Yale will again require standardized test scores for admission

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2024/02/22/yale-sat-act-admissions-requirement-reinstated/

by pseudolus • 2 years ago

134 232 2 years ago

washingtonpost.com

pseudolus• 2 years ago

http://archive.today/9Q6Z1

yeknoda• 2 years ago

how would you describe the 21, 22, and 23 vintages?

chestertn• 2 years ago

Lucky

pxmpxm• 2 years ago

if they recenter the GPA distribution for every class year, one should be more discerning when hiring 21-23 yale kids, since the distribution won't be comparable to the pre/post cohort.

It's a bit ironic they've managed to dampen the one signal that's embedded in a yale degree. It's almost as if reality doesn't want to cooperate with these ___ Justice efforts.

barryrandall2• 2 years ago

More likely to leave college/university with debt, but no degree.

sebg• 2 years ago

sokoloff4• 2 years ago

And MIT: https://news.mit.edu/2022/stuart-schmill-sat-act-requirement...

jdefr89• 2 years ago

Ironic I am researcher at MIT and a college dropout lol.

lapcat23• 2 years ago

A crucial proviso, though, is that they're comparing the applicant's test scores to their high school peers rather than to other applicants.

They don't know that their 1400 might be a great score given the challenges of their neighborhood and educational environment.

"standardized testing—when assessed using the local norms at a student's high school—is a valuable element of Dartmouth's undergraduate application" https://admissions.dartmouth.edu/apply/update-testing-policy

sokoloff4• 2 years ago

The decision comes after officials found that the scores were the single best predictor of students’ academic performance and that not considering them could be a disadvantage for those who have already faced daunting challenges.

Neither half of this sentence is surprising. Some people love to hate on standardized testing, despite it having been repeatedly shown to have high predictive capability.

anon2914• 2 years ago

It's almost as if those of us who used critical reasoning before the decision was made to scrap these tests were right. A lot of introspection needs to be done to determine why these decisions were made. At the time of the decision, the admissions committees claimed the exact opposite was true, that the tests are poor predictors and disadvantaged already-disadvantaged students. Now they're claiming the opposite. Based on what data? Why did we allow the admissions committees of so-called 'elite' institutions to be so easily swayed? Are these institutions really worthy of their 'elite' status? It would seem to be called into question if they can't answer a question as straightforwards as this.

Especially institutions like MIT... one would expect that they have a solid understanding of data analysis.

megaman8212• 2 years ago

I think the groups championing stuff like this had a lot of clout a few years ago. Unfortunately for them, concrete positive results never materialized. In the meantime, the Supreme Court ruled negatively on race-based admissions and DEI offices are facing public backlash. If there really were any ideas with pursuing, those groups squandered their chance.

lapcat23• 2 years ago

A lot of introspection needs to be done to determine why these decisions were made.

Not really. It started with the pandemic, which messed up everything, including testing.

yau8edq12i• 2 years ago

It's a bit more nuanced than what you're describing. I suggest listening to this (or reading the transcript): https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/17/podcasts/the-daily/the-wa...

nradov• 2 years ago

Who is "we"? We are generally not in a position to allow or disallow anything. Most of those elite institutions are private non-profit corporations. They can do pretty much whatever they want (within certain legal bounds) and are accountable only to their own Boards.

burnerburnson• 2 years ago

We didn't allow them to do anything. They're just not accountable to us.

If you've been following Harvard's anti-Semitism drama over the last 4 months, it appears they're not really accountable to anybody. Neither US Congress nor their wealthiest donors have been able to force action from them.

nimbius• 2 years ago

chances are excellent the decision to abandon standardized testing came directly from the colleges bean counters instead of its laureates.

running a college is very lucrative, with most institutions being nothing more than taxpayer subsidized sports team franchises. Yale isnt one of these, so its only alternative to boost revenue is to relax admissions criteria.

chances are also great that cloistered elites found this idea so dyspeptic as to demand the bar be raised oncemore. Yale is also a critical litmus for the social signaling of americas capital class.

Ajay-p2• 2 years ago

A lot of introspection needs to be done to determine why these decisions were made.

These decisions were purely political and social in nature, and it will happen again as soon as there is another opportunity. University administrators, under political and a little bit of social pressure, ignored science and data in pursuit of diversity, equity, and inclusion. The bulk of Ivy League schools have determined that some groups of people cannot make it without help, and it is up to those universities to correct this wrong by reducing as many roadblocks and responsibilities as possible.

