I will be very, very surprised if most of the Ivies (and like institutions) return to required standardized testing.

Personally, I prefer required standardized testing because it levels the playing field for candidates from different schools, towns, states, etc., however admissions personnel with different goals prefer less precise holistic metrics:

Affirmative action is endingbut holistic admissions can still allow higher education to better reflect society

Quote:

---

In practice, higher education institutions will lean more heavily on holistic admission policies to ensure they meet their diversity, equity, and inclusion goals and create a student body that accurately represents the ethnic and racial makeup of the communities they serve.

---

Schools should admit students who are best-prepared to do well at their school irrespective of anything else, but we all know that is not always the case.

Private schools can do what they want, 30% of the student body is made up of legacy students so lets not pretend they are ever going to be fair. For all we know the push for diversity is so that Thurston Mc***** IV can sample a little of everything.

Looks like Yale just returned to requiring test scores, although they are flexible as to what test results they accept:

Going in the opposite direction, Michigan just became test optional rather than test flexible.

Brown University just announced.

Brown University to reinstate test requirement, retain Early Decision, further study legacy preferences

double b said:

---

Brown University just announced.

Brown University to reinstate test requirement, retain Early Decision, further study legacy preferences

---

I'm curious as to what you think is going on in general with how more selective schools are treating standardized testing now. Test optional seemed like a really good way for them to inflate their test scores (you don't report your score if it isn't good if not great). Also, it allowed them to be more racially diverse without risking being sued for reverse discrimination (no hard data equals no proof). I'm frankly a bit surprised to see some schools going away from being test optional.

He Who Shall Be Unnamed said:

---

double b said:

---

Brown University just announced.

Brown University to reinstate test requirement, retain Early Decision, further study legacy preferences

---

I'm curious as to what you think is going on in general with how more selective schools are treating standardized testing now. Test optional seemed like a really good way for them to inflate their test scores (you don't report your score if it isn't good if not great). Also, it allowed them to be more racially diverse without risking being sued for reverse discrimination (no hard data equals no proof). I'm frankly a bit surprised to see some schools going away from being test optional.

---

So UT-Austin just announced that they are bringing back the SAT/ACT score requirement and are no longer test-optional.

• UT Austin will again require SAT or ACT test scores for admission.

The data suggests that when GPA is coupled with test scores, they provide a lot of information that yields college success. Now, that's not the only information, but the test score is a significant component of determining early success in college.

Now, concerning recruitment/diversity goals, colleges can still meet those goals because they look at each school differently, comparing applicants to the profile of their high school that is shared along with the student's academic transcript. On this profile, this includes information such as type of AP courses offered, average number of AP courses each student takes and how many earn passing AP scores, along with average SAT/ACT scores. The stronger a student performs against their school profile, the more consideration they are given toward their admission decision.

So, a student who attends an inner city public school with an average SAT score of 1100 can shine brighter in the admission pool with a 1300+ SAT score. With the test-optional route, this student may not have submitted their SAT score since it was below the average score of 1450/1500 of some of these more selective schools.

Another reason why many of these schools are bringing back SAT scores is because the application numbers continued to grow each year and making the admission decisions more difficult. With the return of test scores, this should hopefully prevent a small percentage with really low scores from applying and easing the admission decision process more.

This is the key statistic buried in the data and I doubt we see this come from the highly selective Private schools who likely won't release this. Texas did because inevitably it would come out anyway.

Quote:

---

Of the students who enrolled in 2023, the university said those who submitted their test scores were shown to have a higher GPA by about 0.86 points in their first semester in college.

---

In the case of Texas this probably has more to do with top 6% than test optional. After the top 6% clog most of the enrollees they only take really high achievers after that. Private schools don't have that and also people paying $70,000 a year don't get bad grades

I just saw that Harvard & Cal Tech are changing back to test-required.

Frankly it really makes the admissions staffs at these colleges look completely incompetent that they ever would have tried this experiment to begin with. Anybody with any judgement at all could have told them that going test optional was doomed to yield bad results.

It would make more sense for these institutions to focus on education and not social engineering.

AggieDruggist89 said:

---

It would make more sense for these institutions to focus on education and not social engineering.

---

I don't think this is fundamentally about that as much as you think or how it is used won't change that.

