It's almost as if those of us who used critical reasoning before the decision was made to scrap these tests were right. A lot of introspection needs to be done to determine why these decisions were made. At the time of the decision, the admissions committees claimed the exact opposite was true, that the tests are poor predictors and disadvantaged already-disadvantaged students. Now they're claiming the opposite. Based on what data? Why did we allow the admissions committees of so-called 'elite' institutions to be so easily swayed? Are these institutions really worthy of their 'elite' status? It would seem to be called into question if they can't answer a question as straightforwards as this.
Especially institutions like MIT... one would expect that they have a solid understanding of data analysis.
Especially institutions like MIT... one would expect that they have a solid understanding of data analysis.