A perhaps very cynical explanation could be that schools are preparing themselves for the anticipated decrease in number of students applying due to the demographic decrease in births expected to hit for class of 2026; they are positioning themselves now to be able to continue having large numbers of applicants to offset the decrease in high school graduates. |
These schools are a teeny tiny part of the whole system. Just disregard them, the way you disregard Bennington and Sarah Lawrence. |
Or say the terribly unequal education given to children could be what's ruining college education. |
Did you read your link? It's a highly specific reason. Our General Institute Requirements demand that all first-years must take (or place out of, through Advanced Standing Examination) two semesters of calculus and two-semesters of calculus-based physics, no matter what field they intend to major in; students who do not place out of physics also take a math diagnostic. In other words, there is no pathway through MIT that does not include a rigorous foundation in mathematics, mediated by many quantitative exams along the way. So, in a way, it is not surprising that the SAT/ACT math exams are predictive of success at MIT; it would be more surprising if they weren't. No way that other colleges require two semesters of calculus and two semesters of calculus-based physics as part of their general reqs. |
Again having good standard and rule that applies to all the schools is important for the society especially when these institutions have huge tax break and all sort of local and federal aids. |
Look, I agree that changes are coming, but they're coming in reaction to the forced over-reliance by top law schools on LSAT scores resulting from the US News rankings and the magazine's obsession with scores. It's about time that law school rebelled. Regardless, how does the fact that standards may soon be being "relaxed" in law school admissions undercut my point in any way? If anything, that they're being relaxed only supports my position. |
This is the truth. Test optional means really only test optional for URM. If you're Asian and you don't submit test scores ... forget it. |
Thank you for your honesty. |
Collleges and universities have found ways to calculate their own score that is equally biased. This is for show. |
The reason these schools are getting rid of test scores is that they see the writing on the wall- there are cases before the Supreme Court where schools very clearly discriminated against certain races (Asians and Whites) in favor of other racial/ethnic groups, and the court seems set to strike down these discriminatory policies. And the plaintiffs made their cases based on test scores and grades of applicants who were treated differently based on race. The numbers showed very clearly that Asian applicants in particular with high test scores were discriminated against in favor of Black and Hispanic applicants with significantly lower test scores. These schools want to get rid of test scores (and probably grades), because getting rid of objective numbers in favor of subjective acceptance criteria will allow them to more easily discriminate without leaving evidence that is easily discoverable the next time they get sued for racial discrimination. It's a pretty transparent ploy. |
It's not "discrimination" to drop test scores when test scores themselves discriminate. |
Holding on to standardized testing gets you nowhere closer to that goal. |
Disagree. I'm with MIT on this. It contributes a lot to fairness and transparency and overall higher quality. |
Cool. so how does it do that? How are the scores used? How does it translate to higher quality if they’re not taking the top scores? People can disagree on this point. Chicago does. So let schools do what they want. This authoritarian bent is a weird way to go. |
Schools can do anything they want if they don't use a penny of my tax dollar. If they do, I demand them to be fair and transparent. Supreme Court will say they can't just do whatever they want in a way already |