>> The decision comes after officials found that the scores were the single best predictor of students’ academic performance and that not considering them could

>> The decision comes after officials found that the scores were the single best predictor of students’ academic performance and that not considering them could be a disadvantage for those who have already faced daunting challenges. > Neither half of this sentence is surprising. Some people love to hate on standardized testing, despite it having been repeatedly shown to have high predictive capability. What's surprising is what's not in the sentence. How could an Ivy League school's administrators have not figured that out before the policy change? What actually caused the policy reversion, because it wasn't the sudden discovery of obvious facts? How much of a black eye is this for Yale's reputation? They're clearly playing a game of nobody being responsible . . . because who could have known! That indicates that it's not nothing. What's the impact of this? These are also some questions an actual journalist should have been asking. I guess we don't have those anymore, though. Does "access journalism" extend beyond politics to academic administrators now? H.L. Mencken spins in his grave.