Schools have far more data now and algorithms in admissions than ever before. They don't look at an SAT score and a GPA like they used to and for good reason. Standardized test scores can be inflated based around preparation. A kid from a well resourced school starts taking SAT's and PSAT's in the 7th and 8th Grade and goes through Prep classes. Then they can take and retake the SAT multiple times or choose between the SAT and ACT. You can do a lot to game that score. That doesn't make that kid necessarily a better candidate than a kid who isn't from a well resourced school or just one who doesn't understand all of that and simply takes the test once cold. Then of course you have always had kids that do better on standardized tests than others.

GPA is even worse, you have no standard there at all and it means different things at every school, especially with weighting of APs and Honors classes.

I think requiring the scores is a good thing but I don't think they will ever have the weight they once did. I understand why schools have gone Holistic, there really isn't much choice. Personally I think scores on AP Tests are a better indicator, especially in the more difficult subjects. They are truly standardized and they require a kid to have learned the material so if you see a kid with a bunch of AP Classes but then they did poorly on the AP Test it is a big flag. The problem there of course is some schools don't even offer AP and the quality certainly isn't uniform in terms of classes.

There simply isn't a magic bullet. Trying to predict success is complicated. Schools don't even necessarily have the same definition of what success means in terms of outcomes.

Do the admissions know what SAT prep a student had? If not, then you're points aren't valid.

bmks270 said:

---

Do the admissions know what SAT prep a student had? If not, then you're points aren't valid.

---

No, but they know the high school and have lots of other data. It isn't hard to see if a kid is well resourced. Selective schools also read apps from the same area and schools at the same time to compare them apples to apples. They have multiple readers per app that are also trained to look for signs.

Can you fool them? Sure, it isn't easy though.

TriAg2010 said:

---

A brave institution should make SAT score their sole solitary admissions criteria just to prove how much utter bull**** we've tolerated in college admissions. It's madness we must discern on GPA, and essays, and sports, and clubs, and volunteer work, and yada yada yada for the clues to cultivate an undergraduate class that is just so. Admissions officials are charlatans capable of no special insights into these adolescent children. Rank the applicants by test score, admit the top, and move on with life.

---

Actually that would be a terrible decision.

SAT as the end all be all would be a disaster. It's one evaluation tool and it is imperfect. Some people naturally do well on them, part of that is IQ. Others can do well on it because if you practice and know the patterns you can do well on it. That's become more and moreso the case with so many services, free and for pay, that are designed around it.

BTW, the reason that some schools are bringing testing back is actually because they are finding that it had a negative impact on Underrepresented groups. The folks who were benefiting the most were Legacies and rich kids who still couldn't do well on SAT's but had balanced resumes.

There is no easy way to judge qualified candidates even if you are trying to be color blind and means blind.

aggie93 said:

---

1.Actually that would be a terrible decision.

SAT as the end all be all would be a disaster. It's one evaluation tool and it is imperfect. Some people naturally 2. do well on them, part of that is IQ. Others can do well on it because if you practice and know the patterns you can do well on it. That's become more and more so the case with so many services, free and for pay, that are designed around it.

BTW, the reason that some schools are bringing testing back is actually because they are finding that 3. it had a negative impact on Underrepresented groups. The folks who were benefiting the most were Legacies and rich kids who still couldn't do well on SAT's but had balanced resumes.

There is no easy way to judge qualified candidates even if you are trying to be color blind and means blind.

---

1. It may not be the best decision but using race as an admission criteria is heck of a lot more terrible.

2. Sure, no objective criteria is perfect for admission decision. But just because someone can game the std tests and or have high IQ (shouldn't schools want students with high IQ?) doesn't make it a bad criteria. It should be preferred over using race.

3. Preferential treatment of selective underrepresented groups based on race(you have said several times it's not a major factor) is deemed illegal per the SC. So why are these institutions continuing to promote it?

Charts below were used in the Harvard/UNC SC case. This is a big deal and very unfair.

The metrics most predictive of success should be the primary criteria. The leader there is the standardized testing along with grades

If you want to close any gaps, then look at what could be done to help challenged kids/schools better prepare and take it multiple times. That test helps you find two kinds of kids -> the naturally intelligent/successful and the intelligent enough that are also willing to put in the work to be successful. "Prep" doesn't just happen by itself. It takes commitment and work, and those kids succeed.

DannyDuberstein said:

---

If you want to close any gaps, then look at what could be done to help challenged kids/schools better prepare and take it multiple times. That test helps you find two kinds of kids -> the naturally intelligent/successful and the intelligent enough that are also willing to put in the work to be successful. "Prep" doesn't just happen by itself. It takes commitment and work, and those kids succeed.

---

Agreed.

