Well, for this upcoming application cycle, there is not much more time to make a switch…
1 Like
I’d like to think that too, but Brown announced last year on Mar 5 and CalTech and Harvard on Apr 11. Colleges are way behind the curve on understanding how fast testing dates fill up. Some also don’t understand that tests are still in short supply on the west coast. I sure hope CalTech (and really all these test required schools) are hosting SAT and/or ACT tests.
5 Likes
When a school is test optional they get the best of both worlds. They still get all the applications but with the added nuance that the most competitive students will all submit a score. They get to maintain their self described ‘holisitc’ approach while discreetly picking many of the needs to fill from the high test score group. For example, the school can potentially accept all their fgli applicants from the pool of test takers, thereby relying on a potentially higher success rate of first gen low income accepted applications if the school finds that higher test scores produce a more successful student which many colleges believe is reliable. Schools can also, as in the UC system in California, receive federal grants if they become HSI, Hispanic Serving Institutions, if they reach 25% of their enrolled students as Hispanic, (and most Hispanic applicants to the UC schools have been test optional in the past) so in the case of California going completely test blind has benefited the school to reach its goals. And other schools also get different forms of aid by accepting a certain amount of applicants that appear better qualified by choosing not to test. This leaves certain schools that rely solely on what they deem the most competitive applicants and are not looking to rely solely on a holistic approach to be motivated to require testing to be considered.
Ohio State shares decision on test requirements.
It appears The Ohio State has reinstated test requirements
1 Like
Maybe not going test optional would have avoided this problem at Harvard.
6 Likes
Not really, since they’re no longer test optional and the course won’t start till later. The loss of skills affects all students, even the top ones, even those who were in primary school in 2020. (In hindsight I think all would have been better served considering 2020-2021 a “transition year” that didn’t count in school progression, but I know how impolitical&costly essentially holding back everyone a year would have been.) It impacted other school systems too, whether they remained in person or remote, but it can’t be the pandemic alone because the dip starts in 2013 and really accelerates in 2017. Some speculate it may be related to social media use.
Harvard students are excellent so they know “how to take tests” but it doesn’t mean they have the math foundations Harvard expects.
2 Likes
Agree mostly. Harvard just started requiring a test. There are a lot of factors including but not limited to being test optional for way too long. Even now that they are no longer test optional, standardized test scores are “considered”. But a good math score on the ACT or SAT is an indicator that a student is college ready. Especially the ACT math.
I am very open to the idea that, because of the pandemic, public universities will have to remedy a certain gap in algebra skills in some cases. The idea that Harvard can’t fill a class with applicants that have the foundational requirements of algebra is laughable.
4 Likes
I can’t count the number of calculus teachers/professors who have told me they have “good” students whose grasp of Algebra is not what is needed for their goals. There’s no or little trace of it till the students face greater demands, no “plug in” psets, etc. It may be a matter of rigor, the difference between what Harvard professors want and what students have known since 2020.
In addition, it’s possible Harvard doesn’t want to penalize students who received bad math instruction throughout MS/HS, such as rural schools where only the top students take Precalculus in 12th grade, or school systems that lack Math teachers altogether. These students may want to study STEM or Economics and have shown aptitude but their placement test shows too many gaps.
4 Likes
Is it controversial to say that students who received poor math instruction shouldn’t be studying Economics or a STEM discipline at Harvard?
A good SAT/ACT math score in isolation is by no means a good indicator that a student is college ready, particularly at a rigorous college like Harvard. However, a bad math score can be a flag that a student may not be well not prepared.
The math SAT/ACT is a series of simple multiple choice questions that emphasize answering at a rapid pace, without making careless errors. Calculus material is not included, and the test has a low ceiling. This format does not resemble problems in typical math-heavy Harvard classes which are generally not short/simple, not multiple choice, do not emphasize answering at high speed, do not emphasize avoiding careless errors, often do involve calculus+ level, and often do have a high ceiling (compared to SAT/ACT).
When test required, Harvard required all students to take a placement test to assist with deciding starting point for math sequence. They did not rely on SAT/ACT score. In previous years, the lowest level (MA) was a half normal speed pre-calc/calc type class. A student could also start at math 55, which Harvard’s website describes as “probably the most difficult undergraduate math class in the country”. It sounds like the new MA5 class covers the same material as the existing MA class, with the same problem sets and exams. The difference is MA5 meets more often, with additional support.
2 Likes
Yes, I would disagree with that sentiment and clearly Harvard does, too, given that they have created the class.
There is no external incentive — and potentially many disincentives — to accommodate these students, so Harvard must find that including them enhances the class in some way.
