Stanford, Harvard, Dartmouth, Yale, Penn, Brown, CalTech, JHU, and UT-Austin to Require Standardized Testing for Admissions

Applying to College
1465

The whole academic section is short enough to quote it all:

Previous studies at Cornell and elsewhere have found that SAT scores are significant predictors of first-year GPAs.

The vast majority of students who have matriculated at Cornell—with or without known test scores—have performed well here. However, those who were admitted without test scores tended to have somewhat weaker semester GPAs, were more likely to fall out of “good academic standing,”7

7To maintain good academic standing, a student must successfully complete at least 12 academic credits and have a GPA of at least 2.0 each semester.

and were less likely to re-enroll semester after semester. These patterns hold true holding constant students’ high school GPAs as well as other personal and high school attributes.

There is no evidence that these differences have diminished across cohorts of matriculants; the gap in first semester GPA has remained consistent for all three years of new admits.

The association with GPA may be attenuating somewhat as students accumulate more semesters of experience at the university. That is, is the gap is smaller in the third semester than it is after the first semester. This is encouraging for those students who have persisted, but the robust evidence of increased rates of academic struggle and attrition remains a concern.

The analyses of outcomes are consistent in suggesting that when admissions officers have test scores available to them as additional information in a holistic admissions process, they are able to use them in a way that supports positive outcomes for Cornell students.

Personally, I’d say that is not really a major departure from the findings of previous studies. I’d also say, like another poster implied, that they didn’t really give us enough details about their controls and the results of their controlled analysis to assess issues like whether or not scores are as relevant for every different type of applicant (which was not the case given the more detailed information released by Dartmouth, as with them it depended on things like student SES and high school resource levels).

1 Like
1466

They did say:

These patterns hold true holding constant students’ high school GPAs as well as other personal and high school attributes.

Unless you think they are being deliberately misleading this should satisfy you.

1467

Well, since I referenced details and not just a high-level summary without details, it in fact did not satisfy my interest in details.

That said, of course I don’t think Cornell is being misleading. This was an extremely short, executive-summary-style white paper. In that context, I would not necessarily expect a lot of details of the type I would find interesting.

1468

You can get a good look at a T-bone steak….

1469

You’re drivin’ along, la-de-da, woo. All of a sudden there’s a truck tire in the middle of the road. And you hit the brakes. EEEEEEEEE! Whoa, that was close. Ha-ha. Now let’s see what happens when you’re driving with the “other guy’s” brake pads. You’re drivin’ along, you’re drivin’ along, the kids start shouting from the back seat, “I gotta go to the bathroom, Daddy!” “Not now, damn it!” Truck tire. EEEEEEEE! I CAN’T STOP! There’s a cliff! AAAAAHH! And your family’s screaming,

[sets car on fire]

“Oh my God, we’re burning alive!” “No! I can’t feel my legs!” Here comes the meat wagon. And the medic gets out and says, “Oh my God”. New guy’s around the corner puking his guts out.

All because you want to save a couple extra pennies.

4 Likes
1470

Nope!

1471

My take is that Chetty has already informed us what the Ivy+ schools are seeing although they gave us the info in aggregate (ie SATs are quite useful for the group). For the most part the individual members’ data should reveal similar conclusions. It’s just a matter of time for them to reveal them.

Similarly, all the previous work from Chetty, Harvard, Dartmouth, Brown, Yale, etc provide the backdrop of meaningful analyses, and hence any effort in this space should reflect similar methodologies re: controls and such given that they are available.

1 Like
1472

I am most interested in the fact that Cornell extended test optional to 2025 applicants on February 9; at which time Dartmouth was the only Ivy going back to test required. Now, only a little more than two months later, they are changing to test recommended for next year before switching to test required. It seems they were more influenced by Harvard and Yale’s actions than the data.

2 Likes
1473

To be fair, the white paper is dated April 2024.

That said, I completely believe there is a competitive aspect to all this which is likely putting pressure on these colleges to compete more effectively for what they see as relatively scarce students.

2 Likes
1474

I think they did the study knowing the desired outcome. Had the others not switched, they seemed content to stay the course with test optional, at least in the Fe. 9 announcement.

1 Like
1475

It may also be an opposite effect. Schools felt that scores were useful but were afraid to be less competitive attracting students if they dropped TO, but once others dropped TO, they would be safely back in the herd to be test required.

14 Likes
1476

That’s a good point.

1477

Again, what do they mean by “tended to have somewhat weaker semester GPAs”. Does that mean 3.1 versus 3.9, or 3.45 versus 3.5? What does "more likely to fall out of ‘good academic standing,’” means? 15% versus 1% or 3% versus 2%?

As for “less likely to re-enroll semester after semester”, by how much?

Did they control for income group? Low income students are always more likely not to re-enroll semester after semester, and students coming from high schools tend to do worse academically, especially in their first year. This is regardless of whether they submitted their tests.

Low income and first gen kid were more likely to apply TO than higher income kids and kids whose parents went to college. They are also more likely to not do well academically and to drop out, but that is because of income-related issues, not because they did not do well on SATs.

They seem reluctant to share the data that will tell us what is actually going on, so I can only conclude that they are trying to control the narrative, which makes me highly skeptical about their supposed reasoning.

It also seems to me that they are trying to imply that going TO has caused the GPAs to drop and caused an increase in dropout rate, without explicitly making this claim. Of course, if they explicitly made this claim, they would have to support it with facts, and I’m fairly certain that they do not have the data to back up such a claim.