It's as if being able to prepare for the test is now a frowned upon criteria. And I don't believe standardized test prep requires a lot of resource. Even though it's just an anecdote with my kids, my daughter didn't take any test prep courses. Just the practice exam and an old SAT prep book from either Amazon or bookstore. She got 1480 and the son used free Khan Academy for 1570.

Right. Doesn't have to cost that much. Some guidance on where to find free resources to prepare and maybe a decent prep book would go a very long way. Let some of these schools so concerned about DEI put their money where their mouth is and pay for it, along with covering the cost of an extra test for these kids.

AggieDruggist89 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

1.Actually that would be a terrible decision.

SAT as the end all be all would be a disaster. It's one evaluation tool and it is imperfect. Some people naturally 2. do well on them, part of that is IQ. Others can do well on it because if you practice and know the patterns you can do well on it. That's become more and more so the case with so many services, free and for pay, that are designed around it.

BTW, the reason that some schools are bringing testing back is actually because they are finding that 3. it had a negative impact on Underrepresented groups. The folks who were benefiting the most were Legacies and rich kids who still couldn't do well on SAT's but had balanced resumes.

There is no easy way to judge qualified candidates even if you are trying to be color blind and means blind.

---

1. It may not be the best decision but using race as an admission criteria is heck of a lot more terrible.

2. Sure, no objective criteria is perfect for admission decision. But just because someone can game the std tests and or have high IQ (shouldn't schools want students with high IQ?) doesn't make it a bad criteria. It should be preferred over using race.

3. Preferential treatment of selective underrepresented groups based on race(you have said several times it's not a major factor) is deemed illegal per the SC. So why are these institutions continuing to promote it?

Charts below were used in the Harvard/UNC SC case. This is a big deal and very unfair.

---

I think race shouldn't even be a category listed on any application for school or work so not sure where you are getting that.

The point brought up though was to make a standardized test the ONLY factor in considering applicants and I said that is a terrible idea because it is just one metric. You can have candidates do well on a standardized test that aren't good students or a fit and you can have candidates who are awesome at everything else but don't do well or just don't do as well as someone else. The system proposed would allow for a kid for instance that is a C Student that doesn't do any EC's but just happens to be bright or able to test well to jump to the front of the line. It would also make a kid who has all A's and is exceptional in every facet but just did ok on their standardized test moved back.

It is also simply what colleges are saying around why they are bringing standardized tests related to Underrepresented groups. For instance without those tests it allows a kid who has lots of cool EC's or other attributes to have a huge advantage over a kid from a school that simply doesn't offer them but is still able to score high on a standardized test because they are just flat out gifted.

There is no silver bullet and every system has flaws, it's pick your poison. Different schools also have different priorities. If a kid is going to Julliard it likely shouldn't matter if they are great at Calculus. If they are going to MIT to study Comp Sci it really shouldn't matter that much if they took AP Spanish 4 and aced it. That said every school has different approaches.

In terms of the SAT it still has value but it is not what it used to be because it can be manipulated so much more than it could 20 years ago with the advent of services and the internet. So you end up rewarding or penalizing kids based on how much help they had. I say that having played the game with my son, using a service definitely increased his score. It is what it is. Once again it is pick your poison with all of it. You can choose to ignore it all as well and that's fine but it's kind of like deciding you don't like NIL in your college football team so you just won't pay it.

But given so much help is free, it is an indicator of who was motivated to do the work to be successful vs who wasn't. I think discounting it because someone can work their way to a better score is illogical

DannyDuberstein said:

---

The metrics most predictive of success should be the primary criteria. The leader there is the standardized testing along with grades

---

I would actually argue that the best predictor of success is high scores on AP tests. If a kid can score a 4 or 5 on a Calc AP test they are likely going to succeed because they have shown they can take a true college level class and have mastered the material. That's better than a Dual Credit as well because Community College classes aren't standardized. You can't fake a score on an AP exam and while you can prep for it it takes a lot more effort.

That said some schools simply don't offer AP Classes so you have to decide it those kids should be penalized or not for that. Certainly a kid with a dozen AP's is probably better prepared than one who has none but that isn't perfect either, the kid with none could also do very well.

I still think SAT type tests have value but just not as much as they once did. It's a good idea to require them but it's also important to use context. A kid that started taking them in Middle School and has had years of prep will likely do a lot better than a kid who just takes it once with zero prep. Doesn't make the former necessarily a better student.

