MIT Reinstates Standardized Testing Requirements for Admissions
Doing away with standardized testing doesn't help low-income applicants gain entry to elite colleges.

This week, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) announced that it would reinstate its SAT/ACT test requirement for applicants. In a departure from the trends set by other elite universities, MIT rolled back its admissions policy, implemented in the 2020–2021 admissions cycle, which made standardized test scores optional. Administrators cited key issues with "holistic" admissions standards, an increasingly popular method of equitably distributing open spots to students regardless of how well they perform on standardized tests.
In a statement explaining the decision, MIT Dean of Admissions and Student Financial Services Stu Schmill noted that MIT's "research shows standardized tests help us better assess the academic preparedness of all applicants, and also help us identify socioeconomically disadvantaged students who lack access to advanced coursework or other enrichment opportunities that would otherwise demonstrate their readiness for MIT."
Without an objective measure like a standardized test, low-income students—who may not have equal access to other pieces of the holistic pie, such as a plethora of Advanced Placement (A.P.) classes or numerous extracurriculars—have a harder time proving that they are academically prepared for an MIT education. A move that was intended to increase diversity and help low-income students, as it turns out, mostly helps low-scoring wealthy students—and makes it harder to identify talented yet underprivileged applicants.
MIT now distinguishes itself from other elite universities, a spate of which have removed their SAT and ACT requirements in recent years, primarily citing COVID-19 and diversity-related justifications for the policy change.
The original logic of such policies is based on the idea that SAT and ACT scores correlate strongly with income, which suggests that students from poorer households are denied admission to competitive schools solely because they can't afford to ace the SATs.
However, omitting standardized test scores makes all applicants reliant on application materials that correlate even more highly with income, such as admissions essays. A 2021 Stanford study found that essays are actually more strongly correlated with household income than SAT scores. Thus, by omitting one income-correlated metric, one that is even more closely related to income takes prominence.
While wealthy parents can pay for test prep, they can't take a standardized test for their children (well, almost never). However, with essay coaches and college counselors at their disposal, many wealthy students' college essays can be manicured to fit exactly what schools are looking for.
Another factor that few holistic admissions advocates acknowledge is that family wealth correlates with college readiness. This is not because applicants from middle, upper-middle, and upper-income households are more worthy of higher education, but because their family wealth has allowed them to purchase tutoring and test prep services, if not property zoned for an elite public school, as well as extracurricular opportunities.
Attempting to shuffle around the factors used to measure college readiness will never close the readiness gap between low- and high-income students. The narrative pushed by some testing critics is that there is no actual academic skill gap between low- and high-income students, and that it is simply the tests that create this illusion (with some even claiming standardized test questions are too culturally biased for poor students of color to understand). However, as uncomfortable as it may make us, a student attending a poorly performing school with few A.P. classes and a student who attends a school with a rigorous college-prep curriculum will likely end up with vastly different skill sets. In short, the issue is the massive disparity between what American primary and secondary schools can do for their students, not the ways in which we measure the very real results of that disparity.
MIT's turn toward standardized tests will hopefully encourage other universities to reinstate their own standardized test requirements—a move that will actually help ambitious low-income students prove their exceptional talent, rather than making it harder to identify.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I wonder if this is a preemptive move related to the Supreme Court case concerning Harvard and anti-Asian affirmative racsim.
No. They put out a press release about it - under all the language they were admitting that standardized testing is actually a pretty good predictor of who can and who can not handle the coursework at MIT.
I know this is an unpopular thing to say ... but in a society where nearly any student can get grants and loans to attend college, increasingly society "sorts itself out".
.
Let me expand.
We accept that you get a fast race horse by breeding together fast race horses. Is it really so hard to believe that you get a higher percentage of academically successful students from breeding other academically successful students?
.
I am COMPLETELY in favor of judging everyone as individuals. And there ARE gifted students "in the hood". But comparing admission rates between the children of the "successful" and that the children of the "unsuccessful" proves nothing other than, in general "smart" people tend to have "smart" children.
.
For that matter, anyone notice how many top level NFL quarterbacks had the last name of Manning?
as soon as all these schools announced this nonsense, I knew this would be the outcome.
It's funny how obvious and predictable the results of many of these policies are. Consistently.
Predictable indeed.
"The Army has carried the American ideal to its logical conclusion. Not only do they prohibit discrimination on the grounds of race, creed and color, but also on ability."
