Proud of my employer for seeing the light. The fairest admissions policy IMO is universal testing + a thumb on the scale for disadvantaged applicants.
news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/…

'Test-optional admissions may sound like a reasonable approach, but in practice, it adds significant complexity to an already-bewildering college-application process—and complexity tends to harm the already disadvantaged,' David Deming writes: theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…

I mean, what are we even doing here?

theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…

'Test-optional admissions may sound like a reasonable approach, but in practice, it adds significant complexity to an already-bewildering college-application process—and complexity tends to harm the already disadvantaged,' David Deming writes: theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…

I'm dismayed by University of Michigan's decision here. If equity matters -- and we keep saying it does! -- this is an appalling choice.

Great article by David Deming on how to better use standardized test scores in college admissions ('test-optional' ain't it).

Cites our research that 'super-scoring', as many colleges do, exacerbates income gaps by encouraging excessive retaking.

theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…

Short thread about my job market paper:
Last week Yale joined Dartmouth and MIT in reinstating the SAT. My paper shows that banning the SAT harms the ability of selective schools, in particular, to admit the strongest students.

Excellent post from David Deming that spells out this concern about test-optional policies: forklightning.substack.com/p/the-unintend…