So they give vague comments that TO students “have a somewhat weaker first year GPA”, and "were more likely to fall out of ‘good academic standing,’”, and “were less likely to re-enroll semester after semester” (italics are mine).

Makes it sound as though, ever since Cornell went TO, there has been a problem of crashing GPAs, masses of student who fall out of “good academic standing”, and students are dropping out right and left. Now only Reinstating The SAT Will Save Academics At Cornell.

But they avoid actually saying this.

One thing is clear from what they did share, and that is that the claim that “SAT scores help low income kids be accepted to 'Elite” colleges" is thoroughly and totally debunked. If it were true, we would have seen a drop in the percent of low income kids at Cornell (and other “elite” colleges) when the went TO. However, that hasn’t happened. Not once. The percent of low income kids either stayed the same or went up (somewhat).

So I think that it is time that we laid THAT particular claim to rest.

1478

Many of your posts were on percentage of low-income kids admitted to “elite” colleges. I understand your desire to see a more equitable society. But have you considered the ‘who’ among these low-income kids that get accepted?

Suppose there are two such kids, A and B, who grew up in poverty, go to poorly-resourced high schools in different parts of the country, and have comparable GPAs, course rigor, ECs, and essays. Suppose A has better basic reading and math skills than B and gets a 1240 in the SAT whereas B gets a a 980.

For simplicity let’s assume that exactly one of them is admitted. With TO, there are 4 scenarios. The AOs see (1) 1240 vs 980, (2) 1240 vs N/A, (3) N/A vs 980, or (4) N/A vs N/A. In scenarios (1) and (2), A likely has a higher probability than B to get accepted. It is harder to say what will happen in scenario (3). And it is most likely 50-50 in scenario (4).

With test required, there are also 4 scenarios. The AOs see (5) 1240 vs 980, (6) 1240 vs DNA (did not apply), (7) DNA vs 980, or (8) DNA vs DNA. In scenario (5), as before A likely has a higher probability than B to get accepted. In scenario (6), A gets in. In scenario (7), B gets in. Scenario (8) is not allowed under the “exactly one gets in” assumption.

From an elite school’s point of view, it has a higher probability of admitting A, a student with better basic reading and math skills, by going test required because it avoids scenario (4) and because scenarios (3) and (7) more or less cancel each other likelihood-wise.

From A’s point of view, they have a higher probability of getting admitted with test required for similar reasons. From B’s point of view, TO would be better because they get to exploit the lack of one data point (SAT) in their application.

So at the end of the day, probabilistically both the elite school and A win, while B loses, with test required. The percentage of low-income kids admitted to “elite” colleges might not have changed, but the basic reading and math skills of those admitted might have gotten a bit better.

6 Likes
1479

Determining the effects of SAT requirements based on hypothetical scenarios with hypothetical applicants is not a good idea. Determining the effects of SAT requirements based on hypothetical scenarios in which both the applicants are hypothetical and the AOs are hypothetical is even a worse idea. Determining the effects of SAT requirements based on hypothetical scenarios in which the applicants are hypothetical, the AOs are hypothetical, and the decisions that the AOs make are also hypothetical is the worst idea of all.

After all, I can do the same thing.

Suppose there are two kids, A and B, of whom A grew up in poverty, and B grew up in a wealthy family. A attends a moderately-resourced high school and B attends a well-resourced high school. They have comparable GPAs, the max course rigor, solid ECs, and essays. Suppose A has better basic reading and math skills than B, but a less well set up home life, and only takes the SAT once and gets a 1410, while B has a room to themselves, has been practicing SAT tests since freshman year, and takes three tests, with the superscore of 1480.

For simplicity let’s assume that exactly one of them is admitted. With TO, there are 4 scenarios. The AOs see (1) 1410 vs 1480, (2) 1410 vs N/A, (3) N/A vs 1480, or (4) N/A vs N/A. In scenarios only in (2) does A likely has a higher probability than B to get accepted. In (1) and (3), B is more likely to be admitted. And it is most likely 50-50 in scenario (4).

With test required, there are also 4 scenarios. The AOs see (5) 1410 vs 1480, (6) 1410 vs DNA (did not apply), (7) DNA vs 1480, or (8) DNA vs DNA. In scenario (5), as before, B is likely has a higher probability than A to get accepted. In scenario (6), A gets in. In scenarios (5) and (7), B gets in. Scenario (8) is not allowed under the “exactly one gets in” assumption.

From an elite school’s point of view, it has a higher probability of admitting B, a student with more family wealth, by going test required because it avoids all scenarios in which A is more likely to be admitted, except (6).

From A’s point of view, they have a lower probability of getting admitted with test required. From B’s point of view, TO would be worse because their SES will allow them to get higher SAT scores. However, even in TO, B has more scenarios in which they are accepted.

It will take anybody with a bit of knowledge of admissions processes and policies no more than 5 minutes to poke my hypothetical story so full of holes that I could use it to strain pasta. I’m just showing how easy it is to hypothize a scenario which supports the anti-SAT opinions.

1480

I think that we may be taking this off on too much of a tangent… We can take this to DM if you want, but I think that we have both have pretty much voiced our opinions.

1482

Here is Caltech’s faculty petition which led to the reinstatement of SAT/ACT requirement in admission:

6 Likes
1483

"Furthermore, unprepared students struggle here even though they would have thrived at other top schools like Stanford or Harvard. "

Ouch!

3 Likes
1484

deleted

1485

Sure. You don’t need to be great at Math if you don’t have a Math requirement. It’s not like they are saying “thrive at Stanford as a Physics major” or whatever.

1 Like