Tom Lehrer is still alive, but he said this around 1959.
Ditto.
The "holistic" admission process can be more succinctly described as nepotism.
I knew this would be the outcome.
IDK, I honestly suspected a much longer battle and a more begrudged return to new normal after some incident where an MIT-educated SUV drove through a Christmas parade or an MIT-grad dies after passing off a forged check of or by fentanyl or something.
Doing away with standardized testing does one thing:
Allows diversity-equity-inclusion to go on unhindered by any objective measure of merit.
You cant put the wrong people in the positions you want them in if you inconveniently identify them as the wrong people.
It allows more dummies to get in. It doesn't guarantee they'll succeed. They show up with the expectation that they're really smart because they've gotten As, because teachers think it's unfair to give students less than a 4.0 GPA when a 4.0 helps them get into colleges. So when they deal with someone who isn't on board with grade inflation, they learn they weren't that smart or skilled to begin with.
Which sets them up to flunk out at much higher rates than the non-inclusivity students. Which leads to school administrators advocating for grade equity at the college level, so dummies and lazy students get more "bonuses" to keep them enrolled until they somehow graduate and have useless degrees.
The idea of equity in schooling is a cancer for education.
All fair points. However, I saw a study once that suggested that professors at elite colleges tended to more liberal in their grading as they reasoned that if a student was accomplished enough to be admitted to the school then they were deserving of a higher grade. Similarly, from my experience, graduate schools tend to be more liberal in their grading for the same reason. Harder to get in- easier to stay in.
Which raises the terrifying prospect that our elite institutions are producing mediocre people that peaked in high school, which is clearly true.
And then with 16-20 years put into education and a couple of hundred thousand in debt, the student reaches the workplace and finds themselves under-classed and incapable of either obtaining or holding onto a job. Of course, I guess when all else fails, they can go back and get that Ph.D. so they can teach what they are incapable of doing... OR get a government job.
Once they have decided to let you in its in their benefit to keep you there. When they know the govt will keep letting you borrow 50-70k per year to fork over to them, its a no brainer. You are no good to them as someone who drops out
However, I saw a study once that suggested that professors at elite colleges tended to more liberal in their grading as they reasoned that if a student was accomplished enough to be admitted to the school then they were deserving of a higher grade. Similarly, from my experience, graduate schools tend to be more liberal in their grading for the same reason. Harder to get in- easier to stay in.
Sorry but I'm gonna need to see a cite. That's an awful nebulous conclusion to draw from nebulous waters. At the graduate level, you're more generally teaching peers with whom you disagree with the facts over rather than teaching facts.
However, that still doesn't preclude the people at the top getting dumber or just generally not being omniscient. When I was in school, well before web 2.0, Universities were cranking out an excess of journalism and communications majors and a dearth of nurses. As I understand it, post web 2.0, that's still the case and, even if it isn't, including the expansion of transgender women's studies and other 'professional HR grievance filer' degrees into the mix guarantees it to be true.
And letting someone into MIT who isn't qualified isn't doing them any favors. It's more likely setting them up for failure. And in many cases the people are smart and capable and could have excelled at another school or in another career path.
MIT and CalTech are the only institutions where you actually have to be pretty intelligent to succeed. For the Ivies and other elite universities, you could randomly select a thousand students and they would probably do as well, if not better than those who go through the admission process. In fact, society would be better off since you wouldn’t have nearly as many Women’s Studies majors.
You mean objectivity exists and is a useful methodology? How novel!
Any college search advisor will tell you that the tests are only optional for "disadvantaged" groups. For all practical purposes the tests are still unofficially required for most applicants at elite universities.
Optional for some and irrelevant for others. This is where the checkbox for race and gender comes into play so that they can apply an equity multiplier. Of course, this doesn't actually help anyone either and it casts shade on the abilities of other minority students who qualified without help.
I can see the necessity to offer assistance in preparation for tests but at the end of the day, people have to be free to either pass or fail and try again or try elsewhere. If there's one lesson that Kamal Harris has exemplified, being promoted to the point of your ineptitude, sucks for everyone.
Elite universities say they can't use GPA as a differentiator because GPA's are too high. This could be fixed by insisting that either HS's reverse the grade inflation trend or by insisting that high schools include rank for every class, e.g. not just did you get an A but was your A the highest grade out of 30 students or 12th out of the 30.