I doubt there will be any introspection because many of the people who made these disastrous decisions are still in power and will likely be so for some time.

credit_guy• 2 years ago

Especially institutions like MIT

MIT dropped the standardized test requirement only during Covid (in 2020 and 2021). One could argue that in those time keeping the requirement would be tantamount to endangering people. Maybe they made that argument, maybe not, but the fact is that they were the first to reinstate the requirement, so not clear why you decided to pick on them.

silverquiet2• 2 years ago

scores were the single best predictor of students’ academic performance

I wonder what the best predictor of high scores is?

megaman8212• 2 years ago

Probably parents' level of educational attainment.

francisofascii• 2 years ago

The state standardized test scores kids take in middle school.

btilly8• 2 years ago

When did the officials find this out?

It's only been known for close to a century. It is the reason why standardized tests were accepted in the first place. It has been confirmed in many ways since. If they were ever ignorant of this fact, it is because they were willfully choosing to be ignorant of it.

Research also found that IQ tests are a better predictor of job performance than other available measures, such as interviews. This was first established in the military, then in the 50s and 60s was confirmed for a variety of jobs. Unfortunately the case Griggs v. Duke Power Co. make it illegal to use IQ tests, because it results in hiring fewer blacks.

But IQ tests can still be done indirectly. For example coding boot camps can use what is essentially an IQ test to decide who will be a student, and then graduation from said boot camp serves as a signal to companies that this inexperienced person is smart, motivated, and willing to learn. That signal is likely to be more valuable to the company than the training itself.

PeterHolzwarth2• 2 years ago

I appreciate your point, but the nuance to remember is that IQ tests are also influenced by education (or, as you point out minorities, access to education as well). IQ tests do have value only within the context of what they essentially require to be able to take them and have a shot and demonstrating your innate problem solving and reasoning ability, etc.

gamblor9563• 2 years ago

Griggs did not make the use of IQ tests illegal. It simply required businesses to prove a job-related business necessity for requiring such a test. (And this was codified into law by the Civil Rights Act of 1991.)

Some businesses are able to prove a job-related business necessity for IQ tests, and do require applicants to take those tests for certain positions. Most businesses can't show a business necessity for any positions, and so don't require IQ tests.

itsoktocry• 2 years ago

It demonstrates how wishy-washy and irrational these entities are.

They jumped on the "standardized testing is racist" train against their own interests. As soon as that was no longer politically expedient, they reversed course. This took place in a matter of a few years, hardly enough time to gather requisite data. But that was never the goal.

lapcat23• 2 years ago

They jumped on the "standardized testing is racist" train against their own interests. As soon as that was no longer politically expedient, they reversed course. This took place in a matter of a few years, hardly enough time to gather requisite data. But that was never the goal.

That's not what happened. From the article: "When the coronavirus pandemic scrambled testing, Yale and many other colleges dropped requirements that applicants submit standardized tests such as the SAT or ACT." Now that the pandemic is over, they're reassessing.

reducesuffering• 2 years ago

It should be concerning that Yale as an institution is dumber than the majority of people here who called this out as such.

drewcoo• 2 years ago

> The decision comes after officials found that the scores were the single best predictor of students’ academic performance and that not considering them could be a disadvantage for those who have already faced daunting challenges.
Neither half of this sentence is surprising. Some people love to hate on standardized testing, despite it having been repeatedly shown to have high predictive capability.

What's surprising is what's not in the sentence.

How could an Ivy League school's administrators have not figured that out before the policy change?

What actually caused the policy reversion, because it wasn't the sudden discovery of obvious facts?

How much of a black eye is this for Yale's reputation? They're clearly playing a game of nobody being responsible . . . because who could have known! That indicates that it's not nothing. What's the impact of this?

These are also some questions an actual journalist should have been asking. I guess we don't have those anymore, though. Does "access journalism" extend beyond politics to academic administrators now? H.L. Mencken spins in his grave.

JCM9• 2 years ago

Grade inflation and bonus points for honors or AP classes has long made GPA a useless metric. One persons 4.0 is another school’s 4.27 (on a 4 point scale). Standardized testing isn’t perfect but it is one datapoint on how everyone did against the same task. Yes there can be differences in prep and training, but that’s life. Some folks will have more advantages than you. Those that work past that will succeed in life. That’s that don’t won’t.

Scubabear684• 2 years ago

Yep. Universities tried to track relative strength of GPA to school districts, but ultimately that is a hopeless task. Our own district has been guilty of severe grade inflation and teaching 2-3 grades behind grade level to the point where a “B” here would be a D or F in a college prep private school.

Standardized tests are imperfect, but they are not entirely flawed the way high school grades are.

