Mostly it seems to protect low income students from being sidelined by too many testing fees. But one admissions head said: “changes that were part of the new version of the SAT gave her more confidence in using that test without subject tests. But she also said the move to optional was a way to help low-income students and also to “lower the flame” for higher-income students, since “testing hype” is greatest among wealthier families.”
Down to a simmer from a rolling boil? LOL.
But students are still confused and the general understanding is that if they are recommended, they are really required.
nope.
Not unless the colleges decide that they really do not offer additional ,valuable information.
or unless the Congress mandates that colleges be CLEAR about what is and is not needed. Just as some in Congress are now trying to pass legislation that requires colleges use easily understandable, CLEAR language regarding Financial aid “awards”.
The Compass Prep blog keeps track of subject test requirements, and a couple more schools drop or reduce their expectations each year. This year, Rice was one of the ones that dropped off the list.
Adcoms have records where they can tell if something is truly making a difference in admissions. If they can tell that a student can handle the work at Rice using transcript, GPA, and letters, why shouldn’t they drop the subject tests?
I also think colleges follow what their competitors do. They want more applications to keep their acceptances low to keep their rankings, and making the school easier to apply to helps with that.
Harvard and UC previously found that subject tests were better predictors of college grades than the regular SAT or ACT. But the latter have the incumbency / popularity advantage, so adding the subject tests to the required tests tends to be a burden on 1G / LI students, who may not hear about them until it is too late.