Michele Hernandez is the president of Hernandez College Consulting and Application Boot Camp (TopTierAdmissions.com). She is the author of four books on college admissions based on her experience as an admissions officer at Dartmouth College.
There’s a lot that could be done to improve the college admissions process. For starters, admissions officers could be more transparent about the process, and colleges could stop the ridiculous mail-marketing campaign based on PSAT scores. And a matching system would eliminate the huge overlap between top colleges (the same 20,000 kids applying to Harvard and Yale for example) and make the application pool much more manageable.
But here’s what I’d really like to see changed:
• Standardize the early admissions program within the Ivy League and top colleges. Instead of having three Ivies with single choice early action and five with early decision (binding), all the Ivies should have binding early decision. This would cut down the number of total applicants in the regular round in a significant way. The Ivies should then commit to greater need-based financial aid for those students in the early decision round so they don’t wonder what financial aid packages they would have received had they waited for regular admission.
Limit the total percentage of the class accepted early decision to no more than 25 percent.
Even more important, limit the total percentage of the class accepted early decision to no more than 25 percent so that 75 percent of the spaces in a class are still available to the vast majority of students who apply for regular admission. Right now, some schools like the University of Pennsylvania and Duke fill almost 50 percent of their classes in the early decision round, which drastically lowers the regular decision acceptance rate.
• Get rid of the SAT and ACT in favor of SAT subject tests and AP/IB tests. The SAT/ACT correlate to socio-economic status. The majority of students applying to elite colleges spend hundreds of hours doing SAT/ACT prep when they could be pursuing scholarly activities. Many New York City families will spend over $20,000 on SAT prep and top tutors charge over $600 an hour. At least SAT subject tests help colleges put grades at different high schools in perspectives, and AP/IB exams show ability to do college-level coursework. SAT/ACT are mostly used to turn away applicants from overrepresented backgrounds and as such are grossly unfair.
• Abolish all preferences, including legacy, V.I.P.-development, athletic – especially Ivy football, which is responsible for the largest number of slots – and minority priority admissions. To address affirmative action, colleges should rely on a socioeconomic flag for students who come from disadvantaged backgrounds, which would take race out of the equation.
Join Opinion on Facebook and follow updates on twitter.com/roomfordebate.
Topics: Education, colleges, university
News & Events
Results of Removing Standardized Test Scores from College Admissions
One year after Hampshire's decision to stop accepting SAT/ACT scores in admissions, we are seeing remarkable results.
By Jonathan Lash, President, Hampshire College
You won’t find our college in the U.S. News & World Report “Best Colleges” rankings released this month. Last year Hampshire College decided not to accept SAT/ACT test scores from high school applicants seeking admission. That got us kicked off the rankings, disqualified us, per U.S. News rankings criteria. That’s OK with us.
We completely dropped standardized tests from our application as part of our new mission-driven admissions strategy, distinct from the “test-optional” policy that hundreds of colleges now follow. If we reduce education to the outcomes of a test, the only incentive for schools and students to innovate is in the form of improving test-taking and scores. Teaching to a test becomes stifling for teachers and students, far from the inspiring, adaptive education which most benefits students. Our greatly accelerating world needs graduates who are trained to address tough situations with innovation, ingenuity, entrepreneurship, and a capacity for mobilizing collaboration and cooperation. We weighed other factors in our decision:
Standardized test scores do not predict a student’s success at our college
- SATs/ACTs are strongly biased against low-income students and students of color, at a time when diversity is critical to our mission
- We surveyed our students and learned not one of them had considered rankings when choosing to apply to colleges; instead they most cared about a college’s mission
- Some good students are bad test takers, particularly under stress, such as when a test may grant or deny college entry; Multiple-choice tests don't reveal much about a student
- We’ve developed much better, fairer ways to assess students who will thrive at our college.