This will also re level the playing field for poor families with smart kids who can’t afford all the extra-curricular wealthy families lean heavily into.

bumby11• 2 years ago

This will also re level the playing field for poor families with smart kids who can’t afford all the extra-curricular wealthy families lean heavily into.

Is this really leveling the playing field? If a wealthy, average student can get prep work to score as well as a gifted, poor student, that doesn’t seem like it’s leveling the playing field of socioeconomic disadvantage.

bumby11• 2 years ago

Yes, there can be differences in prep and training, but that’s life

Some feel that we should be working towards evening out that playing field of opportunity. That doesn’t mean using standardizing is wrong, but that we shouldn’t be treating it as a panacea. It’s a brick in a bigger wall.

slily3• 2 years ago

That's perfectly reasonable as long as you don't have unrealistic expectations, like thinking that differences can or must be completely eliminated, as if students are dolls we're playing with and don't have their own agency and varying abilities.

xbar• 2 years ago

I know I am operating as a bad scientist when I am happy that the data supports my bias.

BadHumans3• 2 years ago

My only hang up with standardized testing is that it isn't accessible but not in the ways people might think. When I was in high school, I saw a good number of people who could not travel to a testing center. The closest testing center to my high school was the next city and with no public transport and a variety of family circumstances they couldn't take the test.

Test also cost money and you could find yourself in the middle class trap where you are too rich to get a waiver but too broke to afford the test.

hef19898• 2 years ago

Ideally, said tests are part of the normal tests done in the last year of highschool, right?

Shit, having to travel and pay for another test before you can go to college is borderline dystopian...

lapcat23• 2 years ago

Way back in the day, I remember having to travel to take the SAT. In fact, I got a speeding ticket on the way to the test! Naturally, that didn't help my score.

btilly8• 2 years ago

No. They are done in specific locations, administered by the testing organization.

They do a lot to try to avoid cheating, limit memorizing answers, and so on. There is a conflict of interest with actually trusting the school whose reputation depends on how well their students do. Over the years, I've run into quite a few cheating scandals with other tests where teachers tried to improve scores. Because of that, I think that their precautions are very reasonable.

Scubabear684• 2 years ago

I know the PSAT and SAT can be taken multiple times, and often starts with PSAT as a sophomore. Very common to take SAT as a junior, and then again as a senior if you weren’t happy with your junior score.

Have not heard of traveling outside your district for SAT’s, I’m not sure why that would happen.

tekla• 2 years ago

No? We took it in the school.

Hell I took the SAT in the 6th Grade and I also took in the school

ApolloFortyNine• 2 years ago

Many schools offer the SAT, but I'd agree it likely just should be all.

Test also cost money and you could find yourself in the middle class trap where you are too rich to get a waiver but too broke to afford the test.

This test in particular is only $60 even if not subsidized, so it's hard to believe anyone who doesn't qualify can't scrounge up enough for at least the one attempt. However this is a real issue with financial aid as a whole, just 10-20k more a year can have a negative impact on what scholarships/financial aid you can receive, and that can easily end up at over six figures of 'lost' aid.

throwaway241242• 2 years ago

$60 + lost income for a student who works outside school hours and also has to take the test outside school hours + transportation which could be over an hour in rural areas and you can see how this could quickly add up, especially for a teenager who may be smart but may not see the proper cost/benefit of skipping the SAT

EchoChamberMan4• 2 years ago

"I mean, it's one banana Michael. What could it cost? 10 dollars?"

throwaway241242• 2 years ago

Absolutely agree. If these tests are not offered in the school during normal school hours, students should receive compensation for taking the test. It's bonkers to me that students have to pay to take it. Travel should also be provided if the test cannot be offered in the student's school. I think that would be a much fairer way to close the equity gap for standardized testing, rather than remove one of the few ways a student from a low-income background can prove their academic worth.

legitster6• 2 years ago

I think this trap is rarer than you would think. I qualified for Pell Grant but still had no problem arranging transport to testing.

I can think of all of my friends who couldn't be assed to go to the test or ask for voucher, but I couldn't imagine them being academically successful in college anyway.

tekno452• 2 years ago

"i was poor, but nobody is THAT poor" is a bad argument.

P_I_Staker2• 2 years ago

I don't think these tests are unaffordable to middle class people

bumby11• 2 years ago

Why did you constrain it to “middle class people”?

ryathal• 2 years ago

My state currently uses the SAT as it's high school standardized test, I believe for Juniors. Everyone gets at least one shot at it then.

