But that’s not really MIT. MIT has exams, sure, but is much more project-focused than exam-focused. It requires (or did for me anyway) a lab class outside your major. It requires for almost all majors a BS (OK, SB because its MIT) thesis. It strongly encourages research for credit.
I suspect the threshold is soft: i.e. it’s not a 750 you’re in and a 749 you’re out. It’s more likely that the lower the score, the more it needs to be compensated for by other elements in the application. They want to know if you can handle the work - the less evidence for that in the ACT/SAT, the more it needs to be demonstrated elsewhere.
2 Likes
This is great news, and I certainly hope others follow suit. MIT did strongly encourage scores the last 2 years, as do a few other top schools if you delve into their exact wording, so there may be some who will also decide the test scores are needed.
1 Like
Do we know while they were TO what % of the class was admitted without scores ?
And what the acceptance rates were TO vs bin TO ?
Just curious…are you an Eli?
I am only familiar with the SAT and, compared to other standardized tests out there (including outside the US), it is not a particularly difficult test (I believe your DD is considering Oxbridge, which require much more challenging tests).
Beyond being an objective measure to compare applicants, I see it as a way to ensure that students have acquired a foundational understanding of math and English and are able to apply logical reasoning adequately. As I mentioned elsewhere previously, if a student has solid grounding in core academic subjects during HS, it is not that difficult to do well on the SAT.
What I find most interesting/notable about MIT’s reinstatement of SAT/ACT requirements is its belief that it can help disadvantaged students:
“…what we have found is that the way we use the SAT/ACT increases access to MIT for students from these groups relative to other things we can consider. The reason for this is that educational inequality impacts all aspects of a prospective student’s preparation and application, not just test-taking. As I wrote, low-income students, underrepresented students of color, and other disadvantaged populations often do not attend schools that offer advanced coursework (and if they do, they are less likely to be able to take it). They often cannot afford expensive enrichment opportunities, cannot expect lengthy letters of recommendation from their overburdened teachers, or cannot otherwise benefit from this kind of educational capital.”
I’ve also wondered about this and floated this idea but the push back (reasonably) was that it might be challenging to administer such a test sufficiently broadly (particularly given that even AP courses are not universally offered).
I find the reasoning surprisingly weak for what I expect of MIT. If disadvantaged students need test scores to be recognized, then why does test optional (rather than test blind) prevent prevent high scoring disadvantaged students from having their high scores be considered as part of the application? Students have the option to submit scores at a test optional college, and students who score higher tend to choose that option. I suppose a student might not be aware that their score is high enough to be a great asset to their application. If this was a major issue, I’d expect could be largely improved by more detailed guidelines about who should submit scores on the website
Tests can theoretically help both advantaged and disadvantaged students, and they do help certain particular students in both groups be admitted who would otherwise be rejected, had they not submitted scores. However, on average such tests tend to be a strong point of the application for advantaged students and a weak point for disadvantaged students.
Test optional (not blind) adds the option to not submit scores rather than prevents students from having their scores considered, and students who are admitted by that option to not submit scores are more likely to be disadvantaged. Without exception, every college that I am aware of that has compared the rate of disadvantaged students among test submitter admits to test optional admits found that disadvantaged students are overrerpresnted among test optional admits and underrepresented among test submitter admits. I’d be very surprised if MIT was different.
If going test optional was hurting disadvantaged students on average at MIT or preventing MIT from admitting disadvantaged students on average, then one might expect that to be reflected by seeing fewer disadvantaged students in MIT’s incoming class. However, this doesn’t appear to have happened. Some specific numbers are below comparing MIT’s fall 2019 and fall 2020 entering classes. This could also partially may partially be design and be influenced by many factors besides just test scores. For example, a college may want to have roughly x% of the class be URMs and choose the admits to make that happen, regardless of test optional/required.
2019 (test required) – 19% Pell, 63% received FA, 66 Black
2020 (test optional) – 20% Pell, 65% received FA, 80 Black
This is a separate issue as to whether test optional is good/bad, or what MIT should do as part of their policy. It’s my understanding that MIT chose to go test optional in 2020 primarily due to many students not being able to safely and easily take tests during the COVID-19 pandemic. MIT said they planned to reinstate tests when students could safely take tests and now have done so.
On the linked page MIT writes that , “we do not consider an applicant’s scores at all beyond the point where preparedness has been established as part of a multifactor analysis” and elsewhere imply that that “point” may be towards the bottom of the score range among the self-selecting applicant pool (one example is at The Difficulty With Data | MIT Admissions ), suggesting they may be using scores more as more of a basic filter for red flags. For example, if a kid has 600 math, that may suggest he/she has not adequately mastered basic algebra/geometry and could be a red flag for succeeding at MIT. However, if a kid has 750 math that may instead indicate the student made ~3 careless errors on simple algebra/geometry multiple choice questions that have little relationship to the type of math that a student would do at MIT.