Most public high schools in my area grade on a scale where if you get an 'A' in an AP or otherwise college-level class, you can receive a 5.0 instead of a 4.0 added to your GPA. As a result, many students would have GPA's above 4.0, and you could also have 4.0 students who never earned an 'A' in any of their difficult classes. The valedictorian at the local public high school would typically have a GPA in the 4.3 range or better.
My private high school always graded on a 4.0 scale only - whether you were taking Art or Gym or AP Calculus. Our valedictorian(s) had GPA's in the 3.8 range as a result.
25 years ago when I was headed to college, it seemed like it would put me at a disadvantage for admissions, but the ACT and SAT leveled the playing field. And the students from my high school who went to my college generally performed significantly better than their peers.
There should be weight applied to HS grades. Many years ago when I graduated, I did so with a 3.76 and our [shoulda-been] valedictorian did so with a 3.85 having taken all the top-level math and science courses. However, our actual valedictorian graduated with a 3.86, having taken all her elective classes in typing, gym, and home economics. He went on to get his Ph.D. in physics and she landed a husband in her first semester and dropped out.
Funny, similar story, our valedictorian took 1 AP class. When filling out the form the teacher said for 'course' you put 'CHEM 101A' and she asked "Is that chem, K-I-M?" and almost literally got laughed out of the class.
The same teacher was the cross country coach and, our salutatorian, who got an A in the class, came in with his front teeth missing. Knowing he was a bull rider, the teacher chided him about how surprisingly dangerous and seemingly dumb he was to ride bulls. The salutatorian, without missing a beat, shot back "Yeah, well, we can't all be distance runners or high school chemistry teachers all our lives."
AP classes at my high school earned you an additional .2 per class, and the school system only had AP English and Math, so the best GPA anyone could get was a 4.4, but our Valedictorian actually had that, having gotten straight As in everything, including the AP classes. It's been far too long to actually remember, but I strongly suspect that everyone in the top 20 was in both AP classes.
School in general is lacking. I don't think my own education was great despite taking all advanced classes. Seeing the curriculum in my daughter's school is disappointing. They aren't learning anything. Zeros no longer count as 0 against their class grade. Infinite opportunities to make up assignments. On top of that, the thresholds for each letter grade is several points lower than when I was in school. Not getting straight A's at this point is a complete lack of effort. In order to fail a kid would have to basically not do most of the work.
Getting rid of standardized testing harms low income applicants. If I am from a poor family or even a middle class family, I don't have the resources to do all the BS service crap that rich kids do and I don't have the money to hire a consultant to make my record look better than it is. I also don't have the money to go to a big name private school to distinguish myself. The only way I can show that I am exceptional is by excelling on a standardized test.
When schools stop looking at standardized tests, they are slamming the door on all but the rich having a chance to gain admittance. Don't kid yourself, that is the purpose behind them doing so. They want a "diverse" class of rich kids attending.
Problem with standardized tests is rich kids can afford to take test prep classes and take the tests multiple times. They have been gaming the system for a long time. A fairer approach would be to have colleges come up with their own tests that can only be taken once.
As Briggs was saying, preparing for standardized tests is a lot less expensive than doing a lot of expensive extracurricular activities and having professional help with applications and essays.
By moving criteria away from standardized tests and GPA and towards essays and activities they've made admissions decisions MORE slanted to the upper class, not less.
Agree, extracurriculars and essays do benefit the upper class and especially kids who might not be that intelligent, since you can pay someone to write your essay-but the SAT score is probably still the deciding factor for them since they all have 4.0s, are presidents of every club, etc. and SATs are what these kids parents obsess the most about-there was even an article I read a few years ago in the NYT I think about a mom from Long Island who took the SAT herself several times so she could help her kid take it. If colleges have to come up with their own test, like what some companies give to job candidates, these parents can’t be involved
these parents can’t be involved
maybe it's the non-involved parents of the most vulnerable amongst us that is the cause of low performance.
maybe your conclusion should be that MORE parents get involved.
Rich kids def have an advantage but it can be overcome by a more intelligent poor kid.
A poor kid will never be able to get the same overseas volunteer missions, well connected internships, or any other of the many bougie extracurriculars a rich kid can do. Its just not feasible from a time/money perspective to make that happen.
But if you are smart you CAN perform on the SAT/ACT/MCAT/LSAT with a 50 dollar Kaplan book. Sure its not as easy as if you are rich, but it is doable.