BadHumans3• 2 years ago

I haven't remained up to date with how testing is handled now since I'm an old fart but before the test was not given during school hours. If it is now then wonderful.

graeme2• 2 years ago

All of the tests have fee waivers: https://satsuite.collegeboard.org/sat/registration/fee-waive...

The alternative to testing is looking at resumes and various resume-boosting extra-curriculars are substantially more inaccessible to those without means. Merely identifying some edge cases in the current method doesn't make a good argument.

BadHumans3• 2 years ago

I specifically mentioned fee waivers and ignoring edge cases doesn't make the current method good. But I'm not making a large case about why standardized testing is bad. Like I said, these are my only hang ups. I'm not trying to put you out of business.

tcmart14• 2 years ago

I think my only problem with the current standardized tests is when a standardized test from a private company is required for a public school. Harvard can require whatever it wants. But I feel like to get into the state university, it should be a standardized test ran by the public (state, federal? Don't really have a preference).

nottorp2• 2 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baccalaureate

This is the normal way to do it. One state administered batch of exams. Unique national questions. Everyone takes it in their own school. Private school students still do the same state test.

Universities tend to require a minimum overall grade and a minimum grade on the exam closest to what they teach.

But I suppose it would be communism if the federal government did it.

legitster6• 2 years ago

I admire that they actually stuck with it and tried it, but it's still crazy to me that anyone thought this was a good idea.

I don't know how anyone who spent decades within school and then academia could convince themselves and others "let's get rid of the one part of the Kabuki theatre application process that isn't a massive performative time suck". In the name of equality!

lapcat23• 2 years ago

In the name of equality!

No, that's not why. From the article: "When the coronavirus pandemic scrambled testing, Yale and many other colleges dropped requirements that applicants submit standardized tests such as the SAT or ACT."

legitster6• 2 years ago

That's a bit revisionist. Covid was justification at the time, but the idea clearly didn't happen in a vacuum, and the policy was reinstated several times even after testing resumed.

at_a_remove• 2 years ago

Ahem, it's equity now. That old word was replaced when you weren't looking.

yieldcrv• 2 years ago

most of these progressive measures is about getting rid of one framework and leaving an absence of any frameworks

a void

when you ask about that you’ll hear “doing something is better than doing nothing”, where “nothing” includes planning, and something is addressing an inequality that needs to go away immediately

in this case, people are misreading the University’s stance out of their own giddiness, the University lacks a better way to assess people. Both the university and the activists have accurately identified the problem, they haven’t identified a solution and scrapping the tests wasnt a solution

imgabe10• 2 years ago

It’s too late. Ivy League schools are a joke. They’ve been coasting on the accomplishments of alumni from 50 years ago. Serious kids of the current generation should not worry about trying to get into Ivies.

Why would you go to an Ivy? Do you think you’re going to learn calculus better than you would at flagship state U? You aren’t. Do you think you’re going to work with famous professor there? You aren’t. They wouldn’t touch an undergrad with a 10 ft pole. They will hand off all your classes to adjuncts and grad students. Don’t waste your money on a fancy brand.

kyawzazaw• 2 years ago

financial aid

Upvoter332• 2 years ago

look, I'm a public school guy through and through, but to say people who go to Harvard don't get any benefit from going there is pretty silly.

addicted• 2 years ago

The results of people going to Ivies is significantly better. You make better contacts and you have access to better resources.

This would be better described as Ivy+ which is the usual Ivies and colleges that are considered at that tier such as Stanford.

Putting it another way, if you are going to college and you had an Ivy+ college as an option, why would you not choose that?

bumby11• 2 years ago

The results of people going to Ivies is significantly better.

The studies I’ve seen contradict this. Students who are accepted to elite colleges but instead go to “lesser” schools do just as well as their Ivy counterparts. The exception is extremely poor students who do better by going to elite schools; researchers speculate that is due to networking effects. But that effect doesn’t generalize well like your comment implies.

alexcannan• 2 years ago

Surrounding yourself with the smartest people possible, during the most formative years of your life, is always a good idea. Get into the best school you can

imgabe10• 2 years ago

Are they the smartest people possible? Recent court cases have exposed that “smartest possible” is not what Ivies are selecting for.

xanderlewis• 2 years ago

Why would you go to an Ivy?

It’s not got much to do with the quality of teaching as you point out; it’s largely for signalling purposes.

Apparently there are now would-be students getting into Ivy League colleges with no intention of ever matriculating and paying the vast fees. They simply attach their offer as proof of their intellectual potential/elite group membership to their CV and get a job where they’ll learn far more than they would in four years at an old academic institution (and get paid to do it!).

