
Harvard University Won’t Require SAT, ACT for Admissions Next Year - realbarack
https://www.wsj.com/articles/harvard-university-wont-require-sat-act-for-admissions-next-year-11592272825
======
akyu
I have a hard time understanding the logic here. GPAs are essentially useless,
so what else do we have to go off of? "Hollistic admissions" processes seem to
be even more skewed towards rich kids, as they have far greater opportunities
outside of the class room to pad their resumes in exactly the way that
colleges look for. This seems entirely backwards to me.

If there is a systemic bias in test scores, it is still better to have the
test score there so you can quantify it, and adjust your admissions policy to
account for it. By throwing out the test entirely you are flying blind.

~~~
travisoneill1
How else are you going to keep the Asians out?

~~~
seibelj
You are probably being facetious, but my wife is Vietnamese and her parents
were boat people who fled the communists, didn't speak any English and had no
money, then her dad got a job washing dishes, learned English at night, got
into college, then got into medical school, started a chain of clinics, and
retired a millionaire. You would not believe how much they despise current
"progressive" politics and speaking with them about politics is basically
impossible. They and their community / family follow what is happening with
things like Harvard and partially as a result they are die-hard Trump
supporters (among other things like their belief in religion, police, etc.).

I do not agree with all of these opinions, I am just telling you how this
community, which is mostly still poor and not "model minority", views a lot of
what is coming out of elite institutions in the name of progress and equality.

~~~
travisoneill1
Why wouldn't they feel that way? As bad as Trump may be, he isn't trying to
keep their kids from following the same successful path.

~~~
user982
The same successful path that begins with the US welcoming non-white, non-
English-speaking refugees from countries they've bombed? Trump is not actively
on the record against all of that?

~~~
magicsmoke
If they're refugees from South Vietnam, they probably wish the US kept bombing
so they didn't have to flee the communists.

Hell, if they were well off in South Vietnam before the communists came, it
just goes to show that if your family had the mental foundations necessary for
success, even if you hit rock bottom you still have the attitude to climb back
up.

------
filereaper
I highly recommend watching the video by Scott Galloway on The College
Implosion. [1]

"Colleges have become luxury brands and are adopting a strategy of artificial
scarcity to create irrational margins"

There's a large movement right now where many are saying the large tuition
fees for Zoom lectures aren't worth it.

Colleges sell themselves for the experience and are a luxury lifestyle brand
almost, but with covid the lifestyle aspect of it is wiped out, so its
reasonable that students are asking why they'd pay such high premiums.

I think removing SAT, ACT casts a wider net and hopefully allows more students
to enroll, what's the scaling limitation if everyone's doing lectures on Zoom?
Presumably everyone's also getting graded electronically in some way.

[1]: [https://youtu.be/d8kwzSTITP0](https://youtu.be/d8kwzSTITP0)

~~~
beaner
I don't get it, aren't most colleges non-profits? Why do they seek such high
tuition fees if they're not profiting? Or are they, somehow?

~~~
pc86
"Non-profit" doesn't mean you don't make any money, it means you _spend_ all
your money. I went to a tiny liberal arts college you've never heard of, with
a 1300-student enrollment today. The president makes well over half a million
dollars a year. There are half a dozen deans making anywhere from $75-250k. A
career services department run by a six-figure employee who has never held a
job outside of that college (for real). They're technically a non-profit but
with a sticker price of $40k a year and actual per-capita revenue somewhere in
the high $20's, that is a lot of money to spread around to administration
while you have 150-person lectures taught by a $25k/yr adjunct.

~~~
selimthegrim
Is this RPI?

~~~
pc86
No but I've actually heard very similar experience to folks that went there,
although I don't think it qualifies as a liberal arts college.

------
macspoofing
That's not really a good thing. What they are doing is changing a known
transparent standard for entry to something completely arbitrary, ad hoc, and
opaque from the point of view of the applicant. Also, the applicant pool will
rise because there is no SAT filter.

Having said that, I don't think it's a big deal because nobody _needs_ to go
to Harvard. In fact, if you aren't affluent enough to afford Harvard tuition,
or if you don't have a full scholarship, Harvard tuition is not worth the
degree and student loans you end up with.

