4 ms·

MIT did this a few years ago, and their analysis of the benefits of standardized testing is worth a read: https://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/we-are-reinstat

by ubj 2y ago

MIT did this a few years ago, and their analysis of the benefits of standardized testing is worth a read: https://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/we-are-reinstating-our-sat-act-requirement-for-future-admissions-cycles/ https://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/we-are-reinstating-our...

ghaff 2y ago
Two main points: - If you don't hit some level of Math score, that's sort of a red flag that you'll struggle with at least calculus and physics right off the bat. - If you have strong SATs, that's also a flag that you may be worth a deeper look even if you don't have other things on your resume that jump out, possibly for socioeconomic reasons.
- sgift 2y ago
  For someone not from the US: From the second point I understand that the SAT is not the only thing used to decide who gets in? So, it's not "we have 100 slots this year, the 100 best get in"? What else is used?
  - ghaff 2y ago
    High school grades/class rank. And then (at least this is how MIT used to do it although I'm sure most schools have some variant of the process) you have all the qualitative stuff on the other axis: letters of recommendation, interview, high school activities, sports, other types of projects, etc. I expect very few schools just mechanically admit based on SATs.
    - Filligree 2y ago
      Sports? What does sports have to do with schooling?
      - ghaff 2y ago
        (Even leaving aside schools that are admitting athletes for their sports programs) they require hard work, dedication, teamwork, etc.
      - tekla 2y ago
        A liberal education involves physical health
      - HDThoreaun 2y ago
        The goal of elite university admissions is not to maximize academic success, it's to maximize career success and prestige. Organized athletics at the highest level require high levels of teamwork and grit which translate very well to the work force. Grit and teamwork might actually be the most important attributes for having a successful career so it really surprise me when people dont understand why athletes get some preference in admissions.
      - sn9 2y ago
        Sports are a means of attracting alumni dollars and/or accepting otherwise mediocre students who couldn't get in on merit, but have wealthy parents.
      - SJC_Hacker 2y ago
        Aside from scholarships for sufficiently talented, it certain places it sometimes viewed as demonstrating leadership and/or social skills. Especially if you have some type of leadership role (captain, etc.). And especially military academies.
  - the_snooze 2y ago
    >So, it's not "we have 100 slots this year, the 100 best get in"? If a university's mission goes beyond just collecting already-top-performing students from the best (usually wealthiest) school districts, you can't just do a straight rank on a single signal. There's a lot of variance in educational opportunity across the US, ranging from highly selective specialty public high schools [1], to places where they can only afford 4 days of schooling a week [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_High_School_for_Science_and_Technology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_High_School_f... [2] https://stateimpact.npr.org/oklahoma/2022/10/27/oklahoma-lawmakers-tried-to-limit-four-day-school-weeks-but-theyre-hanging-on-in-rural-communities/ https://stateimpact.npr.org/oklahoma/2022/10/27/oklahoma-law...
  - dayvid 2y ago
    I think each school has their own culture/brand they're going for and they want to find the best fit for that brand. Just having the best test takers doesn't match. Harvard probably wants a mix of people who have a history of going to Harvard, elites, with high performers and others. If it's only elites, then the academic quality goes down. Only best academic performers, elites will go to another school to call home, etc.
    - kelipso 2y ago
      elites == upper class, for those not from the US... Of course that being the reason test scores are considered primary in other countries and not the US. American universities have a need to recruit upper class students for various purposes including keeping the influence of the upper class on government, media, etc going.
  - dfxm12 2y ago
    Good schools get enough applicants such that the top X are more or less indistinguishable from one another via quantifiable metrics. It's hard to define the 100 "best" when you're looking >100 kids with the same scores. Harvard might not have this problem, but some, even some good, schools have to put some thought into if the student is actually going to accept the offer as well. Some states require a certain percent of students to be from the state in state funded schools.
  - HDThoreaun 2y ago
