MIT announced they are dropping the subject test requirement, and will not consider them at all (so don’t send them) in the admissions process. This is similar to CalTech’s new subject test policy.
https://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/a-special-announcement-about-sat-subject-tests/
This is not a surprise. Once Caltech did it, you had to assume MIT would follow.
Personally, I think it is a terrible idea - there are woefully few objective data to determine admissions and every bit helps. Grades are not reliable except from a few high schools (and even then not 100%).
Any one attending these schools should really be getting 800s (or darn close) on the Math2 and another science exam. This is a factor that should be used to at least narrow down the applicants.
That being said, after the Harvard case it should be expected that colleges that want to use a more subjective, agenda driven admissions approach (call it sideways or backward or upside down) will move away from objective quantifiable measures making it much more difficult to question or judge admission decisions, and allowing them to more freely admit students that meet their nebulous (to students at least) criteria.
Putting on my most charitable hat here, I would like to think that MIT is being honest when it says that it would like applicants to focus on things that are more meaningful to them, rather than on SAT subject tests.
I think it is doing this more for the ultimately unsuccessful applicants. Over the years, I have run into a number of students who really expended tremendous amounts of energy chasing 750+ scores on M2 and a science, often achieving those scores. These kids generally did not wind up at MIT-caliber places.
On the other hand, I have seen just as many kids for whom the SAT subject tests are literally nothing - a few hours doing a few practice exams for math, maybe a few days skimming a prep book for, say, physics, and then 800s on both tests first time. One of those as a matter of fact will start at MIT next fall, and another is currently at CalTech.
More time to focus on ECs like math olympiads or science projects sounds great, but the reality is that the kids with solid achievements in those areas never spent any substantial time anyway preparing for their subject tests in the first place.
Gonna be easier for coaches to get the athletes they want past admissions. Watch out D3 athletics, MIT is gonna get a lot more competitive.
Many MIT coaches tend to not have much influence with admissions.
Regardless, I doubt SAT subject test scores were the deciding factor in many admission decisions.
People have to stop saying MIT coaches don’t have much influence with admissions. or MIT doesn’t recruit.
Being a recruited athlete helps for admissions. Period.
Being a recruited athlete for certain sports is a huge advantage for admissions. Period.
MIT is very Orwellian in that aspect - all sports are equal, but some are more equal.
This was not a surprise, but glad its finally happened.
@CAEengineer:
Can you help us understand how you arrived at the above assertions for MIT?
Thank you.
Yes, I knew a fairly average sort of kid who was recruited to play basketball for MIT. This kid was not a 1550/750+ sort. (I know for a fact his mathematics ability because my kid was in the same math class - mine was a very advanced 7th grader, the MIT kid was a 12th grader at the time.) The kid did not wind up finishing MIT. Just an anecdote, of course.
I have seen athletes with less than stellar records get into MIT - through multiple venues, including interviewing, knowing students personally, and what you can see on Naviance the great range of scores/gpa of admitted students. Since we know the students admitted - we know which ones are athletes and which are academic admits.
There are plenty of v. strong academic/EC athletes - that is not a problem if MIT wants to go that route and give them an edge What I object to (as an alum) are the numerous athletes who only have athletics with minimal ECS (b/c being a serious athlete consumes most of their time - not a dig, but reality), and OK scores and grades (on the MIT scale, not for everywhere - like below the 25 percentile) who are being admitted. It is esp. irksome when seeing really talented kids with the complete package from the same HS being denied during the same cycle.
In the end, MIT can craft any UG class it wants - like all the Ivies, Stanford, UMich, etc do, but MIT should be transparent and honest about admissions as it relates to athletes and generally.
Cornell Engineering also just dropped subject test requirement. Nor will they be considered for 2020 and 2021 admission cycles. https://admissions.cornell.edu/standardized-testing-requirements
Hopefully this will be the end of subject tests, not only not required, but not ‘recommended’, or ‘encouraged’, or considered anywhere.
As an alum, I think it’s a mistake to accept athletes who aren’t as qualified as the academic admits. I’m not sure why MIT is doing this. It’s not like anyone cares much about sports or the school makes money through tv rights. Very strong students are headed to Caltech because seats were given to D3 level athletes. It’s a pity actually.
I agree with all who have said that this is a poor choice and that we want MIT to really keep to their promises of not allowing athletic recruits to have different standards.
Definitely it is the case that kids who match well to MIT/Caltech will get those 800s without a lot of effort.
That said, it’s sometimes a scheduling headache to make sure that the kid had advanced science in time to get the science 800 by junior year, for the score to go on the application.
Both of my sons (who were admitted, including one just last week 
) had to do weird schedule crunching to get into AP Physics or AP Chemistry by junior year.
I think the mistake is this believing this is what’s happening.
It’s no different than any other extracurricular activity, skill, or interest. The athlete must first be a good fit for MIT, like any other student. Then if he or she ends up breaking a leg or decides to no longer play, they can still succeed at the school.
Coaches use those test scores to vet their recruits and decide who to support with admissions. Most recruits are told to get at least 750+ on all 3 tests, the higher the better obviously. Now they only need it on one, a helluva lot easier on the coaches to decide who to support. In the past, admissions would not admit athletes who couldn’t do the work. That’s gonna be a lot harder to determine now.
A student’s application to MIT should tell a consistant story of achievement. A good GPA is the best indicator within that story to determine future success. The subject tests seemed to me to be the least useful in telling that story. So, dropping the subject tests really won’t make much of a difference.
@CAEngineer I think a high reason why they removed it was because of availability for students. The closest testing center from my school is pretty far (multiple hours away) and our school has been cancelled until the end of the school year, so we can’t take these tests until summer, but where I am from, students often aren’t home for the summer, so they are kind of left with a disadvantage
MIT could have made subject tests optional and they could have put very little weight on subject test, but instead they decided subject tests were not worth the applicant’s time/energy to take or the admissions staff’s time to glance at.
Yep. Same as Cal Tech. Both schools cited the issue of unfair access as driving the change…not sure they really think they weren’t worth the applicant’s time. Some AOs definitely thought (and may still think) that these scores helped delineate between applicants.
In late 2018 one of Mudd’s AOs went to the mat at a counselor conference saying ‘we will never not require the Math 2 subject test’. About 15 months later (this Feb), Mudd dropped the subject test requirement. They have not said they will not consider the tests though…which is frustrating for applicants, parents, and counselors alike, as they decide whether or not the student should take the tests, if able to.
Come on, folks. this is pretty obvious. For most kids accepted to CalTech and MIT, the subject tests are so easy that they offer practically no valuable additional information as to the capability of the accepted students. Thus, they have basically no incremental value for the admissions process.
Nevertheless, there are certain applicants that the schools want to accept for institutional priority reasons who cannot score highly enough on the tests. Eliminating the subject test requirement removes inconvenient data points and makes the holistic process more subjective for those applicants.
Not dissimilar to the general trend of TO and reduced weighting on objective measures in all selective universities these days. Just my opinion.