~~~
defen
Harvard doesn't offer academic scholarships. If you can't afford Harvard
tuition it's free - e.g. if your parents make less than 65,000 (20% of Harvard
students) you don't pay anything. So yes, it's actually massively worth it if
you can get in, because you graduate with no debt and have a name-brand
diploma and access to an extremely well-connected group of people. It's the
kids who go to second- and third-tier institutions and take on massive debt
who should reconsider college, not the ones going to Harvard.

[https://college.harvard.edu/guides/financial-aid-fact-
sheet](https://college.harvard.edu/guides/financial-aid-fact-sheet)

~~~
L_Rahman
As someone who was accepted and got to see their financial aid package, I have
to mention that it's extremely generous as well. They don't just cover room
and board and tuition, there's an understanding that you're poorer than your
peers at the university so there's general spending money, money to buy winter
clothes, money to fly home 2x-3x a year.

This is a rounding error for Harvard, but I didn't realize how limiting not
having that would be at the school I ended up going to (which only covered
tuition and most of room and board).

~~~
bfieidhbrjr
So where was better than Harvard for you?

~~~
L_Rahman
I went to Hopkins to study bioengineering. This ended up being a tactical
mistake - the media hype around the field gave me unrealistic expectations,
the life of an underpaid academic no longer seemed appealing, coursework was
incredibly difficult and graded on a harsh curve.

But it was incredibly useful because it took me off the default track. Had I
gone to Harvard and enjoyed its attendant grade inflation and reputation
advantages, I'd probably be floating around McKinsey and feeling self
important right now.

Instead, I had to ask myself some difficult questions about what is important
to me and how to make it happen in my life.

------
ylem
It's often good to question assumptions. I happened to do well on SATs/ACTs,
so I could be biased in their favor. But, I was curious--what is the actual
predictive value of SATs/ACTs on college outcomes such as say GPA or
graduation rate. This study would suggest that it's actually more predictive
(at least in Alaska) than test scores:
[https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/projects/project.asp?projectI...](https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/projects/project.asp?projectID=4546)

Has anyone else found other studies? I would be shocked if there isn't some
kind of meta-analysis. Before getting into any discussion about social issues,
let's see whether the tests are actually predictive. Or, if it's just a cargo
cult.

My intuition was that these tests (ACT/SAT) would help to normalize for
different levels of schools, but I will go with data over intuition.

In some sense, this move by Harvard will allow for a natural experiment to see
if there are actually changes in outcomes when GPAs are/are not considered.

~~~
pnw_hazor
The UC system has dropped SAT/ACT as well because the Regents determined them
to be racist. In spite of internal studies at UC schools that determined that
the way the test scores are being used is not racist or discriminatory.

------
wyxuan
important to consider distinction between test blind and test optional like
harvard is doing.

test blind - don't even consider SAT/ACT even if submitted

test optional - will be considered if submitted, but not required.

My view is that more colleges will start going test optional as August rolls
around, but only colleges that have committed to eventually phasing out
testing (UC system) have gone test blind for next year.

------
code4tee
The SAT has always generally been a test showing how well you prepared for the
SAT. For top schools all viable candidates had very good scores so it wasn’t
much use.

It was just one of those things everyone did because everyone did it. With
more opting out that momentum goes away and increasingly now people are asking
“so why did we use this test again?”

Likely won’t be long until the SAT just disappears entirely and replaced with
nothing, or subject tests or some other exams more practically linked to
placement in certain programs.

~~~
young_unixer
> The SAT has always generally been a test showing how well you prepared for
> the SAT.

I don't know about the SAT specifically, but in my country we also have
standardized admission tests and, from my appreciation, it's good at measuring
2 things:

1\. General Intelligence.

2\. How well you prepared for the test.

Sure, (2) may be an undesirable artifact but I think that intelligence is a
good way --if not the best-- to select people for college.

