I’m trying to figure out exactly what it is that you want. Is it your position that any university that uses either holistic admissions or the SAT is evil?
2 Likes
I think they are just bringing to our attention that in the past both holistic admissions and the SAT were used as tools to keep out certain groups. I don’t think that is true today, but it is definitely a problematic history (one that many people don’t know much about).
Most of the universities listed on this website have a terrible, awful history. Holistic admissions have an awful history. The SAT has an awful history. I am still trying to figure out the goal of that post which, as of this moment, has 7 endorsements from people who viewed it.
2 Likes
Yes, this history is absolutely real. If you were a recent arrival to the US around WW1 and couldn’t identify Mickey Mouse, you risked being labeled “feeble minded”.
However, tests like SAT and ACT actively check their questions for racial bias. There are legitimate reasons to not like high stakes testing, but I don’t think this is one.
Columbia University was the first college to use essay questions on their application in the 1920s. They did it specifically to help them exclude Jewish applicants. However, I’m not advocating that universities stop using essays on their applications because of that history.
Some days, I think the most honest thing for colleges to do is set a minimum floor for success at their institution and then make the selection process a lottery. Reading the CC profiles of who does and doesn’t get admitted to selective colleges, I think this might be the de facto reality. 
Some colleges do admit almost everyone who meets their minimum standards for admission. Public universities in Arizona and Iowa come to mind. They serve their students well and are engines for social mobility. Sadly, we rarely read articles about such colleges because of the perception that only “super selective” = “good”.
6 Likes
Many people have no problem recognizing that individuals may have vastly different abilities in artistic or athletic endeavors ( and no amount of remediation will equalize that), but refuse to believe that is also true for academic endeavors.
Anyone with more than one child would recognize it, I think.
10 Likes
Lol. You would think so, but no. When it comes to academics everyone is equal.
5 Likes
I’m not sure anyone has taken the position that people don’t have different academic abilities.
I am not a testing fan for many reasons and don’t believe a one day, 2 hr 14 min test (length of digital sat) is necessarily helpful when reading college apps and selecting a class. And I actually read apps all day.
If some schools think having a test score helps them choose students better, that’s great. But we know most college admin/admission leaders don’t think that’s the case, and as such are test blind or test optional. What’s good for each institution seems reasonable, no?
I’m not really sure the point of those who are pro test scores and what change you hope to bring about by requiring test scores and/or increasing their importance in the admissions process.
Most US colleges accept most applicants, so the pro-testers must be focused on the processes at selective/highly rejective schools. And the admissions processes at that relatively small proportion of schools impact precious few other schools. In fact many admission leaders publicly state things like ‘what MIT does has no bearing on us or our admission selection process.’ Which completely makes sense.
3 Likes
Most US schools admit anyone, and unlike in other places, there is no weed out process of inherently rigorous courses that uphold a certain academic standard. As a result, most US college degrees are little more than high school diplomas, not really evidence of academic mastery of anything. Students may or may not have acquired skills in attending and may or may not write clearly, be numerate, and/or critical thinkers. There is a vast variation in the job-readiness of their graduates.
So I agree, scores are not important for such schools, and such schools serve an important purpose in providing the possibility of education and upward mobility to the populace.
Selective schools claim to be primarily academically oriented and offer some type of merit based admission, so one would think a factor in determining merit would indeed be an academic test ( as in most of the world). It might be better if such places simply reframed their admissions policy as holistic or random or social justice based, if those are the priorities. The discrepancy between what they claim and what they do is the problem.
Don’t most of the rejective/ highly rejective schools state they have holistic admissions?
ETA: I don’t see any discrepancy…some schools say things like they use certain factors in the admission decision, that they value diversity in their classes, and/or that they could have selected an entirely different set of applicants from the same pool to fill their class (definitely an element of randomness there).
But if you look at the mission statements of elite schools, few state outright that their purpose is to educate the best and the brightest. Most have more grandiose missions like - educating future leaders (Harvard) or improving the world today (Yale). At the end of the day elite schools have institutional priorities that go far beyond academics - they want competitive sports teams, access to major donors, racial diversity, some economic diversity (although I don’t feel they are doing well with that one) etc. While they definitely enroll (and want to enroll) some outstanding students, it isn’t the only thing they want and in pursuit of their other priorities they are willing to give up a little on the academic front (if necessary). I don’t see this changing and why should they - despite the incredibly long odds for unhooked students they are still attracting an overabundance of applicants. Unless that changes, they won’t.
2 Likes
I think more accurately, many people readily acknowledge that certain schools provide a superior experience for the kid who’s really into sports, socializing or outdoor activities, but don’t acknowledge there are schools that provide a superior academic experience.
1 Like
Not sure, I can only speak for myself. I believe schools like MIT and a handful of others provide a superior academic experience, a belief I do not extend to the Ivy league…especially for the affluent kids that make up 50% or so of their classes.
It simply doesn’t connect for me that the reason some would like schools to require SAT and/or put more emphasis on it is because a given school provides a ‘superior academic experience’. And again, I support any school requiring the SAT if that’s what works for them.
It seems to me that some people think some academically undeserving students are attending these institutions…and that is a slippery slope indeed.
(didn’t mean to tag thorsmom66)
3 Likes
Mickey Mouse didn’t come into existence until 1923. Perhaps you meant WWII? 
They may not state it outright, but all of their marketing material carries a “best and brightest” academic brand. So we will just have to disagree about that.
No I’m not saying that a school needs to require the SAT to provide a superior academic experience. I’m just saying that many people (some quite vocally here of CC) believe all schools are pretty much the same, and that differences in academic and/or peer quality either don’t exist or are unimportant.
1 Like
I think for people that aren’t that familiar with how these schools operate it is easy to believe that they are seeking just top academic talent. Much of their marketing implies that. For cynical folks like me, it is pretty apparent that academic talent is just one of many priorities regardless of what the glossy brochures say.
5 Likes
That’s not what I said either.
I don’t see that posters are saying all schools are pretty much the same, but respect that you do see that.
1 Like
Well to be fair, “most” colleges are near open enrollment. A better question is what % of AOs of selective colleges (however defined).
2 Likes
I feel like a consensus on this issue is just around the corner.
I wasn’t including CCs in my statement, but you got me.
In the set of relatively selective colleges, let’s define that as sub 50%, I believe most college admin/admission leaders don’t believe the tests are an important factor when evaluating apps and selecting students. Even if some may believe the test scores do add something (because there are data that show that), they don’t believe the 'juice is worth the squeeze", to quote Jon Boeckenstedt.