Where do you think the drop in applications will come from vs a shift in rounds? The two I can think of likely have a high acceptance rate but low yield. The first is EA acceptances to MIT. There is also likely a small number ED acceptances to other schools (CMU, UChicago) that will no longer apply. I think many of the others will just switch rounds.
The majority of early applicants who applied to Caltech also applied to MIT. And the majority of them also have MIT as their first choice because of the reasons I mentioned earlier. Those students can’t apply REA to Caltech going forward, so I’d expect more than 50% reduction in early applications to Caltech. Some of these students will be admitted to MIT early. The rest won’t have any early acceptance (a few of them could have applied EA to UChicago, but we all know they have practically zero chance of success under that program), so some of them would have to lower their sights by focusing their energy on schools where they’re more likely to be admitted (perhaps by applying ED2).
1 Like
It’s a small sample size from our MA high school in terms of admitted CalTech students, but among the highly qualified applicants, CalTech admitted only those that visited the campus. Some of the students deferred from CalTech were admitted both to MIT and other HYPS colleges, and were notably more accomplished, so it’s not a qualification issue.
I see that the latest CalTech CDS says demonstrated interest is not considered. But going from EA to REA seems to be another way to gauge interest in CalTech over MIT.
1 Like
I absolutely don’t believe any private college that claims they don’t consider demonstrated interest. And moving to REA will clearly increase yield, especially if they admit a significant portion of the class this way. I know kids who got into Caltech and not MIT and (more often) vice versa but agree MIT is almost always the first choice at least here on east coast.
I’ve always maintained that there’s no such thing that any private college doesn’t consider demonstrated interest in the strictest sense. It’s all about showing some interest, depending on one’s definition of it, if the college requires a “why us” essay, if it uses a separate application platform, if it restricts where else an applicant can apply concurrently, or if it considers legacy status (or even requires legacy applicants to apply early).
I know more students who have the opposite results but that just shows the unpredictability in a small sample. I do know, however, that there’re material differences in what Caltech and MIT look for.
1 Like
It is always sort of funny the image we and especially our kids build up of schools based on knowing a few kids from their school who get accepted every year. My kids all refused to apply to some excellent schools because they claimed all kids they knew (between 2-6 lol) who went there were jerks. And since the only kids we know (a few per year) who get into MIT are athletic “recruits” they have a pretty skewed views of MIT admissions…
I agree with @ucbalumnus that Caltech has determined that the SAT/ACT scores are “basically irrelevant” in determining whether an applicant is qualified to attend Caltech, but I am doubtful that this is because the “academic strength” required to succeed at Caltech is on an entirely different level so as to set it apart from all others in this regard.
The SAT/ACT doesn’t tell CalTech much with regard to what it wants to know about the students (Physics and Calculus proficiency, for example). The same could be true for students at Harvard, Berkeley, Stanford, etc, even if they are each looking for somewhat different qualifications and even if not as well defined. Test scores may be just as irrelevant at other schools with regard to identifying potentially brilliant aspiring writers, doctors, historians, communications major, etc.
I don’t think anyone has ever argued that the current test scores can identify “potentially brilliant aspiring writers… etc.” (just as they couldn’t be used to identify potentially brilliant mathematicians or physicists), but that doesn’t mean they can’t be helpful in eliminating those who are highly unlikely to become a brilliant writer, etc.
2 Likes
As I wrote on a different thread I have a good friend who is an AO at a top Ivy and who says they have been having many meetings and debates about staying TO or not, with most AOs favoring staying TO as they have learned the tests were not contributing anything useful to their analysis. Ironically my friend is on the side of requiring scores bec they think test scores are helpful for evaluation of first gen/poor school applicants where high test scores can be evidence the applicant can do the work. They all seem to agree that scores add nothing useful if reviewing an application from a middle or upper middle or upper class applicant from a high school known to them.
3 Likes
The current tests aren’t discriminating enough to be able to differentiate among the very top students. I agree that the main purpose of the current tests serve is to be able to properly evaluate applicants from less known schools with uncertain curricular rigor, or from schools with highly inflated grades.
2 Likes
Trying to imagine how a relatively low score would help Harvard determine that an applicant didn’t have potential to become a brilliant writer. One would think that aspects of an application demonstrating potential brilliant writing (high quality published writing for example)would be much more useful in this regard than a high SAT math score.
Regardless, like with Caltech, many colleges feel they are capable of “eliminating those who are unlikely to become a brilliant . . .” without reliance on the test scores.
For whatever it’s worth they also insist there is no TO penalty (even for wealthy applicants from top schools) and they don’t try to assume what the scores the applicant “really” got or why they weren’t provided but simply look to other aspects of application.