If you ever wanted proof that the certification is worth more than the experience itself, that must be it.

EchoChamberMan4• 2 years ago

Wow, the snake eating its own tail!

Good thing Harvard has a $50bn endowment to carry them into the future. /s

okdood64• 2 years ago

This is very divorced from reality. Past a certain point your classes and professors don't matter much.

You go there to be surrounded by smarter people, with better connections, better extracurricular programs, and the name brand recognition to get a headstart on adult life.

imgabe10• 2 years ago

It’s true. There are brainless hiring managers who will greenlight anyone with a fancy school on their resume just like there are consumers who will fork over a month’s salary for a handbag with right logo. If you want to work for people like that, by all means, knock yourself out jumping through Ivy school hoops.

If you care about results, focus on results and the rest will follow.

hirvi743• 2 years ago

I am probably quite wrong on this, but I have always believed that the people smart enough to get into MIT, Harvard, Yale, etc. were probably smart enough that they didn't even truly need to go there. It's more for connections and a formality than for pure educational attainment.

For example, Bill Gates left Harvard after two years. He did quite fine without graduating by most metrics. I imagine he would have been quite successful, perhaps in a different way, had he not attended at all.

kerzs4• 2 years ago

I go to Cornell so I want to provide my perspective on this:

1. Do you think you’re going to learn calculus better than you would at flagship state U? - No. There might be a small difference but I would not claim to have received an education that is significantly better than any state university. I was able to take very specific grad-level classes and learn basically whatever niche subject I wanted to - which might be an issue at schools which do not have comparable funding. But overall, not significantly better than a state U.

2. Do you think you’re going to work with famous professor there? - In my experience every student who was competent and wanted to work on a research project was able to - even as soon as their second semester in freshman year (might not get the exact professor and project you want - but in my experience all professors have an incredible reputation and you will gain a lot out of whoever you get to work with)

3. They will hand off all your classes to adjuncts and grad students. - In all my classes, grad students have been responsible for grading assignments and exams, but never for teaching - only the professors teach.

4. Don’t waste your money on a fancy brand - I didn't. Coming from a low-income household, Cornell covered all my expenses and I have not paid a single cent my entire 4 years (and no loans). It is significantly more likely for an Ivy League university to provide full financial aid as they have the endowment to do so.

Additionally, the biggest advantages for me with regards to the brand name were: 1. Recruiting - recruiters from FAANG and other top companies come to you - pretty much everyone I know was going into FAANG or a top fintech company their sophomore or junior year internship. 2. Networking - Since there are so many alumni already at top firms, it is significantly easier to get referrals.

imgabe10• 2 years ago

We’re talking about Ivy League schools here, not Cornell.

noslenwerdna2• 2 years ago

Is this not a deeply cynical reason to go to an Ivy league school? Recruiters target those schools so you get a job that will allow you to make more money, and simply because you get access to better connected people (again to make more money)? It's not about the quality of education at all, then.

gnicholas2• 2 years ago

Coming from a low-income household, Cornell covered all my expenses and I have not paid a single cent my entire 4 years (and no loans).

For students in your situation, it makes sense to go to a private college with lots of financial aid, since there's basically no downside. For middle class students, it makes much less sense since they and their families have to take on huge loans. Even for wealthy students, it's not as clear a case as for low-income students. You have to be very wealthy for your family to be able to easily afford $320k per kid.

HDThoreaun3• 2 years ago

Youve completely missed the point of ivies. It's not to get a better education. Its not to do research or have better professors. The point of ivies is to be around the other students who got in. The alumni network at these institutions is unbelievably valuable, and theyre full of rich legacies who can boost the careers of the whole network.

imgabe10• 2 years ago

It’s not to get a better education. It’s not to do better research. Yes, you are proving my point.

OkayPhysicist2• 2 years ago

There's a massive advantage for likely-to-succeed students to be embedded in an environment where they will primarily interact with other likely-to-succeed students. Somewhat perversely, it doesn't really matter WHY they're likely to succeed, which creates the situation that rich parents buying their kid's spot actually creates a net benefit to the students who got in on merit.

THAT's why you go to an Ivy. It's where the successful go.

gist2• 2 years ago

THAT's why you go to an Ivy. It's where the successful go.

I'd rephrase that as 'going to an Ivy (or equal non Ivy notable school like Stanford) - gives you - all things equal - a better chance of success' (by various points made by others who have replied to the parent comment).