~~~
Traster
2 isn't an undesirable artifact. You want highly motivated hard working people
applying to your university course. People have this idea of some genius
slacker but you know what's better than a genius slacker? A genius who works
hard. And frankly, most people aren't geniuses anyway.

~~~
eitally
You don't even need to raise the bar that much. A normal intelligence person
who works hard is much better than a genius slacker. My experience is that a
lot of people at the top of their high school classes get/stay their based on
1) general intelligence, 2) memorization skills, 3) socioeconomic advantages,
4) compliance. Of those factors, only #3 has a particular bearing on future
success. At university, those who tend to be most successful as students tend
to be those who are intrinsically motivated to work hard and study, and also
those with socioeconomic advantages. After university, those with
socioeconomic advantages tend to succeed regardless of their educational
background, so there are fundamental reasons to investigate the systemic
unfairness and discrimination in our society. Without trying to sound snarky,
this is as linked to movements like BLM as it is to Harvard's discrimination
against Asian applicants.

------
contemporary343
I'm a Canadian who went to an ivy for undergrad, and have always found the
American attachment to the SAT a bit puzzling. I'm also puzzled at the
widespread view that by removing the SAT some grave injustice or lowering in
standards is inevitable. Canadian universities manage to admit students mostly
just based on high school grades just fine. (Yes, there are provincial final
exams but those scores often are not available for admissions since they're
taken in the 12th grade). The SAT itself was an odd exam for me, unlike
anything I ever had to take in Canada. The SAT IIs (and AP/IB exams) on the
other hand seemed like they assessed things more reasonably. The SAT's
heritage as a poor attempt at an IQ test which then morphed into whatever the
heck it is today, makes its utility somewhat out of place compared to what
most other countries do.

One issue that's brought up is heterogeneity in high school grading practices,
but somehow Canada manages. In any case, for "elite" schools, what has always
helped the typical middle / upper-middle class applicants are AP scores (if
you have a few) and of course SAT IIs as well.

~~~
laser
The most competitive universities in Canada, like McGill and UBC have 46% and
52% acceptance rates. Canada has more of a culture of going to college in the
province you grew up. To compare that to Harvard, MIT, Stanford, etc. that
have sub-10% admittance rates and have to review tens of thousands of
applications is failing to realize the scope of the problem these schools face
in selecting students.

~~~
contemporary343
I'm very familiar with the scope of the admissions challenge and it's not
really an issue of number of applicants. Most universities already have an
understanding of different high schools (though often biased to wealthier
communities). As for Canada, specific programs at Canadian schools can be
quite selective - for example EngSci at the University of Toronto has a ~10%
admission rate. Other programs are more like state schools in the US. Most
elite schools in the US are still pretty regional heavy. For example 35% of
Stanford undergrads are from CA and something like 30-40% of Harvard
undergrads are from New England and the mid-atlantic.

~~~
stormtroper1721
Can confirm, some programs and unis are very selective with very low
acceptance rates but the average student doesn’t usually have too much trouble
getting into a relatively good program without having to do standardized tests

------
SamReidHughes
Caltech is doing this -- actually, they're going test blind -- for two years.
I think that's pretty notable, since I trust them to be interested in only
admitting students that can pass their physics classes.

~~~
gautamcgoel
I'm a PhD student at Caltech. There's also a push to eliminate the GRE as a
requirement for graduate admissions, in much the same way as some people want
to eliminate the SAT as a requirement for undergraduate admissions. In my
opinion both proposals are well-intentioned but ultimately bad ideas.

~~~
memexy
Why are they bad ideas? I took the SAT and GRE for undergraduate and graduate
schools respectively and neither was worthwhile preparation for anything I
studied. If we want to put up barriers to entry then I think we can find
better and more predictive ways than measuring general pattern matching skills
with the SAT and GRE.

~~~
xvedejas
To quote Scott Aaronson:

 _Admissions to the top US universities—and hence, most chances for social
advancement in the US—will henceforth be based entirely on shifting and
nebulous criteria that rich, well-connected kids and their parents spend most
of their lives figuring out, rather than merely mostly based on such criteria.
The last side door for smart noncomformist kids is now being slammed shut._

~~~
beaner
It reminds me of a section of Thomas Sowell's book Discrimination and
Disparities.

It was talking about automatic background checks for applicants at businesses.
Some people wanted such processes to be illegal, on the grounds that they were
supposedly racist.

In reality, automatic (i.e. _indiscriminate_ ) background checks actually
resulted in more blacks being hired. Even if the local black population had a
higher or much higher percentage of people with bad marks on background
checks, being able to screen them out and allow those blacks with no bad marks
to apply was made easy.

Without automatic background checks, employers fell back on their own biases,
resulting in fewer blacks being hired.

