and what to check before choosing.
A mixed adult academic romance with a compelling heroine and meaningful family material; the case for giving her ex another chance is its most disputed element. Best for literature graduate-school settings, ambitious fat heroines and second chances complicated by professional competition. Approach cautiously if credible accountability is essential, or if academic discussion tends to slow a romance down for you.
Libro.fm when this balance matches what you want to read.
Checked 2026-10-11. The How this assessment was researched preserves attributions and research limits. Unknown details do not establish absence. Purchasing links use our account.