Its like if they eliminated the NFL combine to give out of shape people a better shot at the NFL. Can a person with unlimited money get an advantage with superior training facilities and resources? Sure. But that isnt going to keep a poor kid who has superior abilities and access to a gym from getting in.
Competing at the same metric is honestly one of the fairest ways to give poor kids a shot. They might not get one otherwise.
This is why immigrants prefer a meritocracy despite having little resources.
Middle class smart kids? That can fuck off.
While you're at it, rich kids will also have better cars, a nicer house, faster computers, and better vacations. Life isn't fair and nobody said it was, nor could anyone make it that way. That's how it's always been and always will be. While people are bitching about their lack of equity, there's someone else who has less but is working harder and will pass them up. Even rich daddies can't bequeath a work ethic or determination to their child.
I like standardized tests for the reasons you name and yet even with a great score, the statistical probability that a poor kid will make it into an Ivy League school is minimal. Do what you can, accept what you can't change and quit wasting so much of a too-short life bitching about it.
Good old correlation.
Ice cream sales and reported rapes both go up in the summer.
So either eating ice cream causes rape, or warmer weather brings more opportunities for rape.
We must prohibit ice cream sales.
It's the ice cream.
/Joe Friday
You might already know of this Spurious Correlations site.
Fuckin' Baskin Rapists...
My shocked face is shocked! 😐
Competence is inherently right wing.
Prove me wrong.
There's a left wing President and House.
"And those folks *competed* for their jobs!"
So winning an election = competence in office? That's an interesting position.
You just proved him right.
getting in is one thing don't you have to maintain math/science genius to succeed @MIT?
Theoretically, yes. Of course, it also depends on whether your grades are weighted based on your gender or heritage. I've known college professors who gave selected credit "for trying".
"research shows standardized tests help us better assess the academic preparedness of all applicants, and also help us identify socioeconomically disadvantaged students"
Why, that is *totes* counterintuitive!
<blockquoteDoing away with standardized testing doesn't help low-income applicants gain entry to elite colleges.
We'll, except for the fact that it does and MIT even admits that it does.
What it does not do is help ensure that those who gain admittance can handle the coursework - and that's why MIT is reinstating testing requirements.
Not because it's lack 'is not helping people gain admittance'.
Perhaps they are concerned about more lawsuits like the one at Harvard from people who should have made the cut but got bumped for "equity". It's hard to convince a jury that you are not being racist when your only objective standard is skin pigmentation. It's much harder to argue against standardized test score superiority.
I should also point out that the buildings are only getting older and the parents of low-income students rarely buy a new wing.
" In a departure from the trends set by other elite universities,..."
Problem is that the term elite refers to schools that have created such an aura that they get to turn away thousands of applicants who are capable, ready, and willing to learn and produce, in favor of applicants who make an appealing pie chart and color glossy brochures, while also capturing the offspring of those who might buy more buildings for the campus.
MIT and other universities that actually demand competence and achievement of their applicants need a means to measure that. What does the applicant know, and when does he know it.
Fuck MIT. My son had a 4.6 (straight a), ap Calc and physics included and a 34 on the act. Aaand he's a quadroon. Rejected based on life experience... Hasn't ever been to Europe.
Hasn't ever been to Europe.
Neither had kamala and see where that got her!
She hadn’t even been to our southern border.
Now hold on - Kamala had other “attributes” that launched her career. Just ask Willie Brown.
If you look at average income figures, MIT graduates are only about 20K above many of the other universities in the top 10% or even top 20%, so plenty of room there. I never saw a reason to apply to MIT in the first place. It's not worth the additional debt and effort and the woke bullshit on top. Because if you are an outlier with the ability to strike it rich, you don't need MIT. If you just want a decent income with a good tech degree, you don't need MIT.
However, if you want wannabe-status and an extra autistic nerd aura (things I actively disrespect) then MIT is for you.
In short, the issue is the massive disparity between what American primary and secondary schools can do for their students, not the ways in which we measure the very real results of that disparity.
Of course schools aren't the only driver of different results, families are as well. But Democrats will do anything to not discuss this because it pits two of their constituencies against each other which means their sole electoral tactic of scapegoating cannot be used to pretend they can solve the problem. So instead they make a deal with black parents: since the party won't make changes necessary to teach black children they will arrange university admission and government jobs through race preferences, and then demonize as a racist anyone who expects performance.