The SAT is like an automatic background check. Without this indiscriminate
screening, the schools have more ability to discriminate based on biases.

~~~
Balgair
Credit checks had a similar impact for minority and disadvantaged communities.
Before, if you wanted to get a mortgage or a car loan, the bank would assess
you based on a number of factors. Many banks explicitly used race as a
criteria for denial. Now, with near instant credit checks, race has been
removed as an explicit criteria, rightfully leading to much higher rates of
loans and mortgages for minority and disadvantaged communities. Are credit
checks anywhere close to reliable or fair? Can you correlate race based on zip
code or other factors? Yes, these methods are not anywhere close to 'good
enough'. But they are miles ahead of the explicit racism that preceded these
form of financial product applications.

------
retortio
Ah, those pesky standardized tests.

Sure they're the hardest part of admissions to game and are a major part of
establishing an even intellectual playing field for applicants, but it just
looks so bad when we discard a much higher proportion of qualified Asian
applicants than qualified applicants from other groups! We were even sued over
this issue and the suit is going to appeal!

And we're trying so hard to increase the numbers of admitted applicants from
other groups but their standardized testing scores just aren't up to snuff...

I know! Let's just get rid of the tests! Then we can enforce whatever
arbitrary (and race based) standards we want without annoying complaints that
we're discriminating against qualified applicants.

What's that? By enforcing artificial "race" quotas we're just further dividing
people based on race? Nonsense, our humanities department tells us that
reifying race and obsessing over it is the best way to achieve a post racial
society!

~~~
kory
The problem is that standardized tests worsen the gap between the privileged
and not. Test performance correlates strongly with how much prep you receive.
Wealthy, white & asian students have the advantage there.

Not to mention that I am not convinced these tests strongly correlate with
one’s ability to successfully complete an undergrad degree.

~~~
retortio
What's harder: gaining admission to a prestigious private high school that
costs $50,000 a year or getting a few cheap SAT test books, watching some free
YouTube videos and practicing for a few weeks?

The point is that the SAT can be practiced for (to a small extent), but the
resources necessary to improve one's score are cheap and widely available.
It's one of the most equitable aspects of college admissions we have.

------
wespiser_2018
This makes sense: Harvard has a huge issue with discrimination against Asian
Americans, who are not represented according to their ACT/SAT score
distribution. If Harvard could waive away these scores, they can continue
their admissions policy that favor students from wealthy families who pay full
price, and are likely to be institutional givers after graduation by focusing
on admission factors that are much less accountable, like "personality".

Student's for Fair Admissions is in the process of suing Harvard over
discrimination, and their website (with legal filings) is probably the single
best source of information on Ivy League admissions:
[https://studentsforfairadmissions.org/updates/](https://studentsforfairadmissions.org/updates/)

~~~
mtgp1000
>This makes sense: Harvard has a huge issue with discrimination against Asian
Americans, who are not represented according to their ACT/SAT score
distribution. If Harvard could waive away these scores, they can continue
their admissions policy that favor students from wealthy families who pay full
price, and are likely to be institutional givers after graduation by focusing
on admission factors that are much less accountable, like "personality".

Please. This is about affirmative action for people who aren't Asian or White.
Not wealthy donors. The argument is that lack of privilege causes poor SAT
scores which is preventing certain minorities from realizing their potential,
and that this justifies selectively lowering the bar and allocating additional
resources.

But this is all based on a conflation between equality of outcome and equality
of opportunity.

~~~
MagnumOpus
> Not wealthy donors

Harvard's admission rate is <6% for general population - that includes
affirmative action ethnicities. Harvards admission rate is >30% for "legacies"
which make up one in six of their students, and even higher for donors. These
are the kids who get in while being thick as a brick. The injustice is not
primarily the black kid with 1400 SAT getting in over the east Asian kid with
1580 -- the injustice is the hundreds of CEOs/senators' kids being assured
admission even being dumber than a sack of hammers.

~~~
retortio
I would expect legacies to have a higher admission rate. They are a
subpopulation coming from homes with intelligent parents, likely grew up in
intellectually stimulating environments, and were probably focused on the Ivy
League before many of their peers had even heard that term.

