<p>I assume others will follow. <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-05-22/harvard-drops-sat-subject-tests-for-undergrad-admissions">http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-05-22/harvard-drops-sat-subject-tests-for-undergrad-admissions</a></p>
<p>Any reason given?</p>
<p>In the recent past, Harvard’s admissions dean rated the predictive power of high school academic credential for college grades as:</p>
<ul>
<li>AP and IB scores</li>
<li>SAT subject tests, writing sections of SAT reasoning and ACT</li>
<li>high school GPA</li>
<li>SAT reasoning and ACT</li>
</ul>
<p><a href=“Guidance Office: Answers From Harvard's Dean, Part 2 - The New York Times”>Guidance Office: Answers From Harvard's Dean, Part 2 - The New York Times;
<p>Given that, a possible reason may be that Harvard is concerned about “losing” worthwhile applicants, particularly from disadvantaged situations, for whom additional tests may be another hurdle* rather than a routine task as it is for college-bound students in upper-middle to upper income situations.</p>
<p>*In terms of cost, and lack of high school counseling and advising about which subject tests to take when, since most high school counseling and advising in low performing high school may be aimed at just getting students to graduate, with little attention paid to the 4.0 student aiming for highly selective colleges (and if the student is first generation college-bound, his/her parents and other relatives may not know about testing requirements).</p>
<p>This is really only a small policy change. Harvard says “we normally require two SAT Subject tests.” The change is mainly intended to ensure that no one is automatically precluded from consideration because they couldn’t afford the test fees or because they received little or no college counseling and were not aware that some highly selective colleges require SAT Subject tests. Most applicants will still be expected to submit at least two SAT Subject scores. </p>
<p>I wonder if it also has to do with the change in the SAT format. Has College Board shot themselves in the foot by making the SAT more like the ACT+writing? </p>
<p>From the Harvard website:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They should have kept doing what they were able to do, which is simply make logical exceptions when they felt like it.</p>
<p>There’s some chance that this is athletics driven, I believe. If a coach finds an admittable kid with otherwise decent scores, its quite likely that he won’t have two subject tests, especially if he’s a football or basketball recruit. Having the built in ability to waive that requirement makes it a lot easier to get the recruit a “likely” letter without sending him to the SAT registration site to schedule a sitting for two additional tests. </p>
<p>Probably means that they will cut more slack for applicants from disadvantaged situations (low income, low performing high school where counselors have little time for 4.0 students applying to Harvard), particularly in combination with first-generation-to-college status, in terms of not submitting SAT subject tests, versus those from typical upper-middle to upper class situations in elite or very good high schools where taking SAT subject tests is a routine college-prep task done by many students.</p>
<p>Subject tests are one of those “off the radar” things for many people. Even though we are an “advantaged” family, we only thought of it “just in time” for our first kid, since it seems the school was not doing much to remind/promote. And this is a moderately affluent district. Can’t even imagine what goes on in less-advantaged places. Seems like a good idea not to make it a hard fast line.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I went to a very middle class school, but another reason why subject tests could be a hurdle is that the curriculum isn’t strong enough for people to do well on the tests. Unless you took the corresponding AP class, you would not do well on the subject test, and even if you did you might still have trouble depending on the quality of the AP course. My AP Chemistry specifically warned me that I might have trouble with the SAT Subject test in chemistry, even though I was one of the top students in the class. I can imagine that the situation would be worse at lower-performing schools.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Possibly, but not likely. The NCAA – as well as USNews – only track the SAT/ACT. Subject Test scores are nice to have.</p>
<p>I think ucb is correct: its likely about the applicant pool of diverse candidates. The Univ of California dropped ST’s for that very reason.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t really believe this, having gotten high scores (>700) in achievement tests (as SAT subject tests were called then) without having taken AP courses in those subjects. This was at a non-elite public high school where about a third went to four year colleges at graduation (mostly state schools), though more went to the local community college.</p>