    > So, it's not "we have 100 slots this year, the 100 best get in"? I think most schools would claim it is that, they just reject that testing is the end all be all of who is the best. These schools are looking for the next generation of leaders, theres a lot that goes into being a leader that isnt counted on standardized tests. Standardized tests really just tell you who has the highest IQ. Useful, but it misses lots of other attributes.
  - cge 2y ago
    To add to the other answers: at top universities, you can also have very unusual applicants. At Caltech we'd sometimes have (standard age) freshman come in with research publications, for example. If you have the resources to review applicants individually, sometimes there are people who clearly stand out for reasons unrelated to test scores. I expect that in most cases, if they've taken tests, they have good scores, and it can make sense to generally have a threshold, but if you simply rank by top scores they are likely not the absolute best, as they would have been spending more time and attention on things other than studying for them.
    - pxx 2y ago
      It's actually super common to have research publications on undergrad applications now, so much so that I've heard that having such a publication is "table stakes" to be competitive at top schools. Simultaneously, I've also heard that it's easier to get your name on a paper as a high schooler than as an undergrad working in the same lab. Some of this is because professors are incentivized to put random high schoolers on their papers -- when applying for grants, they're often asked what K-12 outreach they've done (https://new.nsf.gov/funding/learn/broader-impacts https://new.nsf.gov/funding/learn/broader-impacts). "Look at this paper where there's a random high schooler on it" checks the box if a bit inappropriately. Incentives at work!
      - SJC_Hacker 2y ago
        That funny, at the time I left academia, I found almost the entire opposite attitude. The faculty openly lobbied against having high school and sometimes even undergrads in the lab. This was in fairly heavy duty experimental life sciences, where we did small animal research, so I guess it depends on field/university/department. But in my lab at least, we did have the odd high schooler/undergrad, whom I had a part in mentoring. For the high schoolers, my PI at least privately admitted it was because their parents had "means" and it was about at least the potential for grant money.
  - listenallyall 2y ago
    Multiple components are considered: SAT scores, high school grades, application essay questions, in-person interview (optional, but suggested), participation in extracurricular activities, recommendations from former teachers or influential people, and sometimes, a specific, highly-desired skill or talent (usually athletics, music, arts)
fsckboy 2y ago
back in the late 80s MIT changed their admissions criteria to drastically increase the number of women in incoming classes. if they don't unwind back to there, they aren't really reviewing the experiments they've conducted. (perhaps in today's world, we'd see more women naturally; but the gender imbalance in the STEM workforce suggests that there is something to look at, at least if you believe in science. this stuff is important and there should be transparency.)
- ghaff 2y ago
  In part, MIT increasingly emphasized fields beyond straight engineering (and CS that didn't involve hardware was becoming more important as well). But, yes, MIT definitely tilted towards having more more women (which was about 1:7 in the late 70s) and changed significantly over the next couple of decades.
zugi 2y ago
> When we initially suspended our testing requirement due to the disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic I was about to call them out on this, since most institutions were using loosely supported discrimination claims to justify eliminating test scores. But reading MIT's announcement at the time (https://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/we-are-suspending-our-sat-act-requirement-for-the-2020-2021-application-cycle/ https://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/we-are-suspending-our-...), it really was explained solely in terms of COVID, and even at that time they reiterated that their own studies had shown how valuable test scores were. MIT switched back to using test scores just 2 years later. On the other hand, Harvard announced up front that they'd stop using tests scores for 4 years, and included the standard baseless claims that it would aid diversity. Some at Harvard had been clamoring against test scores for many years, so COVID just offered the excuse they needed. I suppose it is to Harvard's credit that they at least saw how wrong they were after the fact. But it's a shame they had to hide behind chalking it up to "new research" when the data had been clear all along to those willing to address it honestly.