2 Likes
I am well aware of how Harvard places students in its math sequence. According to The Crimson article, the problem that Harvard is trying to address with this remedial class is that many lack even ALGEBRA/PRE-ALGEBRA skills. The SAT/ACT certainly test at that level. With test optional, a significant percentage of the most recent freshman class did not submit any scores; per the 2023-2024 common data set, 52% submitted SAT scores and 22% submitted ACT scores. That means at least 25% did not submit any scores (and it may be more because some submitted both ACT and SAT scores.) That is a potential huge gap in information about basic math skills of the entering classes.
1 Like
UCs have not, in recent history, been test-optional for any applicants. UCs were test required for many years before COVID-19. When COVID-19 closed many test sites, UCs initially allowed campuses to choose test-optional or test-blind, but a lawsuit resulted in not allowing UCs to choose test-optional, so they went test-blind and stayed that way.
As noted, it’s the same course material as MA with same exams, but more in depth, which includes more emphasis on foundational material in a variety of topics, such as algebra as you mentioned.
MA5 wasn’t offered when Harvard was test optional. MA5 will be offered when Harvard is test required. This implies that Harvard does not expect requiring SAT to resolve the potential need for this class. It’s a more complex and multifaceted issue than simply test optional = selective colleges admit students who don’t know algebra and basic math.
Prior to COVID, there were ~1000 test optional colleges. As far as I am aware, none of those 1000 colleges chose to go back to testing, and none of the reported any type of problem with academic qualifications of non-submitting students compared to submitting students, including at tech focused colleges, such as WPI. Instead all analyses I have seen during this period found similar college GPAs and college graduation rates between submitters and non-submitters. Selective colleges as a whole seemed to be able to identify students who were not well academically qualified via other parts of the application, which includes more than just GPA. Students who do not know basic algebra might have lower transcript grades, less course rigor in math-heavy classes, lack of glowing LOR from math/science teacher, lack of high success in math-related ECs/awards, etc.
COVID test optional differs in several ways from past years pre-COVID test optional. One difference is that colleges were forced to go test optional, rather than choosing to go test optional based on their internal studies and motivations. Another that the article touches on is teaching differences.
During COVID, remote learning was the norm. Both students and teachers suddenly had to adapt to a very different format, with less personal interaction and typically less opportunity for supporting individual students. Many students struggled with the new format and did not learn material as well as they would have with in person learning. Some students also took advantage of the new system and made little effort. Some HSs/teachers recognized the new challenges and responded by being especially forgiving with grades, sometimes removing grading altogether and instead giving all students in the class a P/S grade.
There was a sharp increase in students who needed extra support, and a large increase in not reflecting such needs in transcript. I expect LORs were also less meaningful, with the lack of in person interaction with teachers. ECs/awards were also more limited than usual, with everyone being forced to stay inside their homes, with COVID lockdowns. It’s not just the lack of scores – it’s the whole application is less meaningful during COVID.
That said, I expect that in Harvard’s case, Harvard generally has a good idea which admitted students are strong in math and which students are not. They aren’t expecting a student to be a Putnam team member who instead shows weak pre-calculus math on placement test after matriculating. Instead I suspect it’s primarily students who that they expect to be weaker in math and still choose to admit them in spite of that expected weakness in math. Reasons for admitting relatively weaker math applicants could include applying as prospective majors/fields that use little math, wanting to give disadvantaged students from bad school systems a chance, and prioritizing non-academic factors such as being a recruited athlete. This also fits with Harvard offering the half-pace pre-calc heavy MA sequence with same PSs/exams as the new MA5 class for decades. A small minority of Harvard admits not being well prepared in math is not a new issue, although it likely became worse among students who took classes during COVID, including weaker foundations in remote classes taken during COVID.
4 Likes
COVID learning loss and test optional have been a toxic brew, especially for rigorous colleges. In this case the Harvard math faculty is apparently trying to remedy a problem inherited from failures in high schools and the well intentioned experiment with test optional. That experiment has failed and Harvard ,Yale etc have realized it. Otherwise, why is Harvard going back to test required if the SAT and ACT don’t indicate college readiness at some level? The admissions office says that a test allows Harvard to better identify diamonds in the rough (i. e., disadvantaged but talented ). History repeats itself in part—one of the reasons tests were introduced in the post WW2 era was to find the promising students who did not come from a traditional feeder school.
4 Likes
~1000 colleges chose to be test optional prior to COVID. This “experiment” appears to have been successful, as they remained test optional. Another >1000 colleges were forced to become test optional due to the COVID pandemic and being unable to safely take tests. The overwhelming majority of them have remained test optional after students could safely take tests again. Of the >1000 colleges that were forced to become test optional, a small minority have chosen to return to test required (particularly Ivy+ colleges). A small minority of the thousands of test optional colleges choosing to switch to test required doesn’t mean that test optional as whole “failed.” It instead means that there is not a universally shared decision among all colleges, with different colleges coming to different conclusions.