1 Like
You might share this with your AO friend. Altnough it’s likely they have heard it, as Jon B addresses standardized testing on the NACAC list serv regularly.
From Jon Boeckenstedt’s blog post focused on SAT/ACT tropes:
Point 2: The “Diamond in the Rough” (DITR) theory. This heart-warming approach posits that there are low-income and/or first-generation, and/or students of color out there who will be disadvantaged if tests go away, because the tests help them get identified as bright. And of course, this is not completely wrong, but it’s only true because a) some college admissions officers don’t know much about tests, and b) they do know that people ask them about average test scores all the time, again (here comes the absurdity) even though they vary so strongly with wealth. If you get the impression of a dog chasing its tail, you wouldn’t be wrong.
Not coincidentally, The DITR aphorism is also designed to appeal to people who don’t think critically.
Some propositional logic might be in order. It was perhaps the best class I ever took in college, but I don’t expect you to dive deeply into it, unless it’s raining and you have nothing better to do. Let me outline the challenge here.
These high-scoring students are bright; the tests measure something, but again whether that something is valuable is another question.
There’s more on the DITR theory, as well as 8 other tropes (The third one is “Grade inflation makes grades meaningless, and thus we need tests”).
Full article here (prior to covid and wide scale adoption of TO): Some final thoughts on the SAT and ACT – Jon Boeckenstedt's Admissions Weblog
1 Like
Lol I think one reason I have many senior professionals with decades of experience in different fields as friends is because I don’t try to tell them how to do their jobs! Having said that, I (who have nothing to do with admissions) read the links and found his perspective interesting and one I agree with in most respects.
1 Like
LOL, totally understand! 
PS Your AO friend will be impressed you know of Jon Boeckenstedt, just figure out a way to name drop!
1 Like
For schools that have chosen to go TO, they have to insist that there’s no TO penalty. But I wonder when a decision needs to be made for two candidates, who have similar profiles other than one submits good scores and the other doesn’t, for the final place in one of the admission buckets, whether the candidate with confirming test scores would have an advantage.
Bringing this discussion back to Caltech, the reason Caltech chose not to go TO (but directly to TB) is because it believes TO would force it to treat applicants differently and that is antithetical to one of its core beliefs.
When our older was applying in 2019, we met with a Caltech admissions officer when he was in the area, and I just loved the air of nonchalance he exuded when he said they lose some good admits to MIT every year.
In addition to their uncompromising academics, this is what we always most respected about Caltech and MIT: that of all top US institutions, they seemed to play the least admissions games. They admitted the best and let the chips fall when they might. 44% yield rate? Oh well, let the lesser institutions worry about that. We are Caltech. Loved it!
About the only people who will be affected by Caltech going REA are those that apply to Caltech and MIT simultaneously (MIT is the only other school that had EA that would materially impact Caltech’s admissions calculus). So why do it, really? I much preferred their past nonchalance.
As for test-blind, this is, again, a divergence with MIT, which unapologetically went back to requiring the tests.
“After careful consideration, we have decided to reinstate our SAT/ACT requirement for future admissions cycles. Our research shows standardized tests help us better assess the academic preparedness of all applicants, and also help us identify socioeconomically disadvantaged students who lack access to advanced coursework or other enrichment opportunities that would otherwise demonstrate their readiness for MIT. We believe a requirement is more equitable and transparent than a test-optional policy.”
I know this is an old thread, but I only recently learned about these decisions by Caltech, and find them to be deeply disappointing.
Perhaps Caltech going REA helps both Caltech and MIT predict yield better.
The minimum rigor level at Caltech appears to be higher than at MIT, so Caltech (a) needs to look for other indicators of academic strength that go way beyond the SAT/ACT, and (b) does not attract many applicants who would not score near the top of the SAT/ACT anyway. MIT probably attracts a wider range of applicants, so the SAT/ACT may still be useful at quickly eliminating the no-hope applicants.
1 Like
MIT seems to be doing just fine predicting their yield. Most years zero students are admitted from wait list.
I will happily grant your point about minimum required rigor:) - but what would those indicators be for the coveted socially disadvantaged? That appears to be the entire thrust of MIT’s argument.
Sounds like you are saying they can just safely rely on self-selection.
But I personally think they just caved to the prevailing California winds, and my fear is that their vaunted rigor will inevitably suffer as a result.
No, just that self selection means that they probably have little need to quickly weed-out no-hope applicants with SAT/ACT scores.
But even beyond that, they probably found that SAT/ACT scores added nothing to their evaluation of applicants’ capability to handle Caltech rigor.