Bravo Richard! I am not in any way connected to Loyola but the systematic effort by college administrators to lower the ceiling to attain diversity is disgusting. This bending over backward to accommodate students who don't test well, bodes poorly for institutions like Loyola. It also insults the intelligence of students who come from poorer neighborhoods. If coached by interested volunteers in their communities they can study hard for the SAT and score as high as their compatriots from more affluent neighborhoods.

I was shocked by the argument against the SAT from one of Loyola's administrators published in the Baltimore Sun recently. The person emphasized school work and the difficulty of courses taken by students as being better predictors of their success in college. But that does not mean the SAT should have no place in the evaluation of students. What about students who can ace school courses and the SAT? Should they be made to feel that taking the SAT is superfluous?

The thrust toward a lack of uniformity of standards also galls me. Admit those who show promise in all areas of assessment. That is what will breed excellence. Stop making excuses for those who are unable to cut it and stop punishing the high achievers by diluting standards and making them feel they will be attending an institution aiming for a certain admixture of students even if that admixture is not academically top notch.

Absolutely frustrated

This just goes to show once again that Loyola College always has been and always will be about the money and nothing else. I wish I would've gone to another school but it's too late now. What a waste of an excessive amount of money.

The problem I have with an SAT optional policy is the fact that not all High Schools offer the same level of educational standards. For example I went to a Catholic High School where our grades were purposely deflated while I was a student there. Our grade weighting went down signifigantly while the public school I would've went to purposely inflated their grades. Many other students I have talked to admit that their schools grade inflated for athletes or in general.

There are people who cheat their way through high school, there are people who get special privledges. You don't have to write your own college essay and many people have others do it for them. You can make up a list of activities you participated in during high school because colleges do not have the time or resources to check up to see if you were "President of the Spanish Club."

The SAT was the one universal standard to evaluate the ability of the student to thrive at a college level. Removing it is dangerous to the standards of the collegiate environment Loyola has created.

You think a school which not so long ago went through a very public and embarassing cheating scandal would be more concerned about evaluating students. Removing the SAT creates the potential that you may have more students who cheated their way through high school. Behavior such as that isn't as hard as you would think to transfer over the college level despite the honor code Loyola employs.

Mark me down as another person against the removal of the SAT as a standard for admission.

I disagree with you Rich. I know you from school, and remember you as a bright student who is very involved with the "politics" of our school. While I understand your point, here is a different view on the matter. Coming from personal experience, the SAT does not represent the true standards of many students abilities. For the cheating aspect, I know people who have cheated on the SATs, giving them a grade much higher then they would have ever earned on their own. This allowed many of them not only to get into a school they were unprepared for, but give them a scholarship to that school as well. So while yes, many may cheat through high school, many cheat on the SAT as well. The "few reputable educational institutions" that you mention include Providence College, Holy Cross, NYU, University of Maryland, Wake Forest, and Middlebury just to name a few. I will use a personal story to further enhance why I believe the SAT can cause injustice. In high school, I had a weighted GPA of over 4.0 and was extremely active. A friend of mine who did nothing at the school with a lower GPA got a 1200 on the SAT while I got a 1190. He received a $12,500 scholarship to Loyola, and I didn't receive a dime. 10 points on a standardize test is worth $12,500?

Rather than bash on Loyola, why not support the decision and support a school I know you enjoyed very much and were very involved in. Again, I understand your arguments and the validity behind them, but articles like the one posted above only hinder Loyola's image in the moment rather than enhance it. If you are as concerned as you seem to be, I recommend contacting Fr. Linanne and the Administration department and express your concern to them rather then calling their arguments "disingenuous." Loyola's standards are too high and their academic reputation is so strong that this will not "threaten to debase and devalue the academic prestige and monetary value of degrees granted its alumni," especially for yourself who has graduated and I'm sure will not be affected heavily by this.

Just to be clear: please don't mistake my comments to be indicative of support for the SAT! I hated that test with a passion, and I always will, even though I scored a 1340 (old SAT...not the new one).

But it and the ACT have both been factors in college admissions for over 100 years and as recently as 2005 it was completely overhauled and redesigned to address the concerns that the old test was biased. Those changes were enough to satisfy the University of California system, which led the charge against the SAT front and center over the issue of its perceived unfairness. Why is the test now good enough for UC, but not Loyola?

Further, what of the ACT? That was always "the test people who didn't like the SAT could take". What can Loyola point to that specifically makes the ACT unacceptable to them?

I would urge you to read our full proposal on Facebook: http://bit.ly/t9XCw as it helps explain what we believe should be done and offers a detailed alternative that we feel will achieve the same goals without sacrificing academic prestige. By the end of the day (or maybe tomorrow at the latest), that proposal will also be posted at http://www.concerned4loyola.com

Among other things, we recommend hardship exemptions (family background, economic difficulty) and learning disability exemptions for the SAT and ACT rather than the blanket "I don't want to take it" option being offered.

