MIT to no longer consider SAT subject tests in admissions decisions

Post by jldugger » Fri, Mar 20, 2020, 10:00 PM UTC

leetcrew wrote: post #229

jldugger wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO, the subject tests are kind of a niche environment. You can't prep for them with the $20 official book and there are like 20 of them. (Also Amazon lists it for 30 but we get the point). You basically need to go to a school where they offer AP coursework, and pay something close to $100 bucks to the College Board to take subject tests. When I was doing college search, the only college I recall that requested these…

note that the SAT subject tests are actually different from AP tests. when I was applying to college, a smart kid from the regular section of could expect to do fairly well on the SAT subject test for that topic. the AP tests ask questions on material that isn't typically covered in the regular classes, so it's hard to do well on them if you haven't taken the AP course or done a lot of extracurricular study.

Post by benchaney » Fri, Mar 20, 2020, 10:04 PM UTC

brlewis wrote: post #168

MichaelDickens wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GP comment seems completely relevant to SAT subject tests to me. The point is that removing a test from consideration, even if it's not the only test considered, makes it easier for rich people to game the application process.

No. The point about replacing a test with more subjective criteria is completely invalidated when, instead, multiple tests are replaced with a single test. EDIT: Instead of completely invalidated, I should say irrelevant to MIT's change. In another context it could be an important point.

Post by RedBeetDeadpool » Fri, Mar 20, 2020, 10:07 PM UTC

yardie wrote: post #8

I used to think the SATs were fair. Until I found out how much money was being spent on SAT prep. And those expensive prep courses had the potential to increase scores over 100 points. I took the recommended SAT prep course through my high school. It was 2 weekends of going over material that might be on the exam and a workbook recommended by The College Board. Imagine my surprise going to university and meeting stud…

Post by jrandm » Fri, Mar 20, 2020, 10:14 PM UTC

thebradbain wrote: post #254

quartzite wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly correct. Those who fight for fair admissions on the basis of intellectual ability and academic potential should hold up the SAT and standardized testing as a cornerstone of the admissions process. Standardized testing significantly levels the playing field for students across income brackets. Returns on study investment quickly diminish, and reaching a plateau on returns doesn't require much investmen…

The tests don't not work (I believe that within the middle of bell-curve they accomplish their goal well), but at the extremes they are prone to gamification, especially to those in the know. For example, the pre-2017 SAT had some well known (and some lesser known) tricks that you would only know by studying the test, rather than the material: - ALL sections (and sub-sections) have questions that strictly increase in…

Post by walshemj » Fri, Mar 20, 2020, 10:17 PM UTC

knzhou wrote: post #57

Anybody cheering the exclusion of some test or other, because it was a pain to study for in high school, is simply not noticing the frog-boiling secondary effects going on. Every bit of emphasis taken out of objective results mean more advantage for smooth talking, photogenic, well-connected people. Yes, some misguided parents waste thousands of dollars on SAT courses. But students can also prep using the $20 officia…