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

Applying to College
1650

Trying to stick to the topic of how different colleges actually use standardized testing–there are in fact a variety of colleges that use standardized testing more or less in a context-free way when determining admissions. For that matter, they may look at grades in a similar way, at least subject to certain curriculum requirements. And they may even have merit available on similar context-free grounds.

Iowa, Iowa State, and Northern Iowa are good examples. They use something called the Regent Admissions Index:

https://www.iowaregents.edu/institutions/higher-education-links/regent-admission-index

The RAI formula uses 3 x ACT as an input, and they publish an equivalency chart for SAT scores:

https://www.iowaregents.edu/institutions/higher-education-links/regent-admission-index/rai-info#test-score

Then if you have a high enough RAI, you are an auto admit. This can vary by program. At Iowa, say, for the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, you need an RAI of 245+ if you are an Iowa resident, 255+ OOS. For Iowa’s College of Engineering, everyone needs a 265+. And so on.

So if that is closer to your ideal, you could choose one of those universities.

But of course some people want to be able to choose a Stanford, Harvard, Dartmouth, Yale, Brown, or so on, versus an Iowa or Iowa State. But then some of them think it is unfair that those universities may not choose THEM the way Iowa or Iowa State chooses students.

There is no real point debating concepts of fairness, but I will just observe I think as a factual matter, it is not a coincidence that very wealthy private universities tend not to have such context-free and formulaic admissions, usually it is only state universities. Again, I think that is true because among other reasons, how those very wealthy private institutions do admissions is an integral part of how they became so wealthy in the first place, and how they intend to stay so wealthy for the indefinite future.

And again, you do not have to like any of that. But I always think it is odd to simultaneously have a very strong preference for one of these very wealthy private institutions over a public institution, and then to complain it is unfair they act like one in every way, including admissions. It is really a package deal.

On the other hand, if you do not like how your own state universities do admissions, that is a legitimate issue for voters in those states. That is a political issue and so not appropriate for discussion here, but I am sure there are forums where it would be appropriate to discuss such issues in your state.

Private institutions, though? For the most part, it is a take it or leave it sort of deal, with the exception of something that would actually be illegal.

2 Likes
1651

By the way, I thought I might note that I stopped reciting the list from the current title of this thread at Brown, because CalTech to my knowledge is actually a different situation. I don’t think they are quite as formulaic as Iowa State, say. But my understanding is they are generally way less contextual/holistic in admissions than the colleges that precede them in the title list, including specifically as applied to what they are looking for in terms of academic qualifications.

So CalTech is another option for the people who have that sort of vision of “fair” college admissions. But it is also a small, niche school. Which again I would suggest is not a coincidence, that the only reason it is a somewhat exception to the normal admissions practices of very wealthy colleges is that it is an exception in so many other ways as well, including size and focus.

1652

Re: Caltech

Caltech admission is holistic, but with a much greater emphasis on academic strength than elsewhere in order for students to be able to handle the much higher minimum rigor of the Caltech course work compared to that elsewhere.

Non-holistic measures are not sufficient to determine the level of academic strength that Caltech looks for.

1 Like
1653

I guess it depends on your definitions.

The way some people use “holistic”, they mean putting at least roughly equal weight on non-academic factors. Of course at the most selective colleges, this means needing to have at least very good academic credentials AND very good non-academic attributes (by that college’s standards). But if a college puts a lot more weight on academic credentials as a group, some people might consider that college “less holistic” than a college that sees them as equivalently important.

And then there is the contextual issue. I could be wrong, but my understanding is Caltech is just a lot less likely to make exceptions from their normal transcript and (re-established) test score standards based on contextual factors. They then may look for even MORE markers of specific academic attributes, but again my understanding is they are not particularly likely to make contextual exceptions from those standards either.

Which is not to say they never do it at all. But at least in my circles, the sentiment is that if you are what is sometimes called a “diamond in the rough” applicant (or at least you hope you will be seen that way), you have a better chance at colleges like Stanford, Harvard, even MIT, and so on. Because the belief is Caltech in particular is usually more looking for just polished diamonds, and not so willing to take a chance on possible diamonds in the rough.

And for the record, I don’t blame them for this. I get it, undergrad at Caltech is almost more like a PhD program than a “normal” US-style undergrad program, and it isn’t going to be doing a kid any favors to throw them into such an environment without adequate preparation.

