To the Editor:
Re “Colleges Fled SAT in Spite of Its Utility,” by David Leonhardt (news analysis, front page, Jan. 12):
Mr. Leonhardt helpfully reminds us that standardized exams can improve access for high-performing, underrepresented minority students. But using this research to call recent movements toward test-optional admissions policies misguided not only oversimplifies college readiness, but also disregards students whose access to college is hindered by mandatory test submission.
These students — neurodiverse students with learning disabilities, differences and anxiety issues — often struggle with standardized exams, and the College Board’s accommodations system does little to help. These students’ high school experience often involves the development of strategies that will enable them to self-advocate and succeed in a college setting, in spite of their disabilities. But these skills do not often surface on standardized exams.
Moreover, students who might not excel in the generalized metrics of the SAT often exhibit strengths in more specialized areas. College, unlike previous educational settings, offers the opportunity for them to specialize and thrive in these specific domains via choice of major. The SAT’s broad and generalized approach fails to capture this nuanced aspect of student potential.
At best, a college application tells a compelling narrative about a student’s qualifications for higher education. If a high SAT score strengthens a student’s narrative, by all means a student should submit it. But an emphasis on SAT scores overlooks the diverse ways students manifest their readiness for college. A shift to test optional was a godsend for many students, and it would be a big mistake to roll that back.
Chris Wiebe
West Hollywood, Calif.
The writer is head of school at TREE Academy.
To the Editor:
David Leonhardt clearly proved that SAT scores are predictive of success in college. Instead of bemoaning the lower scores that many disadvantaged children achieve as a result of “biased” tests, we should heed the results as a call to demand the resources necessary to make sure that every child, no matter where they live, receives the same high-quality education.
Ina Rubenstein
San Diego
To the Editor:
It would be easy to take aim at David Leonhardt’s article on standardized testing, because his data sets come solely from elite institutions. More interesting, however, is the fact that although he repeatedly states that SAT scores are a better predictor of success, his charts appears to equate success with attending an elite graduate school, working at a prestigious firm and getting grades above 3.0.
But in 2023, is our definition of success still limited to elite graduate schools and prestigious firms? Might an M.I.T. graduate become an incredible high school physics teacher or a creative coder? Might people who get B’s at Harvard or U.C.L.A. be capable of having fulfilling, productive, dare I say successful lives?
If the data showed that students with lower SAT scores who are admitted to elite colleges are dramatically more likely to fail their courses, drop out or die by suicide, I would take his concerns more seriously. But I’m guessing most of those students get great educations and do wonderful things with their lives.
Maybe what we need to reconsider is the elite-centric definitions of success that these schools and Mr. Leonhardt continue to promulgate.
Rebecca Steinitz
Arlington, Mass.
To the Editor:
David Leonhardt claims that test scores are far superior to high-school grades in predicting how students will perform in college. Analysis of data from our own institution, the University of California, shows that the claim is spurious, the statistical artifact of a classic methodological error.
Compared with high school grades, test scores are more strongly correlated with student demographics like family income, education and race/ethnicity — factors that are also correlated with student outcomes in college. As a result, when student demographics are omitted from prediction models, the utility of test scores is artificially inflated.
Controlling for demographics, high-school grades are actually the stronger predictor of U.C. student outcomes.
In the three years since U.C. eliminated the SAT requirement, it has seen no diminution in the academic performance of entering students. As the U.C. faculty’s Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools concluded in its 2023 annual report, “Though not initially endorsed by BOARS, elimination of standardized tests has demonstrated a way in which U.C. can lead in advancing access and opportunity for the state’s students.”
Saul Geiser
Richard C. Atkinson
Mr. Geiser is a senior associate at the Center for Studies in Higher Education at U.C. Berkeley. Mr. Atkinson is a president emeritus of the University of California.
To the Editor:
I was never one to do well on standardized tests. More than 50 years ago, I scored a whopping 400 out of 800 on my English SAT. Thankfully, my high school average (92) was a game changer, since between that and a phone call from my high school headmistress I was admitted as a freshman to a college in New York City.
The irony is that ever since I graduated, I’ve made a comfortable living as a writer, abysmal SAT score notwithstanding. I thought of adding it to my cemetery headstone, but I digress.
Let’s just say that there’s more to indicate talent and academic excellence than one’s SAT scores — although I’m kind of proud of that 400.
Barbara Shields
Rockville Centre, N.Y.
To the Editor:
David Leonhardt advocates that elite colleges and universities return to standardized testing as a part of their admissions process. He points to research showing that standardized test scores are a better predictor of college performance than any other measure, noting that grade inflation has made the high school transcript an unreliable indicator of academic performance.
What Mr. Leonhardt says is true, but he doesn’t go far enough. Another important element of the admissions process is the letter of recommendation. In our litigious environment, high school teachers and guidance counselors are understandably uncomfortable about saying anything about a student that might be construed as critical. Admissions officers also look closely at the essays students provide as a part of the application process. But given the prevalence of artificial intelligence, fabricating a phony college essay these days is relatively easy.
I once discussed the college application process with a highly regarded dean of admissions. He acknowledged that the SAT test was flawed, but said that it was the only common currency we have. That was many years ago, but his opinion is truer today than ever before.
Henry Von Kohorn
Princeton, N.J.