近两年在疫情影响下，许多美国大学采取了test-optional政策，即不要求申请人强制提交SAT/ACT成绩。加上疫情导致的出境考试难问题，许多同学也在不断询问：SAT/ACT还有必要考吗？

而如今的申请结果，越来越体现出SAT/ACT成绩的重要性。3月28日，麻省理工大学官网正式官宣：SAT/ACT恢复强制提交！

这所稳居美国TOP 5的理工校天花板，为何率先提出这项要求？

MIT通知原文如下：

MIT Admissions announced today that it will reinstate its requirement that applicants submit scores from an SAT or ACT exam.

The Institute suspended its longstanding requirement in 2020 and 2021 due to the Covid-19 pandemic that prevented most high schoolers from safely taking the exams. However, with the advent of safe, effective pediatric vaccination, the expansion of the free in-school SAT (where most students now take the test), and the introduction of the digital SAT, most prospective students can take them again.

Research conducted by the admissions office shows that the standardized tests are an important factor in assessing the academic preparation of applicants from all backgrounds, according to Dean of Admissions and Student Financial Services Stuart Schmill. He says the standardized exams are most helpful for assisting the admissions office in identifying socioeconomically disadvantaged students who are well-prepared for MIT’s challenging education, but who don’t have the opportunity to take advanced coursework, participate in expensive enrichment programs, or otherwise enhance their college applications.

MIT News spoke with Schmill about how his team arrived at its decision, which he also wrote about today on the MIT Admissions blog.

Q: Why is MIT reinstating its SAT/ACT requirement?

A: First, let me talk a bit about why we have an SAT/ACT requirement in the first place. We have a dedicated research and analysis team that regularly studies our process and decisions. One thing they look at is what we need to predict student success at MIT. We want to be confident an applicant has the academic preparation and noncognitive skills (like resilience, conscientiousness, time-management, and so on) to do well in our challenging, fast-paced academic environment.

In short: Our research has shown that, in most cases, we cannot reliably predict students will do well at MIT unless we consider standardized test results alongside grades, coursework, and other factors. These findings are statistically robust and stable over time, and hold when you control for socioeconomic factors and look across demographic groups. And the math component of the testing turns out to be most important.

One reason we think this is true is because of the unusually quantitative orientation of our education, as I explain in more detail in my post. An MIT education combines deeply analytic thinking with creative hands-on problem-solving to prepare students to solve the toughest problems in the world. Our General Institute Requirements demand that all first-years must take (or place out of, through Advanced Standing Examination) two semesters of calculus and two-semesters of calculus-based physics, no matter what field they intend to major in; students who do not place out of physics also take a math diagnostic. In other words, there is no pathway through MIT that does not include a rigorous foundation in mathematics, mediated by many quantitative exams along the way. So, in a way, it is not surprising that the SAT/ACT math exams are predictive of success at MIT; it would be more surprising if they weren't.

I should emphasize here that we don’t focus only on the tests. In fact, we don’t care about the tests at all beyond the point where they — alongside other factors — help demonstrate preparation for MIT. We don’t prefer perfect scores, and a perfect score isn’t sufficient to say you’ll succeed at MIT, either. However, the tests are something we’ve found we usually need in addition to these other factors in order to demonstrate preparation.

We are reinstating our requirement in order to be transparent and equitable in our expectations. Our concern is that, without the compelling clarity of a requirement, some well-prepared applicants won’t take the tests, and we won’t have enough information to be confident in their academic readiness when they apply. We believe it will be more equitable — and less anxiety-inducing — if we require all applicants who take the tests to disclose their scores, rather than ask each student to strategically guess whether or not to send them to us.

Of course, we know that some students won’t be able to safely take the tests due to their own specific health conditions or various disasters and disruptions, as was the case before the pandemic. In these cases, we will allow students to explain on their application why they were unable to safely take the exam, and we will not hold the lack of exam against them. We will instead use other factors in their application to assess preparation as best we can, but with one less tool in our kit in their case.

Q: What do you say to those who argue the tests create structural barriers for socioeconomically disadvantaged and/or underrepresented students?

A: I appreciate this question, which we have kept foremost in our minds as we reviewed our research and policies. MIT Admissions has a strong commitment to diversity, and it is important to us that we minimize unfair barriers to our applicants wherever possible.

However, what we have found is that the way we use the SAT/ACT increases access to MIT for students from these groups relative to other things we can consider. The reason for this is that educational inequality impacts all aspects of a prospective student’s preparation and application, not just test-taking. As I wrote, low-income students, underrepresented students of color, and other disadvantaged populations often do not attend schools that offer advanced coursework (and if they do, they are less likely to be able to take it). They often cannot afford expensive enrichment opportunities, cannot expect lengthy letters of recommendation from their overburdened teachers, or cannot otherwise benefit from this kind of educational capital. Meanwhile, we know that the pandemic was most disruptive to our least-resourced students, who may have had no consistent coursework or grading for nearly two years now.