There is definitely some application boost legacies get simply by virtue of
being a legacy, but their applications are probably quite strong in general.
So it's unlikely that dropping the SAT was meant to cater to them.

~~~
evanpw
This should be easy to test, right? Look at the percentage of students
admitted to Harvard whose parents went to Harvard vs. the percentage admitted
whose parents went to some other similarly-selective school.

------
Hitton
Very considerate of them. Now the affluent parent won't need to abase
themselves to bribing and fabricating sports credentials[0], it will just work
out on its own.

[0]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_college_admissions_briber...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_college_admissions_bribery_scandal)

------
tombert
Very mixed feelings on this.

I got terrible grades throughout high school (despite taking AP classes), and
the only reason I was able to attend college was because I had very high ACT
scores (perfect in English, and 2 points away from perfect in Math).

The way I see it there are two kind of perspectives you can take on this: A) I
was a lazy kid who skated by and short-circuited my way through college or B)
the school system failed me and I shouldn't be punished by not being able to
attend college.

Honestly, I tend to gravitate toward option A, but it does make me wonder how
much weight we should really assign to GPAs.

------
throwawaysea
This recent trend of eliminating the SAT/ACT reads to me like: “Let’s
eliminate these measures that allow high performing students to objectively
differentiate themselves, in favor of a more opaque admissions process where
we can implement discriminatory policies without scrutiny.”

~~~
mrlala
>allow high performing students to objectively differentiate themselves

Except the argument by people is it's NOT objective. I think the argument goes
something like this: rich kid gets full time tutor privately or through school
and is able to do significantly better on the SAT/ACT because they have
_specifically_ prepared for it.

It doesn't mean they are smarter, or even a better student. It means they have
been prepped better for it than their peers that don't have the same luxuries.

If 95% of the time a student scores higher after taking an expensive prep
course, does that mean scoring higher really means much? Especially with SO
many people taking the test, that little bit makes a difference where are you
on the curve.. perhaps people are thinking that the kids whose parents can
afford the time and money to give them a slightly advantage on the test
doesn't translate into that person being a better student.

~~~
throwawaysea
This is a myth. Almost nobody, even among "rich kids", gets a full time tutor
for the SAT/ACT. Most just use the same cheap tools everyone else does - a
Barron's test prep book.

------
alkibiades
Let's talk practically, this will hurt people who did best on SAT (asians and
jewish people who studied hardest, not rich white people) and help those who
did poorly (blacks and hispanics).

The SAT isn't perfect and you can prepare for it (to an extent), but its alot
better than GPA or any other measure as atleast it's consistent between
schools.

It was actually introduced to help be more egalitarian and meritocratic. And
its been shown to correlate pretty well with general purpose IQ tests as well
as later success in life.

Removing it will no doubt help them discriminate more against asians and
jewish people. they introduced meritocracy and it produced a result they didnt
like for certain races so theyre removing it.

------
zarkov99
So now they can have exactly the demographics they want. Those pesky objective
criteria kept creating inequality.

------
wildermuthn
Predicting a human being’s ability to “succeed”, regardless of domain, is very
difficult.

The insights from YC’s process might be useful. While intelligence is
important, it isn’t the most important variable. What matters most is a
determined-to-succeed-at-all-costs team.

In the case of education, it makes sense to have some kind of threshold for
general competence (GPA for instance) which is required, but subsequently to
focus more on the “team” aspect of education. What kind of culture are you
attempting to build on your campus? What kind of people are you trying to
form? That’s the purpose of education, not technical mastery (that comes
later).

Having said that, even a group like YC could use a standardized test to
accurately measure that intangible force behind grit/determination, the force
that drives a person to be a creatively unstoppable force of success. Of even
more value would be a measurement contextual to environmental factors: i.e.,
higher or lower scores depending on what kind of people you are surrounded by,
what kind of tasks you are confronted by.

To do that you’d probably have to model (predict) society itself, and then
you’d have implemented Foundation. In other words, this is a problem much
harder than whether or not to use standardized tests for college applicants.
We don’t know how to predict the future of individuals and societies. It may
be impossible. But if you’re looking for an embarrassingly ambitious startup
idea, this sure seems like a good candidate.

------
diebeforei485
Ultimately this gives the admissions committee a lot less transparency in
terms of whom they choose to admit.

In light of recent scandals, I am not sure that is a good thing. It may be
well-intentioned today, but will ultimately be to the benefit of legacy and
donor applicants, and to the detriment of others.

Perhaps Harvard with its endowment doesn't need the money and won't give in to
the temptation, but this also sets the standard for other universities - and
many of them could use the money.

------
fortran77
I suspect this will help "privileged" kids more than disadvantaged ones. They
have parents that can pull strings to get high school grades inflated or
attend special schools for "bright" kids that inflate grades and have the
support to get good extracurricular activities to appear well-rounded. And
they have help writing college application essays, etc.

------
SpicyLemonZest
There's a lot of commentary here about larger trends towards not requiring the
SAT, but Harvard says this isn't part of a larger trend. They just don't want
to require students to go to a testing center in the middle of a pandemic, and
nobody knows at this point what remote administration options will be
available before 2021 applications are due.

------
aiisahik
As an Asian who went to an Ivy, I welcome this change.

Yes, it will mask a policy of keeping the proportion of Asians lower than a
race neutral policy.

Yes, it's racially discriminatory.

Yes, it's somewhat unfair to Asians who are trying to get in.

But no, being fair isn't the point of these schools. Nor is having the most
academically excellent student population. If you want that, go to Berkeley or
CalTech.

The point is to provide an exclusive and desirable brand name. If the school
ended up being 50% Asian like Californian colleges, it would be less diverse,
less interesting place to go to school, and lose a lot of the cachet. I
wouldn't want to go to a college that is 50% Asian and 1% black over a college
that reflected the demographics of the country.

Asians parents need to learn that life isn't just about testing better and
having a better resume. Their kids will learn that lesson later on in life but
time they learned it earlier.

