<p>Let’s remember how Smith got there. Ruth Simmons felt the result of using SAT scores was driving excellent low-income and minority candidates away from Smith, but she couldn’t prove. She created a committee of the admissions office, institutional research, faculty, and students to study two questions: 1) were the SAT scores of students attending a good predictor of college performance at Smith, and 2) did the use of SAT scores work against admission of low-income, minority applicants. They studied the question for two-and-a-half years, and found: 1) SAT scores of attending students were not a good predictor of college performance at Smith; and 2) the scores did work against admission of low-income, minority applicants. Simmons didn’t stay around to see the implementation of SAT-optional polices which, coupled with new recruitment efforts, resulted in the early 2000s of Smith having the largest percentage of Pell grant recipients of any prestige private liberal arts college in the country. It required a very large financial commitment on the part of the college. So the SAT-optional policy has to be seen in this larger context.</p>
<p>“All women’s colleges have lower scores, simply because half the usual applicant pool is ineligible.”</p>
<p>And half of the remaining won;t apply to a women’s college. And half of those are looking for a liberal arts college, and will choose a coed one over a women’s one if they can. So the pool is really about 1/8th the size.</p>