by ubj 2y ago

ghaff 2y ago

Two main points: - If you don't hit some level of Math score, that's sort of a red flag that you'll struggle with at least calculus and physics right off the bat. - If you have strong SATs, that's also a flag that you may be worth a deeper look even if you don't have other things on your resume that jump out, possibly for socioeconomic reasons.

sgift 2y ago
For someone not from the US: From the second point I understand that the SAT is not the only thing used to decide who gets in? So, it's not "we have 100 slots this year, the 100 best get in"? What else is used?
- ghaff 2y ago
  High school grades/class rank. And then (at least this is how MIT used to do it although I'm sure most schools have some variant of the process) you have all the qualitative stuff on the other axis: letters of recommendation, interview, high school activities, sports, other types of projects, etc. I expect very few schools just mechanically admit based on SATs.
  - Filligree 2y ago
    Sports? What does sports have to do with schooling?
    - ghaff 2y ago
      (Even leaving aside schools that are admitting athletes for their sports programs) they require hard work, dedication, teamwork, etc.
    - tekla 2y ago
      A liberal education involves physical health
    - HDThoreaun 2y ago
      The goal of elite university admissions is not to maximize academic success, it's to maximize career success and prestige. Organized athletics at the highest level require high levels of teamwork and grit which translate very well to the work force. Grit and teamwork might actually be the most important attributes for having a successful career so it really surprise me when people dont understand why athletes get some preference in admissions.
    - sn9 2y ago
      Sports are a means of attracting alumni dollars and/or accepting otherwise mediocre students who couldn't get in on merit, but have wealthy parents.
    - SJC_Hacker 2y ago
      Aside from scholarships for sufficiently talented, it certain places it sometimes viewed as demonstrating leadership and/or social skills. Especially if you have some type of leadership role (captain, etc.). And especially military academies.
- the_snooze 2y ago
  >So, it's not "we have 100 slots this year, the 100 best get in"? If a university's mission goes beyond just collecting already-top-performing students from the best (usually wealthiest) school districts, you can't just do a straight rank on a single signal. There's a lot of variance in educational opportunity across the US, ranging from highly selective specialty public high schools [1], to places where they can only afford 4 days of schooling a week [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_High_School_for_Science_and_Technology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_High_School_f... [2] https://stateimpact.npr.org/oklahoma/2022/10/27/oklahoma-lawmakers-tried-to-limit-four-day-school-weeks-but-theyre-hanging-on-in-rural-communities/ https://stateimpact.npr.org/oklahoma/2022/10/27/oklahoma-law...
- dayvid 2y ago
  I think each school has their own culture/brand they're going for and they want to find the best fit for that brand. Just having the best test takers doesn't match. Harvard probably wants a mix of people who have a history of going to Harvard, elites, with high performers and others. If it's only elites, then the academic quality goes down. Only best academic performers, elites will go to another school to call home, etc.
  - kelipso 2y ago
    elites == upper class, for those not from the US... Of course that being the reason test scores are considered primary in other countries and not the US. American universities have a need to recruit upper class students for various purposes including keeping the influence of the upper class on government, media, etc going.
- dfxm12 2y ago
  Good schools get enough applicants such that the top X are more or less indistinguishable from one another via quantifiable metrics. It's hard to define the 100 "best" when you're looking >100 kids with the same scores. Harvard might not have this problem, but some, even some good, schools have to put some thought into if the student is actually going to accept the offer as well. Some states require a certain percent of students to be from the state in state funded schools.
- HDThoreaun 2y ago
  > So, it's not "we have 100 slots this year, the 100 best get in"? I think most schools would claim it is that, they just reject that testing is the end all be all of who is the best. These schools are looking for the next generation of leaders, theres a lot that goes into being a leader that isnt counted on standardized tests. Standardized tests really just tell you who has the highest IQ. Useful, but it misses lots of other attributes.
- cge 2y ago
  To add to the other answers: at top universities, you can also have very unusual applicants. At Caltech we'd sometimes have (standard age) freshman come in with research publications, for example. If you have the resources to review applicants individually, sometimes there are people who clearly stand out for reasons unrelated to test scores. I expect that in most cases, if they've taken tests, they have good scores, and it can make sense to generally have a threshold, but if you simply rank by top scores they are likely not the absolute best, as they would have been spending more time and attention on things other than studying for them.
  - pxx 2y ago
    It's actually super common to have research publications on undergrad applications now, so much so that I've heard that having such a publication is "table stakes" to be competitive at top schools. Simultaneously, I've also heard that it's easier to get your name on a paper as a high schooler than as an undergrad working in the same lab. Some of this is because professors are incentivized to put random high schoolers on their papers -- when applying for grants, they're often asked what K-12 outreach they've done (https://new.nsf.gov/funding/learn/broader-impacts https://new.nsf.gov/funding/learn/broader-impacts). "Look at this paper where there's a random high schooler on it" checks the box if a bit inappropriately. Incentives at work!
    - SJC_Hacker 2y ago
      That funny, at the time I left academia, I found almost the entire opposite attitude. The faculty openly lobbied against having high school and sometimes even undergrads in the lab. This was in fairly heavy duty experimental life sciences, where we did small animal research, so I guess it depends on field/university/department. But in my lab at least, we did have the odd high schooler/undergrad, whom I had a part in mentoring. For the high schoolers, my PI at least privately admitted it was because their parents had "means" and it was about at least the potential for grant money.
- listenallyall 2y ago
  Multiple components are considered: SAT scores, high school grades, application essay questions, in-person interview (optional, but suggested), participation in extracurricular activities, recommendations from former teachers or influential people, and sometimes, a specific, highly-desired skill or talent (usually athletics, music, arts)

fsckboy 2y ago

back in the late 80s MIT changed their admissions criteria to drastically increase the number of women in incoming classes. if they don't unwind back to there, they aren't really reviewing the experiments they've conducted. (perhaps in today's world, we'd see more women naturally; but the gender imbalance in the STEM workforce suggests that there is something to look at, at least if you believe in science. this stuff is important and there should be transparency.)

ghaff 2y ago
In part, MIT increasingly emphasized fields beyond straight engineering (and CS that didn't involve hardware was becoming more important as well). But, yes, MIT definitely tilted towards having more more women (which was about 1:7 in the late 70s) and changed significantly over the next couple of decades.

zugi 2y ago

> When we initially suspended our testing requirement due to the disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic I was about to call them out on this, since most institutions were using loosely supported discrimination claims to justify eliminating test scores. But reading MIT's announcement at the time (https://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/we-are-suspending-our-sat-act-requirement-for-the-2020-2021-application-cycle/ https://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/we-are-suspending-our-...), it really was explained solely in terms of COVID, and even at that time they reiterated that their own studies had shown how valuable test scores were. MIT switched back to using test scores just 2 years later. On the other hand, Harvard announced up front that they'd stop using tests scores for 4 years, and included the standard baseless claims that it would aid diversity. Some at Harvard had been clamoring against test scores for many years, so COVID just offered the excuse they needed. I suppose it is to Harvard's credit that they at least saw how wrong they were after the fact. But it's a shame they had to hide behind chalking it up to "new research" when the data had been clear all along to those willing to address it honestly.