During the start of the pandemic, a ton of schools went test-optional. It made sense since a deadly panorama made it so you couldn’t take tests in person. Make the tests optional! Many Colleges, even when schools went back into in-person learning, kept extending their test-optional status. Harvard notably extended it until 2026.
However, one school is getting rid of it this year. MIT won’t be test-optional going forward. Dean of Admissions Stu Schmill wrote in a blog post, "Our 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.” He goes on to say, “We believe a requirement is more equitable and transparent than a test-optional policy."
So what does this all mean? We wanted to break it down and talk a little about MIT, test-optional schools, and what can be done to make admissions fair.
MIT says that having standardized testing makes admissions fairer since it is something that is more easily (for the most part) accessed than other markers of aptitude such as APs. This might sound weird to some. Standardized testing has had a rocky relationship with race and socioeconomics. Many have spoken out about how standardized testing has failed students of color. For example, Ibram X Kendi, BU’s Antiracist Research & Policy Center, said in October of 2020, “Standardized tests have become the most effective racist weapon ever devised to objectively degrade Black and Brown minds and legally exclude their bodies from prestigious schools.”
In the 1920s, standardized tests were used in eugenic studies. Carl Brigham who helped craft the SAT said that standardized testing would show the superiority of “the Nordic race group.” And 100 years later, they are still widely criticized when it comes to race.
Outside of race, studies have shown that rich kids simply do better on the SATs. In a study on Race, Poverty, and SAT scores, USC researchers found that “wealthy students earn higher SAT scores compared to their low-income peers and that the difference in SAT scores between high- and low-income students was twice as large among black students compared to white students.”
These are not hard to find studies. MIT knows this. So how are they saying that having standardized testing is more equitable? Because in one specific way it is and that’s if you are simply a test-taking genus. If you are amazing at test-taking, no matter your race or background, there is a chance you will be an outlier and MIT is looking for outliers. For the class of 2025, the 25th percentile of admitted students scored a 780 out of 800 on the SAT math section and a 35 out of 36 on the ACT math section. Pretty much they are for the most part they are looking for perfect or nearly perfect scores.
These scores are super hard to get no matter your background. And while rich white students do better overall, even for the richest and the whitest, this is a feat. MIT does try to cover themselves by releasing their class racial breakdown. For the Class of 2025, about 41% of students are Asian American, 37% are White, 14% are Hispanic/Latinx and 13% are Black/African American. However, note that in Schmill’s blog about bringing back standardized testing he talks about socioeconomics, something that isn’t specified in these numbers. MIT says they have done internal research and have found that SAT/ACT scores help them predict academic success (something also helped by coming from an advantaged background cough cough). And they find that since anyone can take the SAT/ACT that it isn’t a limiting factor.
We aren’t trying to throw shade… but ok maybe we are.
Due to the long history of standardized testing and racism, (as well as some less noble factors) we think that test-optional status is going to stick around at a lot of schools. About 1,800 schools are test-optional and The National Center for Fair and Open Testing, a Massachusetts-based nonprofit group, thinks more will follow. Bob Schaeffer, the center's executive director, said “you did not need to test scores to do admissions, selective admissions fairly or accurately.” He went on to call MIT an outlier.
While test-optional schools have sprung up since the pandemic, we, at the Koppelman Group, have never been fully convinced that schools are as test-optional as they claim to be. Very few colleges have given any data about how many students get in without test scores. This is an important metric. As advisors, thus, we have always pushed our students to take standardized tests. Without data, it’s hard for us and many others to truly trust the school’s recent test-optional policies. However, test blind schools are a different story.
But what does all this mean for those applying to MIT? Mostly, you are going to have to crush your standardized tests. Testing isn’t everything. MIT looks at your full application, but with a highly selective applicant pool, high test scores are needed. MIT says, “you are not your test scores, and for that matter, you are also not your MIT application, either.” It sounds nice but boils down to if you don’t get in don’t be mad at yourself, we are MIT. Which feels less nice. Honestly, MIT's acceptance rate is so low, that it might not even be if you are academically ready for MIT. It’s more about how many spots are left.
MIT is a very hard school to get into and honestly, we would have always advised submitting your test scores even when they were test-optional. Don’t believe them when they say SAT/ACT scores make anything fairer or less racist, because honestly, that is a very narrow view of this issue. While studying for the SAT/ACT isn’t fun, it’s probably for the best no matter what school you apply to.
Need help figuring out the ins and outs of applying for college? Reach out here!