I realize this argument may sound counterintuitive to some who have heard that the SAT/ACT exams raise barriers for access, and I don’t want to ignore the challenges with, or limits of, the tests. They are just one tool among many that we use. However, what I think many people outside our profession don’t understand is how unfortunately unequal all aspects of secondary education are in this country. And unlike some other inequalities — like access to fancy internships or expensive extracurriculars — our empirical research shows the SAT/ACT actually do help us figure out if someone will do well at MIT.

It turns out the shortest path for many students to demonstrate sufficient preparation — particularly for students with less access to educational capital — is through the SAT/ACT, because most students can study for these exams using free tools at Khan Academy, but they (usually) can’t force their high school to offer advanced calculus courses, for example. So, the SAT/ACT can actually open the door to MIT for these students, too.

The key thing I hope people understand is that we are using the tests as a crucial tool in the service of our mission, and not for the sake of the tests themselves. If and when we can find better, more equitable tools than the SAT/ACT, we will make changes to our policies and processes, as we did a few years ago when we stopped considering the SAT subject tests. Our creative and dedicated research and analysis team will continue to work hard in this area.

Q: What do you think the impact of this reinstatement will be on your office and on MIT?

A: My hope is that it will help us recruit, select, and enroll a robustly diverse undergraduate student body that is well-prepared to succeed in our challenging curriculum. At least, when we presented our data and proposal to the Committee on Undergraduate Admissions and Financial Aid (CUAFA) — the student/faculty/staff policy committee that oversees our work — that is how we defined our goal, and CUAFA unanimously approved our plan on those terms.

Before the pandemic, considering testing (alongside other factors) helped us expand access to MIT, and we are very proud of the diversity and talent of the undergraduate student body. There is currently no majority race or ethnicity among MIT’s undergraduates. If you look at research published in The New York Times a few years ago, there is more economic diversity and intergenerational mobility at MIT than at comparable institutions; nearly 20 percent of our students are the first-generation in their family to attend college, as I was. We think that if testing helped us do this before the pandemic, it can help us continue to do it now. So, that is how we will evaluate success in the years to come.

麻省理工学院招生办今天宣布，将恢复要求申请人提交SAT或ACT考试成绩。

在2020年和2021年，新冠使得大多数高中生无法安全参加考试，因此MIT暂停了长期以来的标化成绩要求。然而，随着安全有效的疫苗出现，免费在校SAT考试规模的扩大，以及SAT机考的出现，大多数未来的学生可以再次参加SAT考试。

MIT招生办公室主任Schmill表示，MIT招生办的研究表明，标准化考试是评估各种背景申请人学术准备的一个重要因素。他说，标准化考试能够有效帮助招生办公室确定那些已经为MIT富有挑战性的教育做好充分准备，但没有机会参加高级课程、参加昂贵的强化课程或提高大学申请质量的社会经济地位不利的学生。

MIT News针对SAT/ACT要求的恢复采访了Schmill，下面来看看MIT招生办主任对于这一政策的态度如何，以及为何恢复这项要求：

Q：麻省理工学院为什么恢复了SAT/ACT的要求？

A：首先我来说一下为什么我们会有SAT/ACT的要求。我们有一个专门的研究和分析团队，定期研究我们的过程和决策。他们关注的一件事是：我们如何来预测学生在麻省理工学院的成功。我们希望申请者能够有足够的学术准备和非认知技能(如弹性、尽责性、时间管理等) ，以便在充满挑战、快节奏的学术环境中取得好成绩。

简而言之，我们的研究表明：在大多数情况下，我们不能可靠地预测学生会在麻省理工学院取得好成绩，除非我们考虑考试成绩、课程和其他因素。这些研究结果在统计学上是可靠的，并且随着时间的推移是稳定的，当你控制社会经济因素和观察不同的人口统计学群体时，这些结果是成立的。而SAT/ACT考试当中的数学部分是最重要的。

我们之所以认为这是正确的，原因之一是我们的教育具有异乎寻常的定量取向，正如我在文章中详细解释的那样。麻省理工学院的教育将深入的分析思考与创造性的实际问题解决相结合，为学生解决世界上最棘手的问题做好准备。我们的综合学院要求所有一年级学生必须参加(或者不参加高级站立考试)两个学期的微积分和两个学期的微积分物理，不管他们打算主修什么专业；不参加物理专业的学生，也要参加数学考试。