In our admissions, we review an applicant’s whole academic and lived experience. We consider an applicant’s ability to present themselves in essays and interviews, review their recommendations from mentors, and assess factors such as their community engagement and entrepreneurism. And yes, we look closely at high school academic records, though in an unconventional manner. We look for an overarching narrative that shows motivation, discipline, and the capacity for self-reflection. We look at grade point average (GPA) as a measure of performance over a range of courses and time, distinct from a one-test-on-one-day SAT/ACT score. A student’s consistent "A" grades may be coupled with evidence of curiosity and learning across disciplines, as well as leadership in civic or social causes. Another student may have overcome obstacles through determination, demonstrating promise of success in a demanding program. Strong high school graduates demonstrate purpose, a passion for authenticity, and commitment to positive change.
We’re seeing remarkable admissions results since disregarding standardized test scores:
- Our yield, the percentage of students who accepted our invitation to enroll, rose in a single year from 18% to 26%, an amazing turnaround
- The quantity of applications went down but the quality went up, likely because we made it harder to apply, asking for more essays; Our applicants collectively were more motivated, mature, disciplined and consistent in their high school years than past applicants
- Class diversity increased to 31% students of color, the most diverse in our history, up from 21% two years ago
- The percentage of students who are the first-generation from their family to attend college rose from 12% to 18% in this year’s class.
Our “No SAT/ACT policy” has also changed us in ways deeper than data and demographics: Not once did we sit in an Admissions committee meeting and "wish we had a test score." Without the scores, every other detail of the student’s application became more vivid. Their academic record over four years, letters of recommendation, essays, in-person interviews, and the optional creative supplements gave us a more complete portrait than we had seen before. Applicants gave more attention to their applications including the optional components, putting us in a much better position to predict their likelihood of success here.
This move away from test scores and disqualification from the U.S. News rankings has allowed us to innovate in ways we could not before. In other words, we are free to innovate rather than compromise our mission to satisfy rankings criteria:
- We no longer chase volumes of applications to superficially inflate our "selectivity" and game the U.S. News rankings. We no longer have to worry that any applicant will "lower our average SAT/ACT scores" and thus lower our U.S. News ranking. Instead we choose quality over quantity and focus attention and resources on each applicant and their full portfolio.
- At college fairs and information sessions, we don’t spend time answering high school families’ questions about our ranking and test score "cut-offs." Instead we have conversations about the things that matter: What does our unique academic program look like and what qualities does a student need to be successful at it?
- An unexpected benefit: this shift has saved us significant time and operational expense. Having a smaller but more targeted, engaged, passionate, and robust applicant pool, we are able to streamline our resources.
How can U.S. News rankings reliably measure college quality when their data-points focus primarily on the high school performance of the incoming class in such terms as GPA, SAT/ACT, class rank, and selectivity? These measures have nothing to do with the college’s results, except perhaps in the college’s aptitude for marketing and recruiting. Tests and rankings incentivize schools to conform to test performance and rankings criteria, at the expense of mission and innovation.
Our shift to a mission-driven approach to admissions is right for Hampshire College and the right thing to do. We fail students if we reduce them to a standardized test number tied more to their financial status than achievement. We fail students by perpetuating the myth that high standardized test scores signal "better" students. We are in the top one percent of colleges nationwide in the percentage of our undergraduate alumni who go on to earn advanced degrees—this on the strength of an education where we assess their capabilities narratively, and where we never, not once, subject them to a numerical or letter grade on a test or course.
At Hampshire College, we face the same financial challenges as many colleges. But these challenges provide an opportunity to think about who we are and what matters to us. We can not lose sight of our mission while seeking revenues or chasing rankings. We are committed to remaining disqualified from the U.S. News rankings. We’re done with standardized testing, the SAT, and ACT.
Read more about student outcomes
View article in Washington Post
View article in Inside Higher Ed
Jonathan Lash, President of Hampshire College, is also a Director of World Resources Institute, a DC-based environmental think tank, where he previously served as president. Jonathan is a widely recognized environmental leader who chaired President Bill Clinton's Council on Sustainable Development and was the State of Vermont’s Environmental Secretary and Commissioner. He holds a law degree and master’s degree in education from Catholic University of America and a bachelor’s from Harvard College.