<story><title>MIT to no longer consider SAT subject tests in admissions decisions</title><url>https://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/a-special-announcement-about-sat-subject-tests/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>quartzite</author><text>This is exactly correct.&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;p&gt;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&amp;#x27;t require much investment at all (internet connection and the purchase of a few large study manuals).&lt;p&gt;At my high school in sophomore year I remember speaking with a wealthy friend whose father had signed him up for flying lessons so he could &amp;quot;stand out in college admissions&amp;quot;. There are many, many cases like this.&lt;p&gt;Admissions should disregard such superficial peacocking and focus on metrics like the SAT that disentangle intellectual and academic potential from wealth.</text></item><item><author>knzhou</author><text>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.&lt;p&gt;Yes, some misguided parents waste thousands of dollars on SAT courses. But students can also prep using the $20 official book, which is what I did, and what I still regard as the best option. Even if money helps incrementally for tests, it helps for everything else even more. International volunteer work? An inspiring (i.e. college counselor approved) essay? Recommendation letters from authoritative people? Anything that requires equipment, like computer labs or robotics? It all costs money -- and in many cases literally measures nothing besides how much money you have.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>mekoka</author><text>The premise of your answer is that MIT wants good &amp;quot;students&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;test takers&amp;quot;. What if that&amp;#x27;s not what they want so much anymore? A test is supposed to be a metric, an &lt;i&gt;indicator&lt;/i&gt; of something. But metrics tend to become target as soon as they&amp;#x27;re exposed. Maybe then they still remain an indicator of something, but not necessarily what they were originally intended to filter for.&lt;p&gt;I understand that it might feel like the goalposts are being moved for people who optimize to score high on such metrics, but such is the nature of this type of games. That&amp;#x27;s also why search engine companies have to keep refining their algorithms.</text></comment>
<story><title>MIT to no longer consider SAT subject tests in admissions decisions</title><url>https://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/a-special-announcement-about-sat-subject-tests/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>quartzite</author><text>This is exactly correct.&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;p&gt;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&amp;#x27;t require much investment at all (internet connection and the purchase of a few large study manuals).&lt;p&gt;At my high school in sophomore year I remember speaking with a wealthy friend whose father had signed him up for flying lessons so he could &amp;quot;stand out in college admissions&amp;quot;. There are many, many cases like this.&lt;p&gt;Admissions should disregard such superficial peacocking and focus on metrics like the SAT that disentangle intellectual and academic potential from wealth.</text></item><item><author>knzhou</author><text>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.&lt;p&gt;Yes, some misguided parents waste thousands of dollars on SAT courses. But students can also prep using the $20 official book, which is what I did, and what I still regard as the best option. Even if money helps incrementally for tests, it helps for everything else even more. International volunteer work? An inspiring (i.e. college counselor approved) essay? Recommendation letters from authoritative people? Anything that requires equipment, like computer labs or robotics? It all costs money -- and in many cases literally measures nothing besides how much money you have.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>bsder</author><text>I suspect this is just getting rid of redundancy.  Everyone taking the SAT subject tests is probably taking the equivalent Advanced Placement test anyhow.&lt;p&gt;However, the biggest problems with these tests (and the AP tests) is that they are &lt;i&gt;expensive&lt;/i&gt;--they cost a non-trivial amount of money to sign up for and they cost a lot of time to prepare for if your school doesn&amp;#x27;t offer direct AP classes.&lt;p&gt;The expensiveness is the barrier.</text></comment>