Now what's interesting is the parent comment 'why would anyone ... a joke' clearly shows that they don't understand at all the value or branding. As if it's some type of mass delusion of stupid people.

meowtimemania2• 2 years ago

This is essentially the premise of good k-12 public schools. The good schools are the schools with the good students. In some states, the worst schools are the most funded, and they continue to be the worst schools.

sneed_chucker• 2 years ago

You don't go to an Ivy League to learn calculus. You go to an Ivy League for the prestige and to build a network of connections with people who are likely to be successful.

imgabe10• 2 years ago

And would you say it’s a good thing that this is the reason as compared to actually learning calculus?

Ultimately, you’re going to have to drive across a bridge someday designed by John or Jane Q. Ivyleageue. Would you prefer they got the bridge designing contract because they were good at calculus or because their college roommate’s uncle was in charge of awarding the contract?

gist2• 2 years ago

Believe it or not a larger percentage of students at an IVY (or otherwise notable university say Stanford) have busted their ass to get into that school and not coasted 'oh I don't want to work that hard'. Absolutely there are people who have been admitted that have not (family, money, legacy whatever). Just the same there are the same type of students who have gone to a non notable school that may have been Ivy material and not gotten admitted for various reasons (didn't care, couldn't afford, family, whatever).

The thing is about the student body at a top school (IVY or notable again) is the percentage and general feel of the student body that fits the 'busted their ass to get to that school' instead of not caring that much. And really living working and dreaming about going to the top school including but not limited to sacrifices that they might have made.

ramblenode2• 2 years ago

Do you think you’re going to learn calculus better than you would at flagship state U?

Yes. Compare this Harvard Calc I final [0] to that of UNC Charlotte [1]. The test format of the Harvard exam works in the student's favor, but the questions are more difficult, more conceptual, and encompass optional topics that are not in a typical Calc I course (PDFs, Midi function). The Harvard class also requires students to demonstrate competency in various proofs that would not be required in a purely computational Calc I class.

[0] https://people.math.harvard.edu/~knill/teaching/math1a2020/f...

[1] https://math.charlotte.edu/sites/math.charlotte.edu/files/me...

telotortium• 2 years ago

Don't think "Midi function" is an actual thing. It looks like $f(x) = 440e^{(x-69)/12}$ literally maps the number of a note in the MIDI standard to the actual frequency. I guess this question is a bonus to people who paid attention in a particular lecture in class (or who know music and can recognize the significance of 440 and of 12 in the exponent).

ubj• 2 years ago

Related: MIT's detailed blog post about why they reinstated the SAT/ACT requirement (2 years ago):

https://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/we-are-reinstating-our...

Some quotes from the MIT blog post:

[S]tandardized tests also help us identify academically prepared, socioeconomically disadvantaged students who could not otherwise demonstrate readiness because they do not attend schools that offer advanced coursework, cannot afford expensive enrichment opportunities, cannot expect lengthy letters of recommendation from their overburdened teachers, or are otherwise hampered by educational inequalities.
[O]ur findings directionally align with a major study conducted by the University of California’s Standardized Testing Task Force, which found that including SAT/ACT scores predicted undergraduate performance better than grades alone, and also helped admissions officers identify well-prepared students from less-advantaged backgrounds.

15457345234• 2 years ago

Sanity and normality is returning, slowly.

It's normal to test children at the end of the educational process.

No, it isn't racist/bigoted/discriminatory.

No, minorities aren't too stupid to recognise the test is important. Implying that _is_ racist.

No, it isn't any of the other things it was claimed to be.

No, it isn't perfect.

Yes, it's necessary to ensure that schools are actually teaching and that schools which aren't actually teaching can be fixed.

Really the entire US educational system appears to have come under the influence recently of some people with very strange ideas.

otoburb2• 2 years ago

As a (to me, puzzling) counterpoint, Caltech ran a similar internal analysis in 2020 and again in 2022 and extended their moratorium on standardized test scores for first-year admissions out to 2025.[1]

[1] https://www.admissions.caltech.edu/apply/first-year-applican...

swatcoder3• 2 years ago

Caltech is a much smaller and more narrowly focused school with a smaller applicant pool that self-selects even more than MIT's. The needs and workflows of their admission process are different and peculiar and shouldn't be taken as a strong signal of what makes sense elsewhere.

Upvoter332• 2 years ago

Seems like an important thing to do: it gives smart people, no matter the background, and chance to show their stuff.

