So Columbia is the first IVY to “permanently” drop the SAT/ACT requirement. OK now really read the article. Columbia has decided to “permanently” retain the test optional status quo essentially deciding it doesn’t want to make a definitive decision about the SAT/ACT and keeping the current cloudy situation that now exists. Its unfortunate that they could not make a definitive decision on the SAT/ACT like MIT (which requires it) or simply dropping it completely like some places.
We all know the most recent wave of test optional admissions requirements originated in the inability of individuals to be able to take tests due to the pandemic. With that problem for all intensive purposes now gone the landscape is the same as it was before the pandemic with most people taking the ACT/SAT but the difference now is deciding if their score is “good enough” to submit. The old problems of test bias, and inequalities of test preparation due to financial means are the same as they always were and those who are naturally good rapid fire test takers ( which does not mimic anything in life - except other standardized tests) or who have the financial means for test preparation are still advantaged.
As we see all over these forums this test optional situation creates new hysteria with people wondering if their scores are “good enough” to submit. Even scores that fall within the 25% for a top school are questioned - should you submit a 33 ACT to a school whose “range” is 33-36? Crazy to think this score is not “good enough” but some “experts” feel it isn’t.
But school ranges now have to be taken with a grain of salt as no one knows the test scores of those admitted under test optional ( didn’t submit scores)where most are those who have taken the tests but their scores weren’t “good enough”. In reality the ranges of those admitted to these schools is likely lower than that which is published. And the cycle will get worse as fewer of those 33 ACTs will be submitted and the “average” will just go higher. A 34 will one day become the 25% - will that be one day doubted?
Obviously keeping test optional keeps the number of applications to a school up and makes their acceptance rates go down (they are “more selective”) but one might ask why have tests at all if that were the goal.
The current hybrid test optional situation just makes things cloudier than they ever were, continues prior problems associated with the ACT/SAT, creates new hysteria with people wondering if their scores are “good enough” and creates school acceptance rates that do not reflect the actual ranges ( inflates them) of those accepted to schools.
I agree with all that you’ve written, but I also wonder if a shift in thinking is needed among applicants (and their parents) where they begin to see an SAT/ACT score as one more potential data point in an application, rather than a centerpiece of a college application. Like joining the debate team, for example: if debate team plays to your strengths and you can get some achievements, then it’s a great addition to your application. If it’s not your thing, no reason to join, and it will take nothing away from your application. Or you join and don’t really do much with it, then leave it off your application and focus on other areas. Same thing perhaps for the SAT/ACT: if it happens to play to your strengths, great, take the test and show that strength off. If it doesn’t, then it takes nothing away. No one agonizes over whether or not to join the debate team; perhaps likewise no one should agonize over whether or not to take the SAT/ACT. If it’s something you’re good at and don’t find miserable, then go for it. If you do well, show off. If not, then do something else that you will be able to show off on your application.
I agree with you but they are tests that do not really show off a marketable skill. No where in life (except on other standardized tests) will you ever need to answer hundreds of questions rapid fire like this. In addition if you have the financial means to prepare you are advantaged ( which is really true about most things - sports etc). Testing in general promotes anxiety in many students who have enough on their plate simply wondering about getting into schools.
Completely agree. Personally, I would like to see it all done away with, but I doubt that’s going to happen any time soon: the College Board makes a lot of money off of the SAT, the students who do well want those scores in, etc. I think I (and you?) hold the minority opinion on this.
So until that shifts (if it ever does), I am happy enough with the test being marginalized into a single data point that can potentially help, but not hurt, an application - just like anything else on the application. You want to take it and submit a great score - great, go for it. If not, do something else impressive to show the AOs. That works for me.
No, but they do help predict success in college when used in conjunction with GPA rather than just using GPA alone, particularly for students from low performing schools.
Both MIT and the UC Academic Senate noted that as one of the primary benefits of testing. Simplifying a bit, they found that a 1400 SAT was quite meaningful if the school’s average SAT was 900, but not meaningful if the the school’s average SAT was 1300.
The problem with the test optional approach is the “ratcheting up of scores” as you mentioned. Most colleges are very interested in the 1400 scorer from a 900 school. But that score may also end up below the 25th percentile due to the ratcheting effect, and not submit a score.
I have heard this a lot and theoretically it makes sense to me. But I wonder if it has been quantified: Average SAT scores at various socioeconomic level schools and how many students get high scores and how many enroll at selective colleges.
I suspect Columbia may also be trying to figure out if they want to get back on track with USNews, and if they do want to, how to get back on. They don’t want to lose by easing up on the acceptance rate by going test mandatory.
Academically inclined kids can just go and take the test with no prep and get reasonable scores. I don’t think prep makes more than a 30-40 point difference if that. We didn’t even have the kids do a few practice tests at home, let alone go get tutored some place. One of my kid’s score did not even move much between 8th grade (he had to take for summer camp) and 11th grade. I am actually curious what proportion of people take test prep, and if kids from better resourced families actually take more prep.
My personal belief is that with the demise of affirmative action, we will see more private schools becoming holistic, aka test optional to provide access and opportunities to low SES kids. On the other hand, I suspect many state schools will outright ban test optional and require standardized scores for admission and merit.
Private schools are already holistic. Even with test optional if realized matriculations feel lopsided, there will be lawsuits. Why do you think state schools will ban test optional? We already saw what direction UCB took.
FWIW, I think the UT system makes sense-other than Austin, auto admit for top 10% at UT Dallas, or at other schools top 25%, but can be ranked lower if compensating test score. So second 25% needs an 1100, third 25% needs 1175, etc ( just an example).
Going test blind requires significant buy-in at many schools. Having heard from a number of administrators on this issue, it can be difficult to build support for test blind across the administration, trustees, and faculty. Keeping the status quo is an easier path to decision making.
Many schools are showing an increase in URM enrollment post-test optional, but as always, things are complicated so one can’t point to TO alone as the reason as discussed by Jon Boeckenstedt here.
Summary chart at Ivies/Stanford/MIT (he’s sliced and diced the data in a number of ways):
My guess is that many purple and red states will go in that direction. They will require quantitative endpoints to justify admission to avoid lawsuits and to placate the audience. Frankly, I think SAT is a very useful data point and probably one that is more neutral to income inequality than other factors.
Yes, but FL, GA, and TN publics have all gone back to a test requirement. And Texas has a bill moving thru the legislature that would require test scores for those who aren’t auto-admits (not sure the chance that gets approved).
My son is far from being a high stat kid but improved his score by 120 points by doing Khan + UWorld. No tutor. I suppose it depends on how much room they have to improve and whether they are lacking in certain areas where some strategizing and practicing can help.
