Yale will again require standardized test scores for admission
Yale’s decision to reinstate SAT/ACT requirements has reignited debate over the role of standardized testing in elite college admissions. Commenters weigh evidence that test scores are strong predictors of academic performance and can help identify high-potential students from weaker schools, against concerns about access, coaching advantages, and pandemic-era justifications for going test-optional. Broader themes include grade inflation, equity vs. merit, legal and political pressures on admissions, and whether Ivy League institutions still justify their prestige.
Predictive value of standardized tests
- Many argue SAT/ACT scores are the strongest single predictor of college performance; that’s why they were adopted and why places like MIT and Dartmouth have already reinstated them.
- Several note tests help surface high-ability students from weak or under-resourced schools, especially when evaluated against local high‑school norms.
- Others point out scores correlate with parental education and wealth, so they are not pure measures of “innate ability.”
Why tests were dropped, and why now reversed
- One camp says the pandemic genuinely “scrambled” testing logistics, prompting temporary test‑optional policies that lingered longer than planned.
- Another insists the shift predated Covid and was driven by political/DEI pressures and anti‑testing activism; Covid just provided cover.
- Legal context (recent Supreme Court rulings on race-conscious admissions) is cited as a factor: test requirements were seen as both a legal risk and now, less so, a useful tool again.
- Some criticize elite schools for appearing incoherent: claiming tests were harmful, then later calling them the best predictor.
Equity, access, and prep
- Strong agreement that GPAs are heavily distorted by grade inflation and school quality, making them hard to compare.
- Many see standardized tests as less gameable than grades/extracurriculars, which strongly favor wealthy families’ time, money, and “cultural capital.”
- Others stress inequities: test fees, travel to centers, lost work hours, and lack of tutors; suggestions include in‑school, state-run, or national exams and automatic fee waivers.
- Debate over how “coachable” tests are: some say gains from expensive courses are limited and books/practice largely suffice; others emphasize that some students need real human help.
Broader views on elite universities
- One group dismisses Ivies as overbranded, saying instruction is similar to flagship state schools and value is mostly signaling.
- Others counter that peer quality, alumni networks, recruiting pipelines, and generous financial aid for low‑income students still create a large advantage, even if classroom teaching isn’t dramatically better.
International and systemic comparisons
- Examples from Canada and Europe highlight alternatives: national baccalaureate-style exams vs. pure GPA systems, with concerns about grade inflation, “fake leadership” extracurriculars, and perverse incentives when tests are absent.