~~~
JMTQp8lwXL
The problem with laying bare this purpose of these institutions is it destroys
their credibility. If everyone knows it's just a social club, and that is
formalized, it loses its prestige. It's beneficial to students who are
enrolled due to family gifts that some students are enrolled due to being
truly academically skilled. It furthers the impression the gift-giving segment
may be skilled as well.

~~~
aiisahik
Again, it's the prestige of the social club that gives them credibility - not
the academic excellence of its students. The students who have mediocre grades
but very rich parents actually might actually have a better chance at success
and bring more prestige to the university than the academically excellent
student who have poor parents.

~~~
JMTQp8lwXL
That might be too much of a reduction. You need academically successful
members of your institution to get eye-popping headlines like "X discovered at
University Y". Those PR pieces are partially responsible for the prestige.
Concur on the point of family wealth helping institutions.

~~~
aiisahik
"X discovered at University Y" happens in graduate schools - not at the
undergraduate level. And when you're admitting students in graduate school
(excluding MBA and JD), you want the most academically successful members.
There is no affirmative action for the physics Ph.D program at Harvard.

------
jb775
In other words, they'll gladly accept heaps of additional application fee
money while padding the "hardest college to get into" stats

------
mikekoscinski
I struggle to understand how this benefits applicants. So long as SAT/ACT is
accepted at all, students should (and, mostly likely, will) continue to take
them. This is a very obvious illustration of game theory and the Prisoner's
Dilemma. [1]

Refusing to accept SAT/ACT scores would cause a profound change. Whether or
not that is advisable is a separate discussion. The question begs, if we
eliminate the SAT/ACT, and we decry GPAs as non-standardized, then what?

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory)

------
Vervious
I remain skeptical that admissions committees can distinguish between great
students and good students through their personal statements. (Not that the
SAT would have helped there either)

~~~
crimsonalucard5
The objective here isn't to identify good students. That's just the cover
story.

The objective is to select on criteria other than intelligence. For example,
race.

~~~
Vervious
Seems like a very idealogical thing to argue without evidence

~~~
crimsonalucard5
You're not wrong. But there's no evidence arguing the contrary either.

------
mathattack
“Not requiring” is about ratings. It allows schools to increase the amount of
applicants making the school seem more selective. Meanwhile, they only report
the test scores of good test takers, so the average increases too.

For a school like Harvard, once you’re in it’s hard to fail out. If you have a
4.0 GPA, the SATs won’t help you keep from failing. So better for them to only
report the 1500s and not the 1300s.

------
akhilcacharya
What a weird way to attempt to be "egalitarian" \- Harvard's only purpose is
to be selective and exclusionary. You can't be both.

~~~
SCAQTony
I am cynical enough to believe it's a loophole to keep overachieving Asians or
Indians from owning a rightful slot instead of a son or daughter of a wealthy
donor, politician, or celebrity.