Nobody said “SAT and ACT don’t indicate college readiness at some level”. That’s not the relevant question for test optional. A more relevant question is if colleges can identify well qualified candidates using the many other components of application besides SAT/ACT?
One can speculate about the reasons why Harvard chose to return to testing. I expect some of the contributing factors are:
- Harvard was forced to switch to test optional due to not being able to safely take tests COVID, rather than choosing to switch. Being forced instead of choosing, Harvard was not motivated to be test optional, and likely not especially motivated to remain test optional after students could safely take tests again.
- Remote learning, lack of grades, lack of relevant ECs/awards … during COVID lockdown made it more challenging to identify well qualified students without scores. Some students were likely admitted with weaker foundations during COVID, and those students were probably more likely to be non-submitters.
- Public perception following the Chetty Ivy League colleges (Yale/Brown/Dartmouth) switching to test required and citing research.
I don’t buy the argument that requiring standardized tests helps admission for disadvantaged kids as a whole because they identify “diamonds in the rough” and/or disadvantaged kids cannot be accepted without scores. I suspect this type of claim more relates to public perception. It is commonly believed the requiring standardized tests disadvantages the groups that are tremendously less likely to receive high scores – lower SES and URMs. Requiring tests without explanation can hurt public perception by making the college seem anti lower SES or anti URM. Claiming the tests help these groups by finding “diamonds in the rough” lessens this public perception blow. It is no doubt a true statement that tests can help find some “diamonds in the rough” who would not be otherwise flagged, but the net effect is likely negative, as the overwhelming portion of students scoring in Harvard’s range are from advantaged groups. For example, the Chetty study found the following rate of scores by income level.
Portion of Kids Scoring 1400+ on SAT by Parents Income
99.9 Percentile Income – 19%
99th Percentile Income – 14%
98th Percentile Income – 11%
97th Percentile Income – 10%
96th Percentile Income – 8%
95th Percentile Income – 7%
90-95th Percentile – 5%
…
Median Income – 0.5%
Low Income – 0.2%
Portion of Kids Scoring 1500+ on SAT by Parents Income
99.9th Percentile Income – 7%
99th Percentile Income – 5%
98th Percentile Income – 4%
96-97th Percentile Income – 3%
90-95th Percentile Income – 2%
…
Median Income – 0.2%
Low Income – 0.0%
Harvard was able to admit a significant portion of lower SES and URM students when they were test optional, just like the were able to when test required. With a 3% admit rate, Harvard is selective enough that they have many well qualified applicants to choose from among these groups and can use an admission system that results in whatever percentages from these groups they want (partially limited due to recent supreme court decision). Some example numbers from freshmen survey are below. The percentages did not drop off a cliff when switching to test optional during COVID.
Fall 2019 – 10% Black, 11% Hispanic, 17% First Gen, 27% Under $80k income
Fall 2020 – 16% Black, 13% Hispanic, 23% First Gen, 28% Under $80k income
Fall 2021 – 16% Black, 13% Hispanic, 20% First Gen, 26% Under $80k income
1 Like
It may be worth considering that these sorts of colleges have never had a hard cutoff for SAT/ACT Math scores, and I very much doubt that going back to test required means they will adopt such a cutoff for the first time.
3 Likes
I agree that there is no hard cut off for the Ivies +. Yale has been quite clear that a 1400 score is “good enough.” Yale brought back test required because they were concerned that test optional applicants with “only a 1400” score were deterred from submitting their scores and that Yale was missing critical information showing that they are college ready.
The information submitted by Data10 shows in 2019 (before test optional ) that 27% at Harvard had under $80K income; in 2021 (after test optional) the percentage was 26%. So it looks like test required versus test optional had no effect on the component of the class below $80K.
The Chetty study is focused on income disparities at the 1500+ level; it would be interesting to see what these disparities are at the 1350 or 1400 level. I am sure they exist but are not as pronounced.
2 Likes
My theory is that scores are valuable in shedding light on other parts of the application. They are not looking for a number l, just another piece that makes the whole story more complete.
With the increased number of apps at these schools, they want to be able to access an application as quickly as possible. This, IMO, is why a student who goes TO at these schools is inherently at a disadvantage. As promised, they are not disqualified for not submitting a score, but the AO has to dig deeper into other parts of the application. If the candidate doesn’t have anything particularly unique about them (and realistically most don’t) the AO might as well go with the similar kid with a score and get on with the next app.
3 Likes