MIT to no longer consider SAT subject tests in admissions decisions

Re:MIT to no longer consider SAT subject tests in admissions... by triceratops on Friday March 20, 2020 @02:41PM (#22640285)

Mandate that colleges accept scores from at least 3 different standardized tests, administered by different companies, and that the scores must be easily comparable. That may help break ETS's stranglehold over the market and test fees or test prep material might become reasonable.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:MIT to no longer consider SAT subject tests in admissions... by leetcrew on Friday March 20, 2020 @05:05PM (#22641654)

the SAT test fee is about $65 and there's tons of free prep material (including direct from college board). what would you consider a reasonable price?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:MIT to no longer consider SAT subject tests in admissions... by triceratops on Friday March 20, 2020 @05:14PM (#22641719)

Hard to say if that's actually reasonable, given there's exactly 1 (maybe 2, if you count the ACT) test providers. Not really a competitive market.

For a multiple-choice exam, administered electronically to dozens of test-takers supervised by one proctor...is that actually reasonable? Plus they charge you $15 extra if you want more than 4 scores. Most students apply to more than 4 colleges. Are they physically mailing scores to these institutions?

For a mostly-electronic process (other than the essay grading) $65 sounds like a lot. $40 for the non-essay option sounds even more crazy.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:MIT to no longer consider SAT subject tests in admissions... by leetcrew on Friday March 20, 2020 @05:35PM (#22641897)

I don't mean reasonable in a market equilibrium sense, more of a "hey, that price seems about right" sense.

I'm sure it's not trivial to make multiple versions of the same test every year where the scores are all comparable with each other. then you have to distribute the materials while minimizing the chance that they leak and people come in with the answers memorized.

the college board itself makes about 15% profit each year. definitely a lot better than some market segments, but hardly exorbitant. I guess they might find some ways of trimming the fat if they had more competition, but who knows. more competitors means fewer test-takers to amortize the test design costs over.

[ Parent | on HN ]