The SATs and the entire test prep industry that has built up around it is inherently unfair to low income students and I think schools are starting to realize this. In about 10 years it will probably trickle down to high schools as well. Parents in my DCs class last year were spending thousands of dollars on SSAT prep courses and that is just for High School! How can low income families compete with that? I am grateful for this list and will bookmark it for consultation when we begin looking at colleges next year.

Anonymous wrote:There's so much talk about the SAT and other standardized test, I was curious if there were any colleges where SAT wasn't needed. No, Harvard, Princeton, and Yale are not on the list but surprisingly NYU (SAT subject test required), American University (pilot for 2013), Lake Forest, Juilliard, Depaul, Smith, and some other recognizable names are on the list.

Not everyone goes to the Ivies or Stanford so this list may be welcomed by others who want their kids to go to college but know that they won't be a Yalie.

http://www.fairtest.org/university/optional

OP here. Before this informative post turns into a contest of selective vs. non-selective schools, the intention is to bring to light to parents, whose kids are NOT in the highest scoring group, there are options other than 2-year colleges. The post is not directed towards the Harvard/Yale/Stanford/Princeton leaning applicant.

Some of the schools on the list are large state universities. It would be interesting to see how they disseminate between those who submit SAT and those that don't. There is no doubt they have a forumula or it would be a logistical nightmare to sort out and compare applications.

Don't let this turn into a selective vs. non-selective match. That is NOT the purpose of the post.

My understanding is that Sarah Lawrence is excluded from the US News ranking because they don't require SATs. Its a good school, so it would otherwise be in there somewhere.

High school GPA is a much better predictor of how well kids do in college. It's a tragedy that so many big schools place so much emphasis on it, though I'm sure that has to do more with managing the # of applicants than it does with assessing the quality of the student. The only difference between students that the SAT shows is SES.

Anonymous wrote:So students who don't score 2400 or have a B- average shouldn't go to college? I think this is a viable option and the list is an alternative.

The PP did not say that. The most selective schools still need some way to see the differences between students. FWIW, plenty of 2400 kids get rejected from highly selective schools. The schools are looking for lots of different types of students, however, they need to be able to do the work.

The schools mentioned (except for NYU) just aren't as hard to get accepted by.

So students who don't score 2400 or have a B- average shouldn't go to college? I think this is a viable option and the list is an alternative.

Most of these are small schools with a relatively low number of applications. Smith gets what, maybe, 4000 apps per year? Many of the big names are getting 30,000-40,000 per year. No way they can whittle down that number without standardized tests and some simple math.

Wouldn't colleges assume that a student with good SAT scores would send them? It seems like a case of "those who have nothing to hide, hide nothing."

Anonymous wrote:I'm curious: For a school like Smith that is test-optional: If an applicant sends their SAT score, the school sees it. I wonder how often that happens at schools like Smith, NYU, etc., what percentage of accepted students do not send their SAT scores.

I would guess some applicants might take the SAT and if the scores were good, they might add them to the package as part of the academic record. If low scoring, they're off the hook, so to speak, assuming they have strong grades, etc, in their portfolio.

I personally like the option of SAT or not. I think it would decrease the already stressful application process.

But do they require the ACT?

I'm curious: For a school like Smith that is test-optional: If an applicant sends their SAT score, the school sees it. I wonder how often that happens at schools like Smith, NYU, etc., what percentage of accepted students do not send their SAT scores.

OP again. Here's an SAT story from 4 days ago. There's a slide show with new pilot schools that are not on the previous list.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/28/sat-act-not-required-colleges_n_2206391.html?ir=Education

There are a few heavy weights on that list. Sarah Lawrence and Smith are not shabby schools, mind you. I would have never thought you wouldn't require the tests.

OP, thanks for posting this. Not everyone knew about schools that didn't require the SAT.

This is helpful, it's pretty well known that some schools do not require the SAT. Here's a useful reminder:

http://collegeapps.about.com/od/standardizedtests/a/optionalscores.htm

When applying to schools, be sure to read their policies carefully. Some state schools on the list do require scores from out-of-state applicants. Other schools don't require scores for admissions, but they do use the scores for awarding academic scholarships.

There's so much talk about the SAT and other standardized test, I was curious if there were any colleges where SAT wasn't needed. No, Harvard, Princeton, and Yale are not on the list but surprisingly NYU (SAT subject test required), American University (pilot for 2013), Lake Forest, Juilliard, Depaul, Smith, and some other recognizable names are on the list.

Not everyone goes to the Ivies or Stanford so this list may be welcomed by others who want their kids to go to college but know that they won't be a Yalie.

http://www.fairtest.org/university/optional