I’m sure many colleges share MIT’s opinion, but many colleges also do not, including some tech type colleges. For example, MIT’s Boston area neighbor Worcester Polytechnic Institute went test optional ~15 years ago well before COVID, and recently switched to test blind. WPI’s claims in published statements about benefits of testing at a tech college are very different from MIT’s. One of MIT’s most similar peers – Caltech – chose to go test blind during COVID rather than optional and recently made the decision to extend their test blind policy another year,
4 Likes
It would be interesting to know if MIT, and other rigorous uni’s, found significant issues over the past few test optional years with the math preparedness of admitted students. Although I am surprised that the SAT/ACT would show much for the level one thinks is required at MIT.
As mentioned above, the level of grade inflation at high schools would appear to be increasing each year so perhaps this helps confirm GPAs? I am surprised that ACT scores are not typically considered as we know quite a few kids with As in an AP course that scored 1-2 on the AP exam.
1 Like
Caltech announced, and then extended, its moratorium on testing because of, like MIT, students’ access to testing. It went directly to a test blind (not test optional) policy because it believes it’s unfair to treat applicants with access differently from those without. Its core belief that no one should have an unfair advantage over anyone else underlies everything it does. Unless access remains an issue, I expect Caltech will also lift its moratorium.
1 Like
I am interested to hear what California residents are experiencing with regard to test access. There are reports that public high schools aren’t currently and may not offer testing at the level they did pre-pandemic because the UCs/CSUs are now test blind. Not to mention it is still difficult for many HSs to staff tests with security and proctors.
What are you Cali people hearing/experiencing? @ucbalumnus @sushiritto @eyemgh @NateandAllisMom @Data10
For all the stats and analysis discussed here, seems to me that a very large forest is being missed amongst the trees. From the Globe:
“MIT said last year that 33,240 students applied to join the class of 2025, an increase of 66% over the previous year.”
3 Likes
MIT is the outlier. They are bringing back an indicator that was crucial to predicting whether applicants could survive at their school. AP’s and rigor can only go so far in assessing mathematical ability.
As for the others-test optional is most definitely here to stay:
- it boosts applications
- it reduces admit rate (based on above)
- it boosts average SAT’s (low scorers don’t submit)
All of these contribute to rankings. A huge win for the school.
At the same time, it gives them the side door they so desperately need to admit marginally qualified full payers without hurting their incoming students stats.
3 Likes
Number of applications and admit rate are not part of USNWR’s ranking methodology.
Are you talking about MIT here? MIT is need blind.
2 Likes
Admit rate may not be a specific input into rankings- honestly I’ve lost track of what is. But low admit rates have a VERY dear place in the hearts of 17 year olds. They now think Northeastern is on par with Northwestern. Either way- ALL schools seek low admit rates and crow about them incessantly. Beyond 25/75%ile SAT, it is the second most quoted statistic.
My comment regarding merit was descriptive of the tons of schools that are outside the T20 and looking in. They have paid up handsomely for high stat kids to move their way up the charts, and it has been an expensive strategy. Test optional gives them a way to balance budgets better without sacrificing admitted students stats.
Fairer is always elusive and on CC often drifts into the same arguments.
Frankly the SAT/ACT doesn’t go far enough for schools like MIT. They would need a test with a longer/higher curve.
Would having a more difficult test for MIT/Caltech and a few others work? It would for me and my kids. But I think the backlash you would see would be extreme and it would be unlikely to implement. MIT already uses other criteria to measure their candidates. Measures which are higher level than an SAT/ACT.
2 Likes
We’re not in CA. Our son went to a CA school from OOS.
I didn’t read the whole thread and suspect some of what I’ll say is regurgitation.
I think testing might be helpful, because it adds another data point to help differentiate inflated GPAs.
It is a coachable skill, either on one’s own time or with paid prep. Either way, it can negatively impact some disadvantaged students, either through lack of access to coaching or lack of time to dedicate to prep.
The notion that specific scores can be compared head to head, at least in the past, has been wrong. I don’t know how it operates now after it converted back to 1600, but when my son took it in 2014, missing a single math question could result in a score anywhere between 760 and 800.
Lastly, the notion that the SAT math section tests preparedness for MIT math is patently silly. It doesn’t test any higher level math. In fact, some students who are phenomenal at higher math have to prep to become fast again at concepts they’ve long abandoned.
TL;DR: It’s probably helpful in the current context of admissions, but not without significant flaws.
1 Like
It’s an interesting phenomenon that we rather dumb down standards than to lift them.
2 Likes
I highly, highly doubt that MIT is basing its admissions requirements on what would result in the least amount if backlash from John Q Public.
2 Likes
That’s based on a misplaced notion that MIT is some sort of golden ticket. It’s not. It’s certainly a good school, but for most majors, it has many peers in regards to placement and career outcomes.