That said, we should be putting work in to level the "prep" playing field. Some people have the resources to do a lot of prep, some not so much. The more the prep situation is addressed, the better these tests are.

curiousllama• 2 years ago

It's important to remember that the legal context around admissions has changed over the past few years. 2-3 years ago, it seemed clear that (1) the courts were likely to strike down policies that support diversity via admissions and (2) they were going to use test scores as a way to measure the inequity. [A]

It appeared then that schools were no longer requiring test scores as a defensive move - if they don't require tests, it's harder to use them in court.

Today, the court appears to be signaling that they won't continue cracking down. [B] [C]. Accordingly, we should not be surprised that that admissions offices are reacting by reinstating the requirements - they've always been useful; they were just briefly dangerous.

[A] https://www.harvard.edu/admissionscase/wp-content/uploads/si... [B] https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-rejects-virgi... [C] https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2024/02/05/s...

lapcat23• 2 years ago

It appeared then that schools were no longer requiring test scores as a defensive move - if they don't require tests, it's harder to use them in court.

From the article: "When the coronavirus pandemic scrambled testing, Yale and many other colleges dropped requirements that applicants submit standardized tests such as the SAT or ACT."

Why is everyone looking for a convoluted theory when there's a very obvious explanation?

bombcar9• 2 years ago

Remote computer proctoring is a solved problem, way before Covid, so the pandemic may be part of the reason, but it's unlikely to be the whole reason.

Universities bandwagon just as much as anyone else does, and the reasons they give afterwards may not be the reasons they went into it.

barryrandall2• 2 years ago

A significant portion of the US population wants to believe the convoluted theory over the obvious explanation.

karaterobot• 2 years ago

It seems like many universities (especially Ivy league schools) who made testing optional during the pandemic did so for logistical reasons: they couldn't ask students to sit in a big room with a hundred other kids to take a test. I can't say whether COVID provided cover for the motives you list above, but the proximate reason given was sufficient.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/coronavirus-s...

EchoChamberMan4• 2 years ago

This makes a lot of sense, thanks.

polski-g• 2 years ago

FDB predicted this: https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/why-the-fuck-do-you-tru...

You can’t make college admissions fair by getting rid of the SAT because colleges admissions can’t be “fair.” College admissions exist to serve the schools. Period. End of story. They always have, they always will.

Elite colleges exist to get donations from graduates. If said graduates are stupid because of lack of meritocracy in the admissions process, they will be poor donors (because they're poor post-graduation).

Ajay-p2• 2 years ago

That.. did not last long. In my opinion it was a disastrous thing to even attempt. There is really no way to judge a random person's ability to learn, or even address the act of learning, without a standardized test. The ACT and SAT will always need work as culture changes, but throwing it out in search of restorative justice is extremely unwise.

asoneth3• 2 years ago

throwing it out in search of restorative justice is extremely unwise.

I see this claim a lot, but it seems partially true at best. As per the article and conversations with friends in admissions departments, the testing requirement at many elite schools was suspended due to the coronavirus pandemic.

However, the debate over how tests impact disadvantaged students may be why "many schools continued their test-optional policies even as the public health crisis eased" as per the article, so you're partially right that it probably played a role in why some schools have dragged their feet. (Contrast to schools like MIT which also dropped their testing requirement during the pandemic but reinstated it more quickly afterwards.)

bombcar9• 2 years ago

I think what was more prevalent was a "unequal outcomes can be explained away by this standardized test" and then we got a chance to experiment with it and learn new data.

hirvi743• 2 years ago

I have no real qualms with this under one wishful condition. My condition is that I think if schools are going to start selecting for this type of individual again, it would be quite beneficial to start heavily screening children for learning disabilities and other disorders that can impact educational attainment.

I had an undiagnosed learning disability, and had I known at the time, I could have received proper accommodations and treatments that I believe would have greatly improved my abilities to better perform on standardized tests and academics in general.

However, screening children for such disabilities was not common in the public education system of the South East, US during my time. Based on my academic achievements, GPA, etc. the standardized test I took (ACT) was by no means an accurate reflection of my abilities. In fact, the ACT actively harmed my educational opportunities.

While these tests may help children with poorer socioeconomic status, I think the tests currently discriminate against neurodivergent people, and are probably significantly worse for neurodivergent people with poorer socioeconomic backgrounds.

EchoChamberMan4• 2 years ago

Unfortunately, screening requires spending time and money, and both are things businesses/schools would rather not do.

jjmarr2• 2 years ago

In Ontario, Canada we don't have standardized tests to get into university. Grade inflation is the worst it's ever been. We don't even have GPAs because it's too coarse a distinction. Virtually all serious competitors to top schools graduate with a 97-99% average in their top 6 grade 12 courses. Many graduate with 100%. Even then most students with 98s get rejected from schools like Waterloo in Computer Science.