My point is just that I think this is the sort of exception that helps illuminate what is happening at colleges that are not the exceptions. They are more interested in diamonds in the rough because they think they have ways of making it work for those kids. And then they are also more interested in non-academic factors because all that fits into various other institutional priorities of theirs. And the (admittedly just partial) contrast with Caltech, given the nature of Caltech, is a roundabout way of illustrating that same relationship between admissions practices and the intended nature of the institution.

2 Likes
1654

Which is not exactly the actual definition of “holistic”. That type of definition is also often used with a negative connotation, in that non-academic factors like legacy and race/ethnicity (which are inherited rather than changeable by applicant achievements) are often assumed to be the most important ones in such a conversation.

1655

I’m not sure there is anyone with the authority to specify the one true definition of “holistic review admissions”. The literal meaning of “holistic” is they will be looking at the whole of something, but that is not really an actionable definition. And other than that . . . I think we can study what individual colleges, or sometimes groups of colleges, seem to mean in practice. But it very clearly varies.

Anyway, semantics aside, all I meant as to Caltech is what I just noted.

I guess I would just suggest again I would not try to “win” this battle with semantics.

It is a fact that holistic review colleges are usually reserving the right not to just rate kids academically and then start admitting from the top of their internal academic ratings until they have finished enrolling a class.

If you then want to believe that is leaving them room to do things you think are good, cool. If you then want to believe that is leaving them room to do things you think are bad, that could well be right.

And if you are interested in what they are actually doing–that term isn’t going to really narrow things down, you have to see if you can figure out what they are actually doing.

1656

Does this requirement apply to the SAT as well? I read on MIT’s website that “Students are free to use the College Board’s Score Choice option and the ACT’s option to submit the scores of your choice as well”. If all scores are actually required, how big of a deal would it be to have submitted only one score? (because of the website information mentioned above implying flexibility with reporting scores)

1657

MIT does not require reporting all SAT or ACT scores.

1658

Hm thanks :pray: I’ve been hearing tons and tons of mixed responses on this

1659

When all else fails, the college website will generally have the accurate information. And in this case, it does. Good luck.

1 Like
1660

Adding U Miami:

Will require test scores for HS class of 2026:

5 Likes
1661

The SAT scores are available through the college board and show the score, and the score in context of national comparable, state comaparable, and the students school class comparable. The colleges see all of this.

1662

The only colleges that see these data are the ones who pay CollegeBoard for their Landscape product.

1663

Schools can send information directly and do.

1 Like
1664

This is helpful if you wish for the college to see the score in context. And can turn a 1300 into a 1450 depending on context. Sometimes the person in college admissions who is suggesting a particular student at the round table just needs to substantiate why they want their pick and this can be helpful.

1665

More clarification: This is helpful if you wish for the college to see the score in context. And can turn a 1300 into the value of a 1450 depending on context. Sometimes the person in college admissions who is suggesting a particular student at the round table just needs to substantiate why they want their pick to be seriously considered and this can be helpful. The round tables give no more than 15 minutes per application that makes it to their table and giving the person who is pulling for you something they can quickly use to show their peers why their pick is the best per reasons their college like to measure with is a good thing to focus on. This is why the essay needs to correlate with the rest of the appication. The colleges, for most of the T50’s have young people reading through the essays and categorizing applications. Those that make it to the admissions table then get 15 minutes consideration. So having teh jsutification as to why your application is a perfect fit and simple to see that justification is super helpful.

1 Like
1666

If you want to go to MIT, for example, it matters because in this instance,MIT sometimes , not always, but sometimes avoids high schools that teach the math and science in an order they don’t feel is best suited for preparing kids for their program. For example, they don’t necessarily agree that physics should be taught in the 9th grade and prefer a different order to the science, and they also want to see certain math classes accomplished and not all high schools make those classes available. For the math, a student can take the classes elsewhere if they are not offered in their school, and MIT will accept certain online classes from certain institutions, and many of those can be fee waived etc, but yes it can matter depending on what your goals are. And an applicant might say to themselves,‘it’s so hard to get into MIT, the numbers are against me right off the top’, without realizing there are reasons right off the top it is harder for some who don’t understand what MIT is looking for. You have to take a deep dive to fully put yourself into the admissions officers shoes, but if you do you can market yourself to your goals more efficiently. This way of understanding works for any level of school such as MIT or a hard to get into state school.

1667

Yale is no longer test optional.

1 Like