<p>Note that the claim is obviously not true for the SAT subject tests in math, which do not include any calculus or statistics. It may also be disadvantageous to take AP physics for the SAT subject test in physics, since the usual split of AP physics 1 and 2 or C-mechanics and C-E&M means that a student who has only taken one part of the AP physics will not have seen many of the topics on the SAT subject test, unless s/he has already taken a regular high school physics course.</p>
<p>However, it is entirely likely that the quality of courses at low performing high schools is low enough that a poor SAT subject test score will result even for a student who got an A in the course in high school. (Similarly, there are high schools where A students in AP courses most commonly score 1 on the AP tests.)</p>
<p>I agree that my chemistry teacher was probably exaggerating, but I think it’s accurate for other subjects. I doubt anyone from my high school would do well on an SAT subject test in math unless they were taking honors math. The only physics course at my school covered maybe 10% of the material on the SAT subject test in physics (my high school didn’t offer AP physics at the time). The only US History courses offered, besides AP US History (which didn’t exist before my junior year) started after the Civil war. And so on for the other SAT subject tests.</p>
<p>Seems like your high school is substandard if A students in the regular or honors non-AP courses do poorly on SAT subject tests. SAT subject tests cover high school level material, not AP level material, so the claim of “you need to take the AP course to take the SAT subject test” is just an excuse to cover up the substandard non-AP courses.</p>
<p>Harvard’s intentions may be good, but their ambiguity will cause further confusion. By leaving it open-ended-up-to-you they’ve left the large majority of their applicants unclear on how to proceed.</p>
<p>Many college left the ACT vs. SAT as an “up to you” decision. Take it at face value, if Harvard says they aren’t necessary, they aren’t necessary. This, I’m sure, will be a topic debated ad nauseum by the SAT/College Board proponents. The number of people in the midwest that take SAT subject tests is miniscule and yes they do go on the HYP ilk and no they don’t live in metro Detroit or metro Chicago. We have one of the highest ranked high schools in the state and you have to drive for hours to find an SAT testing sight. I’m sure there one in the greater Detroit area, but Detroit a long drive away from quite a few of the top ranked high schools (and private schools) in Michigan. I’m sure this is true of many states. The "smartest kids’ in Colorado might not live in the Denver metro area. The smartest kids in Wisconsin might not live in metro Milwaukee the smartest kids in Nebraska might not live in Omaha or Lincoln and so on and so on. Things aren’t quite “as close” in the midwest as they are in the NE. </p>
<p>I think the athletic explanation might be valid. I can tell you that Harvard lost a top runner in my D’s class because he hadn’t taken any SAT II’s. The track coach said they were required and asked him to re-schedule his planned official visit to Stanford in order to take them. The student did not want to bother, and ended up at Stanford instead. The H coach commented to D (who also chose S over H, but did have the necessary tests) that they lose many top athletes to Stanford.</p>
<p>This is competition SAT 2s not required at Yale if you take the ACT which more students are taking or Stanford At all. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This will be reminiscent of the “extra credit” optional projects offered by teachers that, if not done, actually count against you. If you’re from an upper middle class area and you don’t take the two subject tests, you’re self-unselecting yourself (unless everything else is over-the-top).</p>
<p>I hadn’t realized Stanford didn’t require two subject tests. </p>
<p>From their website:
</p>
<p>And this contrasts with their no score choice allowed poicy on the regular SAT. </p>
<p>Looks like this change may be the result of the incumbency advantage of the SAT reasoning and ACT. Lack of awareness of or access to other tests like SAT subject tests may just screen out worthwhile applicants if those other tests are required.</p>
<p>Note that the regional incumbency advantage of the SAT reasoning in some areas and ACT in others may also be forcing colleges to consider them as equivalent, even though they are somewhat different tests.</p>
<p>I am still puzzled by the purpose of the SAT subject tests. Since only the top schools require them, and anyone applying to those schools has taken multiple AP’s, the SAT II’s become simply a redundant test. How often does someone take an SAT II in a subject for which they haven’t taken an AP exam ?</p>
<p>Many APs are taken senior year – way after the time colleges decide. That’s one reason why Subj Tests may be wanted.</p>