换句话说，麻省理工学院的任何一条学习路径，都需要有一个严格的数学基础。因此，在某种程度上，SAT/ACT数学考试是麻省理工学院成功的预测因素也就不足为奇了。

在这里我要强调的是，我们并不仅仅关注考试。事实上，我们根本不关心这些考试，除了它们(以及其他因素)有助于证明学生为MIT的学习做好了准备。我们并非是喜欢完美的分数，而且完美的分数也不足以说明学生会在MIT取得成功。然而我们发现，除了这些其他因素之外，我们通常还需要用考试来证明学生的准备工作。

因此现在，我们重新要求申请人提交标化分数，以便使我们的期望透明和公平。我们担心的是，如果没有令人信服的明确要求，一些准备充分的申请者不会参加考试，我们也没有足够的信息来确定他们申请时的学术准备状态。我们认为，如果我们要求所有参加考试的申请人公布他们的成绩，而不是让每个学生有策略地猜测是否要把成绩发给我们，这将会更公平，也不会引起太多的焦虑。

当然，我们知道有些学生由于自身特殊的健康状况或各种客观情况，不能安全地参加考试。在这种情况下，我们将允许学生在申请时解释为什么他们不能参加考试，我们不会因为缺少考试分数而拒绝他们。相反，我们将在他们的申请程序中使用其他因素来尽可能地评估他们的准备工作。

Q：对于那些认为要求提交标化考试分数会给社会经济地位低下和/或代表性不足的学生造成障碍的人，你有什么看法？

A：我们在审查研究和政策时，一直把这个问题放在首位。麻省理工学院的招生制度非常注重多样性，对我们来说，尽可能地减少对申请人不公平的障碍是很重要的。

然而我们发现，我们使用SAT/ACT的方式，相对于其他我们可以考虑的因素，增加了来自这些群体的学生进入MIT的机会。原因在于，教育不平等影响着未来学生准备和申请的各个方面，而不仅仅是考试。正如我所写的，低收入家庭的学生、有色人种学生以及其他弱势群体通常不会上那些提供高级课程的学校。他们往往负担不起昂贵的致富机会，不能指望负担过重的教师写出冗长的推荐信，或者不能从这种教育资本中获益。与此同时，我们知道新冠对于资源最缺乏的学生来说是最具破坏性的，他们可能已经近两年没有连续的作业或评分了。

我意识到，对于那些听说SAT/ACT考试会给入学设置障碍的人来说，这种观点可能听起来有些违反直觉，我不想忽视考试带来的挑战或者限制。它们只是我们使用的众多工具之一。然而，我认为我们这个行业以外的许多人不理解的是，在这个国家中等教育的各个方面是多么不平等。与其他不平等现象不同的是，比如参加昂贵的实习或是参加昂贵的课外活动的实证研究，我们的 SAT/ACT 实际上帮助我们判断一个人是否能在麻省理工学院取得好成绩。

事实证明，对于许多学生来说，要证明自己做好了充分准备，最迅速的途径就是通过SAT/ACT考试，因为大多数学生可以在可汗学院(Khan Academy)使用免费工具学习这些考试，但他们(通常)不能强迫高中开设高级微积分课程。所以，SAT/ACT实际上也为这些学生打开了通往麻省理工的大门。

我希望人们理解的关键是，我们把考试作为服务于我们使命的一个重要工具，而不是为了考试本身。如果我们能够找到比SAT/ACT更好、更公平的工具，我们将改变我们的政策和程序，就像几年前我们停止考虑SAT2考试时所做的那样。

Q：你认为重新要求提交SAT/ACT成绩，对招生办公室和MIT有什么影响？

A：我希望它能帮助我们招收、选拔和录取一批多元化的本科生，他们已经为在我们富有挑战性的课程中取得成功做好了充分的准备。

今年，MIT收到33,796份申请，再创历史新高，而录取率只有不到4%。去年的情况相似，大量申请者涌向MIT，而录取率为4.03%。

而在疫情前，当MIT强制要求标化的时候，MIT平均一年只会收到2万左右份申请，录取率也在6%-7%。

从招生办的态度当中我们可以看出，MIT希望通过强制学生提交SAT/ACT成绩，筛选更加有能力胜任大学学习的申请者。当然通过其他的材料也能证明这一点，但SAT/ACT成绩无疑是最简单直接的方式。

相信MIT的这一决策，对于更多美国顶尖大学的录取流程也有一些影响和启发。而对于中国学生而言，这一政策无疑也透露出一个重要信号：标化考试的时代并未过去，SAT/ACT仍然是国际学生证明自己学术能力的重要方式。

Ref: https://news.mit.edu/2022/stuart-schmill-sat-act-requirement-0328

编译：新东方在线SAT