Wasn't it Dartmouth? Realistically, Dartmouth hardly deserves to be an R1 and isn't really a top research university with a bunch of great grad programs. It is more SLAC than anything else?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:None. The most selective ones (Williams, Amherst) have an absurd percentage of athletes and have no incentive to go test required.

I think that's correct. Schools where more than a third of students are athletes - Bowdoin, Amherst, Bates, Colby, Haverford, Swarthmore, Williams, etc - are never going back to test mandatory. And some SLACs - Pomona, Oberlin, a few others - have made TO a kind of political or ideological red line.

But as more and more selective universities - Yale, MIT, Dartmouth, Texas - go back to test mandatory with others sure to follow in the next year or two, it seems likely that SLACs will take a reputational hit for remaining TO.

I'm not sure why people are mentioning the % athletes here as a legitimate reason. The administrations at D3 schools are not keeping things TO due to athletic recruiting. You think the athletic departments have WAY more power than they actually do if you believe that is the case. The high-academic schools are not suddenly significantly better athletically in the TO era either. One of the schools (though not a SLAC) that has already gone back to requiring tests, MIT, is well known for significant D3 athletic assistance in admissions. The top SLACs would be fine athletically if they go back to requiring tests, just like MIT will be.

Posters are also confusing the number of students on teams with the number getting some admissions assistance as a recruit, multiple schools mentioned don't have 1/3+ recruited athletes. Schools listed like Haverford and Swarthmore don't have football at all and don't have full rosters of recruited athletes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bowdoin

Bowdoin has been test optional since before a lot of us were born. So, probably no.

I assume they are probably being sarcastic…

Anonymous wrote:Bowdoin

Bowdoin has been test optional since before a lot of us were born. So, probably no.

Williams

Bucknell. They already have a high percentage of students submitting (which is the reason for their lower test score ranges compared to other elite LACs).

Washington & Lee

Bowdoin

The first SLAC to abandon TO will go test-flexible, like Yale. It will accept AP scores in lieu of SATs. That will accommodate the athletes and full-pay students.

Williams

Pomona is currently the most selective LAC-7% acceptance rate-Amherst and Williams are behind at 10%.

I don't know about SLACs, but large national universities are rapidly moving back to test required since the ACT and SAT and possibly AP exams are really the most fair parameters.

GPAs are inflated, parents hire people to write the essays, and impressive ECs largely depend on your parent's money and connections.

Yale going back to testing is huge, and other schools will follow.

I don’t think any will, well maybe Washington & Lee, Harvey Mudd, or Claremont McKenna. But doubtful. So many were already becoming test optional prior to Covid. And I think LACs beyond the top 25 will have trouble drawing any full pay students soon with the demographic cliff incoming. So they’re not going to test required since it will hurt their ability to make their ideal class. And I say this as someone who went to a LAC ranked around 50 in US News.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My guess is none of the athletically focused ones will - but I can see some pivoting to require testing for LEP majors, like CS or engineering.

I can't see the elite ones making applicants declare a major. Being able to choose whatever classes you want is a very strong selling point for SLACs

Not at Pomona … they don’t have the resources for CS and Harvey Mudd can’t or no longer wants to accommodate them all.

who would go to Pomona for CS??? Stupid

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:None. The most selective ones (Williams, Amherst) have an absurd percentage of athletes and have no incentive to go test required.

I think that's correct. Schools where more than a third of students are athletes - Bowdoin, Amherst, Bates, Colby, Haverford, Swarthmore, Williams, etc - are never going back to test mandatory. And some SLACs - Pomona, Oberlin, a few others - have made TO a kind of political or ideological red line.

But as more and more selective universities - Yale, MIT, Dartmouth, Texas - go back to test mandatory with others sure to follow in the next year or two, it seems likely that SLACs will take a reputational hit for remaining TO.

Strongly disagree. I believe selective TO schools will continue to see growth in applications. As some institutions do away with TO, I expect the growth to accelerate. This will in turn boost selectivity and yield — the result will be a reputational boost.

you are both using different meaning for the word reputation, the first pp meant in terms of quality of students attending , not how many people want to apply…