New Study of SAT-Optional Policies

[MarathonMan88]

<p>New Study released on SAT-optional Policies and Diversity</p>

<p>

Using the actual admissions patterns for these colleges, the scholars then ran statistical models showing the impact of either going SAT-optional or adopting what they called the “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach in which a college says that it won’t look at standardized test scores.</p>

<p>These models suggest that any move away from the SAT or ACT in competitive colleges results in significant gains in ethnic and economic diversity. But the gains are greater for colleges that drop testing entirely, as opposed to just making it optional. (To date, only one institution – Sarah Lawrence College – has taken that step.)</p>

<p>In terms of other measures of academic competitiveness, the study found that going SAT optional would result in classes of students with higher [high school] grade point averages. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=15[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=15&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Not much new here except the study of test-blind policies. Reading the article, though, made me aware of something I hadn’t thought of before: Most studies that are theoretical, like this one, seem to assume that admissions models wouldn’t change under SAT-optional policies. In the real world, selective schools that could no longer rely on having standardized test scores would probably place more emphasis on transcript rigor (like the # of AP and IB courses) and the reputation of the HS, factors that would disproportionately disadvantage minorities and low-income kids. These studies also seem to assume that there are no financial constraints on admitting more URM or low-income students. It’s really hard to tell if these projections would hold up if they took such factors into account.</p>