Although there was at least one study that found higher grade inflation in higher SES schools relative to state achievement test results (this was long before COVID-19 and the resulting SAT/ACT optional/blind policies).
18 months from now, that % will be radically different.
4 Likes
Totals by year, as listed on FairTest are below. The total reported test optional colleges has been increasing with each year, although much of that increases may be due to incomplete reporting. In any case, the listed totals are not decreasing in the current year or any other. The ~5 colleges that have been mentioned in this thread as changing policies are a drop the bucket compared to the ~2000 colleges that are not known to have changed testing policies. I don’t see that changing unless the portion of students taking the SAT/ACT has a large increase.
Number of Listed Test Optional Colleges on Fairtest.org
- 2015 – >800 test optional/free 4-year colleges
- 2016 – >900 test optional/free 4-year colleges
- 2017 – “Nearly 1000” test optional/free 4-year colleges
- 2018 – >1000 test optional/free 4-year colleges
- 2019 – 1060 test optional/free 4-year colleges
– Large Increase During COVID –- 2020 – 1685 test optional/free 4-year colleges
- 2021 – 1750 test optional/free 4-year colleges
- 2022 – 1820+ test optional/free 4-year colleges
- Present – 1980+ test optional/free 4-year colleges
Where you may be more likely to see notable decreases, if rather than look at % of all 4-year colleges, you look at just specific highly selective subgroups subgroups of colleges, such as just Ivies or just colleges that have <10% admit rate or just… For example, if I look at just very low admit rate colleges, the totals might be:
Less than ~10% Admit Rate Colleges that Do Not Require Scores
Before COVID – ~3 out of ~30 do not require scores
During COVID – All ~30 do not require scores*
Present – ~26 out of ~30 do not require scores
*Including colleges that request students submit scores, if able to safely take test
1 Like
No, we don’t report out SAT scores by any demographic group, but our 25th math percentile for everyone is like 770, and our outcomes (which is what we care about — the inputs are only useful inasmuch as they predict outputs) are pretty close to equal by graduation rate at this point.
I guess, at that point, it’s just noise when your school can select from a highly qualified applicant pool and have the luxury of picking whoever you like. I find it interesting to see how the school has increased the percentage of International students who have largely displace white students. I wonder why that it is?
There seems to be growing controversy surrounding donations and related influence.
1 Like
Gatestone Institute is not a particularly credible source: John Bolton presided over anti-Muslim think tank and John Bolton Chairs an Actual "Fake News" Publisher and European Union Gag Order On Revealing Muslim Terrorists' Religion | Snopes.com
2 Likes
I think you are incorrect here.
According to MIT’s 2023 CDS, international students make up about 11% of the total undergraduate population. It was roughly the same percentage four years earlier.
2 Likes
Here’s their data. from 24% to 30% since 2005.
Meanwhile, Section 117 funding at over $850mln. (see page 7 of the NCRI report - PDF)
Click on the “undergrads” filter.
2 Likes
You didn’t exclude graduate students. The undergraduate number is 11%.
1 Like
I’m looking at total student population.
Undergrad int’l went up from 7% to 11% over that time period.
In only undergrads, it’s Asians who have displaced Whites, although I’m not sure how that’s increasing URM as the original post said. I do understand how that could boost test scores, however.
They cited data from the NCRI report which appears to be well-researched has some well respected institutions names on the front cover.
As noted IPEDS groups all 2 more races together, which can be problematic. However, I like that IPEDS separates first-time freshmen from overall and separates by gender. IPEDS shows the following trends over 10 most recent available freshmen classes, from 2013-14 to 2022-23.
URM did increase over this period, but that does not strike me as the major takeaway. Black and Asian students had a large relative increases, while White students had a large relative decreases. Gender was unbalanced among non-White ethnicities, but overall gender balance has approached very close to parity by 2022-23. Note that such changes can have more to do with changes in admission pool than changes in admission preferences. For example, if Asian applicants composed an increasingly large portion of the well qualified applicant pool in this period, then it should be no surprise that Asian students compose an increasingly large portion of admitted students.
I don’t see much correlation between racial and gender percentages with SAT requirement. Instead the general trends that occurred when SAT/ACT was required continued following COVID changes in SAT/ACT requirements. This differs from many other schools, which I expect partially relates to MIT admitting a smaller portion of class without scores than many other schools.
MIT Entering Freshmen Classes (IPEDS)
2013-14 → 2016-17 → 2019-20 → 2022-23Total Domestic ORM*: 66% → 64% → 63% → 59%
Total Domestic URM*: 24% → 25% → 25% → 26%
*Estimating 2+ Races Based on MIT Website InfoTotal Male__: 55% → 54% → 53% → 51%
Total Female: 45% → 46% → 47% → 49%White Men__*: 19% → 18% → 13% → 10%
White Women: 19% → 14% → 11% → 10%Asian Men__*: 11% → 11% → 14% → 15%
Asian Women: 15% → 18% → 20% → 20%Hispanic Men__*: 12% → 10% → 9% → 10%
Hispanic Women: 5% → 4% → 5% → 4%Black Men__*: 3% → 4% → 4% → 5%
Black Women: 1% → 2% → 2% → 3%International Men__*: 5% → 6% → 6% → 6%
International Women: 2% → 3% → 4% → 5%*Excluding 5-9% Who are 2+ Races (See MIT Website For More 2+ Races Breakdown)
U.S Census Data says:
White Alone: 59%
Asian Alone: 6%
Latino: 19%
Black: 13%
So, clearly. within MIT’s student body, the most under-represented race relative to the U.S. population is White and the most over-represented relative to the U.S. population is Asian. Blacks and Latinos are also under-represented, but not to the same degree as Whites.
It appears MIT was able to admit more Latinos, Blacks and Asians while decreasing Whites and increasing test scores. Presumably, higher mix of Asians is offsetting the other mix effects.
2 Likes
Although school enrollment is more like the following:
45% White
15% Black
29% Hispanic or Latino
5.5% Asian
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cge/racial-ethnic-enrollment
Wouldn’t the relevant data be the demographics of recent years’ high school graduates, since those are the ones eligible to enroll at MIT or elsewhere?
Whether there are many young Latino children or elderly Whites isn’t relevant, nor are those who drop out before hs graduation. A separate problem, to be sure, but not on point for college demographics since they weren’t eligible to enroll.
Fair, but my underlying point is still valid.
The more salient point is what the breakdown of applicants is. Are white, black and hispanic students applying to MIT in the same numbers as Asian students? I have no idea and I don’t believe that information is published.
How is it related to “The Misguided War on the SAT”?
5 Likes