If taken at face-value, that means students can't make any mistakes in their last year of high school. That's across two semesters worth of tests in several subjects. Imagine if failing a test worth 10% of a course was enough to prevent you from going to a good university because it dropped your average across 6 courses from a 98% to a 97%. (10%/6 = 1.67%)

Some teachers will give easy tests that are difficult to not get 100% on. Other teachers will make up the numbers entirely.

Regardless you still have to spend time and money on extracurriculars since the 98% is a bare minimum. This means student activities and clubs aren't for socializing. They have been co-opted as a mechanism to create 10-person executive bodies so students can show they had leadership roles when applying to uni. A club that actually meets for its stated purpose imposes too much of a time commitment since competitive students need multiple leadership roles on their application.

The University of Waterloo has an entire series of math competitions as a sneaky way to administer standardized testing to potential CS or math students. This gives them a competitive advantage over other schools. Waterloo also has a comprehensive dataset of "adjustment factors" to weigh your average differently depending on your high school. This has been in place for a decade.

Schools like the University of Toronto force you to apply to computer science after your first year. They admit everyone but only a small amount of students get to continue into high-demand programs such as CS (this is called POSt). This incentivizes you to sabotage your classmates to look better, especially when many classes' grades are curved. Why would you attend a study group and help your competitors? This creates a high-pressure and negative environment. e.g. Three people killed themselves in the same computer science building at U of T in the two years before the pandemic.

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/students-criticize-u-of-t-a...

Our top universities select for undergraduates that are skillful at creating fake leadership roles for themselves and sabotaging others to look better by comparison.

At least standardized tests require you to study.

otoburb2• 2 years ago

>Regardless you still have to spend time and money on extracurriculars since the 98% is a bare minimum. This means student activities and clubs aren't for socializing. They have been co-opted as a mechanism to create 10-person executive bodies so students can show they had leadership roles when applying to uni. A club that actually meets for its stated purpose imposes too much of a time commitment since competitive students need multiple leadership roles on their application.

Granted it's been over 25 years since I graduated, but I remember that Canadian universities (across the country) had a relatively "bare" set of requirements to get in, namely your grades. Extracurriculars, from what I recall, had no bearing on a high school graduate's university application. This also made it somewhat impersonal, but at least it was straightforward.

Have things changed now that (perhaps only Ontario) universities will also look at extracurricular to decide between candidates on the bubble?

>Waterloo also has a comprehensive dataset of "adjustment factors" to weigh your average differently depending on your high school. This has been in place for a decade.

Rumour was that this was also in full force over 25 years ago for all Canadian universities, not only Waterloo, and not just in the last decade.

jjmarr2• 2 years ago

>Extracurriculars, from what I recall, had no bearing on a high school graduate's university application. This also made it somewhat impersonal, but at least it was straightforward.

Ontario universities love extracurriculars now as the grades have inflated. The competitive top-tier programs require supplementary applications for each school. The Waterloo AIF in particular gets graded and then added to your adjusted high school mark, and is required for CS and engineering. I think other schools have supplementary ones that are sometimes optional if a program is less competitive.

When you have thousands of students with a 98%+ it becomes impossible to differentiate. Over 40% of Waterloo students graduated high school with a 95 or above.

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/an-explosion-in-a-students-...

It's hard to do a cutoff when you're working with the top 5 percentage points of the scale. Too much noise in the signal.

>Rumour was that this was also in full force over 25 years ago for all Canadian universities, not only Waterloo, and not just in the last decade.

You're probably right but it's only been public for about a decade. People started making FOI requests for the list and posting it online for anxious high school students. For context the numbers are the expected percentage points your mark will drop by from HS to university.

https://github.com/aayushh-patell/Waterloo-Adjustment-Factor...

weweersdfsd• 2 years ago

Standardized nationwide tests, or entry exams that are the same for everyone are the only fair and equal ways of choosing who is admitted to study and who isn't. Anything else leads to corruption and discrimination.

Helping those who are disadvantaged to achieve better educational outcomes should happen already way earlier, starting from their childhood. Proper teacher training, social services and extra funding for schools in poorer areas (regardless of race/ethnicity of population) is a good way to do that. That's basically how Nordic welfare states work, and the results are pretty good in terms of social mobility.

ksec• 2 years ago

"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else." - Winston Churchill

I know a lot of people will take this negatively, I actually think this is a very good compliment to the American culture.

Yale will again require standardized test scores for admission

Related Stories