Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suspect Williams and Amherst would like to require testing but don’t want to mess w their rankings.

I bet they don’t. How has it hurt them? How did it help them before?

1. a lot of highly selective colleges dont actually want a zillion apps. this is why there's a trend of not releasing admissions rate. it's a bad look politically, it puts qualified people from applying, it's a burden to the college

2. they risk letting in kids who can't do the work. faculty almost always wants to go back to testing for a reason

Anonymous wrote:I suspect Williams and Amherst would like to require testing but don’t want to mess w their rankings.

I bet they don’t. How has it hurt them? How did it help them before?

Anonymous wrote:Top LACs will never go back. They know what they are doing and can constantly tweak admissions to make it work, given their small size, in a way that larger universities can’t.

CMC faculty already voted 53 to 24 to reinstate SAT/ACT requirements.

Test optional is so dumb, and so is the idea of test anxiety and "not testing well." It's multiple choice. You either know the answers or you don't.

I suspect Williams and Amherst would like to require testing but don’t want to mess w their rankings.

Top LACs will never go back. They know what they are doing and can constantly tweak admissions to make it work, given their small size, in a way that larger universities can’t.

Anonymous wrote:What is the upside of requiring scores? The number of applications go down, their average SAT scores go down, and they have a harder time admitting certain kids they want. The biggest benefit to SLACs of TO are their recruited athletes (not URM, as someone here is assuming). Some kids test well; others do not. Some spend thousands to prep; others cannot. The SAT/ACT is one data point, and can be more easily manipulated than GPA.

+1 The test required zealots are so thirsty. They just can’t accept when any TO applicant is admitted to a selective school over Larlo and their 1500+. Why would these schools, given the current college admissions landscape, do anything to limit applications. Especially with the pending lawsuit challenging the practice of ED, most schools will not be looking to give up the flexibility that TO provides. This test required wave isn’t coming.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Standardized craze?

I assume OP is exaggerating about the soft trend of a return to test-required.

+1

They want the appearance of being a rigorous selective institution, and being TO allows them to do this. In reality, many students at these schools have low scores.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For class of 2028 enrolled students score submission
Williams,35% SAT, 15% ACT
Amherst 39% SAT, 22% ACT

They may want to go back to test required, but that's a little jump from these numbers. Hard to say.

Williams 25th percentile now is 1500, back when tests were required it was 1430. Amherst 25th percentile is now 1500, back when tests were required it was 1410.

They will remain TO because they want the flexibility. Amherst was 21% FGLI this year, 35% recruited athletes. Test required doesn't allow them to build the classes they want. Everyone knows if you're unhooked and not an institutional priority, you need to submit the scores though.

So only non-URM, middle and upper class applicants are “required” to submit test scores. That’s quite a double standard! Don’t like Trump but hope he takes a wrecking ball to LACs like he’s doing with the big boys.

Anonymous wrote:What is the upside of requiring scores? The number of applications go down, their average SAT scores go down, and they have a harder time admitting certain kids they want. The biggest benefit to SLACs of TO are their recruited athletes (not URM, as someone here is assuming). Some kids test well; others do not. Some spend thousands to prep; others cannot. The SAT/ACT is one data point, and can be more easily manipulated than GPA.

Test scores may be just one data point, but at least they’re a standardized, objective data point, unlike GPA’s.

What is the upside of requiring scores? The number of applications go down, their average SAT scores go down, and they have a harder time admitting certain kids they want. The biggest benefit to SLACs of TO are their recruited athletes (not URM, as someone here is assuming). Some kids test well; others do not. Some spend thousands to prep; others cannot. The SAT/ACT is one data point, and can be more easily manipulated than GPA.

Anonymous wrote:For class of 2028 enrolled students score submission
Williams,35% SAT, 15% ACT
Amherst 39% SAT, 22% ACT

They may want to go back to test required, but that's a little jump from these numbers. Hard to say.

Williams 25th percentile now is 1500, back when tests were required it was 1430. Amherst 25th percentile is now 1500, back when tests were required it was 1410.

They will remain TO because they want the flexibility. Amherst was 21% FGLI this year, 35% recruited athletes. Test required doesn't allow them to build the classes they want. Everyone knows if you're unhooked and not an institutional priority, you need to submit the scores though.

Swarthmore did a whole data-centered study of whether it should remain TO over the past year and then decided to remain TO because it found there was no correlation between SAT scores and performance. It felt it needed to do this on its own because of its first-semester pass-fail policy which made gauging performance particularly difficult. So no, they are paying attention and it's not happening.

For class of 2028 enrolled students score submission
Williams,35% SAT, 15% ACT
Amherst 39% SAT, 22% ACT

They may want to go back to test required, but that's a little jump from these numbers. Hard to say.

Williams 25th percentile now is 1500, back when tests were required it was 1430. Amherst 25th percentile is now 1500, back when tests were required it was 1410.