DannyDuberstein said:

---

But given so much help is free, it is an indicator of who was motivated to do the work to be successful vs who wasn't. I think discounting it because someone can work their way to a better score is illogical

---

That assumes a lot. Simply being free doesn't mean that the kid understands the importance of it or how to utilize it. My wife was #2 in her small HS class in West Texas but she was 1st Gen with a Dad that thought college was a waste of time and money. She took an ACT once and did ok but she didn't understand the importance of it or how to prep for it. Also, comparing doing some self study on Khan Academy to having an in person tutor is apples an oranges.

I definitely see value in standardized testing and think that most schools should require them, especially any Selective school. My argument is simply putting the score in context. Hell my eldest got an 1160 on his SAT and is 24 hours away from graduating with a 4.0 from A&M Galveston in 3 years and has made Dean's list 3 times. I could list a dozen examples of how it is flawed in terms of being a predictor of success. It has value it's just one data point. I know kids who have gotten 1500 plus and flunked out of college, typically they are extremely bright but not focused and willing to work hard. That's why there is value in looking at the bigger picture.

There just isn't a magic bullet out there in terms of any one thing that predicts success, if you combine multiple factors though you are much more likely to be right.

BTW, I think skin color and income are the worst things to look at. If you want to really get into social factors the best indicator is having 2 parents that emphasize education. That has nothing to do with either. Even then though I think it is disgusting that who your parents are has such a huge bearing on who is admitted to schools or how much they cost be you rich or poor. Way too many school administrators love to play at social engineering as if they are playing God.

I agree that some need more guidance to where resources are. But the resources are there and not that hard to find for someone motivated to do well. Instead of gaming admissions, fix that part. The test is very predictive of success, however they got the score.

DannyDuberstein said:

---

I agree that some need more guidance to where resources are. But the resources are there and not that hard to find for someone motivated to do well. Instead of gaming admissions, fix that part. The test is very predictive of success, however they got the score.

---

You can't "fix that part". People can always game each part of the process. That's why you don't want to rely on any one measurement tool. Each has value but none is ideal. Every part can be gamed, there is just too much information available to people for it not to be. Thus if you choose to focus on any one area you will reward those who game the system best. That's not necessarily terrible but the more you can make it difficult the better. You want to be able to evaluate candidates objectively.

BTW, I didn't always feel that way but I've really read and researched it. This is a very complex issue and that's why people get frustrated. It's just a very different world than 10 years ago much less 30.

Also the test is at best somewhat predictive of success but not necessarily better than many other measurements. The main issue of frustration for people for instance is acceptance to Selective schools. At a Selective school it's even less relevant for many because they have far more candidates that apply who would succeed than they have spots. So if you think taking a kid with a 1550 over a kid with a 1500 SAT is the best method you really don't understand the problem. That's literally one kid answered a couple of questions right that another kid didn't on a particular day vs looking at the entire body of their background. It's like taking a recruit who ran a 4.42 40 yard dash over one who ran a 4.44 and ignoring all of their film.

DannyDuberstein said:

---

Learning how to improve to produce a desired result is life. It's how people have success. Sorry if I don't buy your "can't". I think admissions since 2020 are rubbish and went the opposite direction of what makes sense. They are gaming the outcome with very skewed approach vs helping kids know what needs to be done to prepare and evaluating what they produce.

---

Of course it is. As I said it has value. My point is it isn't the magic bullet. Of course anyone can get a better score on a test if that is made out to be the end all be all. If we want to make the entirety of education up until college based around taking a test we can certainly do so. It's just not a good way to evaluate talent in a vacuum.

For instance when I graduated from High School in 1989 5 people scored a 1600 on the SAT. Last year about 2500 did. 21,000 make a 1500 or higher. So if you make it the only thing that matters that could easily become 100,000 or more. No need to worry about taking challenging coursework or making good grades, just spend your time studying for the SAT and you are all good. Why join clubs or be involved? It's irrelevant. Why bother with High School at all?

Should you be able to take it repeatedly or as many times as you want like now? How about Superscore?

I don't know why you think admissions prior to 2020 were all about the SAT either.

I posted test scores and grades should be primary measures. Nowhere have I posted that we should test scores as the only criteria, yet you keep posting like I did. It should be one of the two leading criteria. I also already posted a solve for taking it multiple times - let these bleeding heart DEI schools pay for the economically disadvantaged kids. I also don't see an issue with capping how many times for each at maybe 3 to meet in the middle.

I come from the private sector where we try to solve issues vs finding excuses not to do so.

DannyDuberstein said:

---

The metrics most predictive of success should be the primary criteria. The leader there is the standardized testing along with grades

---

Primary =\= only