~~~
eesmith
Is "owning" a typo for "earning"? I don't see how anyone can own a slot.

To add to your cynicism, university exams started as way to select WASPy prep
school students instead of "overachieving" Jewish public school students. See,
the tests included a section on Latin, which was much more often taught in
private prep schools than public high schools.

To detract from your cynicism, the intrinsic assumption is the SATs are
meaningful indicator of "rightfulness."

My understanding is that at best it shows a correlation with the first year of
college, and that high school grades show a better correlation than the
(gameable) SAT.

Don't know if the WSJ article covers any of this - don't have a subscription.
But the header suggests this change is only for the next year, as a response
to the pandemic, and not (yet?) a long-term change, so it likely doesn't touch
on these issues.

------
kvnnews
Keyword seems to be require. I would think it’s still a factor. If you forego
the tests you should be prepared to prove yourself by other means I guess. I
wouldn’t take those chances though if I wanted in to Harvard. Although maybe I
don’t understand the function of 21st century university anymore.

------
tinyhouse
Harvard can be corrupt. There's a very average girl in my town who wouldn't
get admitted to grad school at Harvard if her dad wasn't a law professor at
Harvard.

Regarding asians. It's not about race. Diversity in academia is important for
many reasons. It's not about being asian, it's about living in a rich family
at a top school district, regardless of your race. A poor kid from a bad
neighborhood cannot compete with that. The key is to find those who can close
the gap. Taking someone's background into consideration is the right thing to
do. There's some subjectivity in the process, so it's not ideal and someone
would always be upset, but it's better than just looking at test scores.

To give you an example. I have friends who live at one of the top school
districts in MA. In the last 3 years of their daughter's high school, they
optimized her acceptance to college. Spending a lot of money on private
lessons, making sure she volunteers in the right places since it looks good on
the college application, paying money for a local expert to help her with the
admission essay, etc. This is on top of the fact that she is already at a
great high school who is optimized for getting its students into top schools.

~~~
pcurve
"I have a very average girl in my town who got admitted to grad school at
Harvard only because her dad is a law professor at Harvard."

I'm not saying Harvard isn't corrupt, but admitting professor's kid isn't
really the best indicator of corruption. It's nothing unusual in many schools
and they don't hide it.

~~~
js2
I can understand the employment perk of making tuition free for employees'
kids, but I'm less sure about reserving a slot. If I can make an analogy: as
an employee of Verizon, I get a 50% discount on service, but when a new iPhone
comes out, I'm not allowed to purchase it until after it's widely available.

I would think the child of a college professor likely already has an academic
leg up on your average kid. Those kids maybe even more than others really
should have to have the grades to get in.

~~~
knolax
I think a better analogy would be like a world class chef not wanting to feed
their kids McDonald's.

------
rb808
There are two conflicting attitudes for Prestige universities

A) Ivies/Standford are better than regular universities because they have
resources, powerful alumni and well connected students B) They should let XYZ
in because they have great test scores

If B was really the most important A would no longer be true.

------
surround
[http://archive.is/mTOUo](http://archive.is/mTOUo)

------
whotheffknows
It's amazing to me ivy league universities have done this in the face of
uncertainty and extreme anxiety now that we have evidence that elongated
sustained anxiety and chaos in one's life can reduce someone's IQ, I just
didn't think they would be so blatantly obvious to do if when something
globally devastating enough happened to be distracting to even rich white
people as well, when students coming from poverty are dealing with
distractions that are often worse regardless.

Sometimes it truly takes a rich white person to experience something before
they believe it can happen to anybody else, and then they make a decision
everyone else benefits from. Here's to new beginnings.

I'm curious how well rich white students who have never been exposed to chaos
and uncertainty of this magnitude will fair in comparison to incoming students
who have been dealing with it their whole life, a much better IMHO indicator
for success in this "uncertain" times.

------
mtgp1000
The only value colleges can hold comes from the rigor that ensures scarcity of
degrees. Lowering the bar in a naive attempt to bring college to everyone only
devalued the degree, and now we are seeing the slow decay of even our most
prestigious universities.

No good will come from ignoring the natural distribution of intelligence.