We also are calling for an increase in Knott and Claver Grants to prospective and current students, the establishment of plans to achieve Comprehensive Diversity at Loyola, and the establishment of tutoring programs in Baltimore City and Baltimore County for at-risk youth who can shine but need the opportunity to do so. If Loyola is serious about achieving diversity and helping disadvantaged youth, they would not merely "lower the bar" so they can gain entry. Investing in their future does give them a real shot at a decent education. Lowering the bar is unfair and takes advantage of these kids. This is to say nothing of the cost of a Loyola education, now approaching $48,000/year. Disadvantaged students would likely not be able to afford a Loyola education even if they were able to overcome all other obstacles in their path to gain admission.

Standardized tests, annoying they may be, exist to provide a 'standardized' metric which can give a rough ballpark of how a student will fair. It's not accurate all the time, but it helps to address the very real fact that all secondary educations are not created equal: some schools are tougher than others. This much is a fact.

As it stands, removing ALL standardized testing---not just the SAT but the ACT too--will make it far more difficult to determine who can handle the course load at Loyola, without guaranteeing it helps the very students Loyola wants to help.

That is our principal concern, and it's why we seek to have this policy overturned in favor of something more sensible.

Concerned, but hopeful:
I believe that somewhere in this discussion is a reasonable middle ground. True, there is considerable evidence against SATs as being a less than fair and accurate judge of ability, but also true is the possibility of making our university's standards too heavily reliant on the abstract. Perhaps the wisest choice is to offer an optional (optional, in the sense that only one of the two exams is required) entrance exam in place of the SATs, be it an exam founded by Loyola or an exam generally accepted to be more fair,from some outside source.

This is some of the worst news I have ever heard. I sincerely hope and pray that this policy will be protested and not be enacted to ensure the progression and high standards of the Loyola community. Enacting this policy will, as previously stated, undermine all the hard work that previous students and current students like myself have underwent. Enacting this policy will no doubt only weaken Loyola's student body and by extension, ruin it's rising reputation as an exceptional educational institution.

This is outrageous and humiliating. Not only is it hard enough to get a job these day, but now they want to lower the standards of the college I just graduated from? I am livid, first we try to turn our small quaint school into a university and now this...Father Linanne is killing the school I adored so much, Loyola College.

I too am completely against this move by Loyola. I went to a public high school. It was one of the more highly ranked ones in my state and I worked my butt off. I know that there are other public schools that are amazingly easy, where grades are almost given away. The SAT was one way that allowed me to show that my high school education was valid. You can not pretend that all high schools are even. In a perfect world, they would be, but unfortunately that is not the case. Loyola must look at the individual that is applying and to do that they must have a way to fairly compare them to other students from around the country. This is why the SAT was created.

Wow, it appears we have touched a nerve here with Current Loyola Student. Are you a little bitter over the fact you got short-changed some scholarship money? Have some axe to grind?
I don't understand what the the tremendous impetus to enact this "Test-Optional" policy was. I mean, the SAT is a standardized test after all. With the exception of a few changes in questions from one month's administration to the next, everyone takes the same test. What could be more fair than that? Everyone is measured on a level playing field. It provides a fair rubric for measuring a potential student's reasoning, reading comprehension, and mathematical skills against other potential students. Yadda Yadda Yadda, we all know what it does. The point is, aren't these the skills that we want in Loyola students. We want only the keenest, most astute, naturally-intelligent students at Loyola as possible. Everyone knows that being in an environment where the bar is high motivates and helps everyone succeeds. This is exactly the environment that a great college fosters. We all want Loyola to be a great college.
But what about diversity, you say? First of all, it does not appear that Loyola has a hard time accepting a diversity of students. I know for a fact that Loyola has always bent their SAT requirements for potential "diverse" students that they wish to attract. What's the point then of enacting this whole anti-SAT policy? Second of all, not trying to intentionally broach the affirmative action controversy, but why is it that Loyola is going out of its way to accept students that wouldn't otherwise meet its admissions criteria? Am I to believe that people should be granted access to a relatively prestigious Loyola education simply because of their ethnic or socioeconmic background and not because of their intellectual merit? Get real. If you are smart (as measured by SAT and other standardized measures) you get in, if you are not, you don't. Let's try to keep things simple, here.
In the end, those of arguing here have little say. The decision was made by a bunch of mucky-mucks in some boardroom who didn't care about alumni and just wanted to meet some diversity number (likely set by U.S. News and World Report).
Rich, I appreciate your efforts, but you gotta pick your battles. After the whole name change debacle, I think we all learned just how powerless students and alumni are when it comes to battling a determined board of directors.

As a Loyola graduate, I have always valued the exceptional education I received there. I applaud Loyola for being willing to look beyond test scores. From personal experience, I know many bright, hard-working and very accomplished people who simply perform poorly on tests. All of them are successful in their careers and upstanding members of the community. Several studies have shown that the SAT and other tests like it do not measure how well a student will perform in college. They do not measure work ethic, personal integrity or even intelligence. Instead, these tests measure how well a person can be trained to perform on a test.

One of the hallmarks of a Jesuit education is learning to analyze, reflect and consider issues from every angle. I am proud to see Loyola looking at this issue from every angle and considering new solutions despite the risk of being unpopular. To me, this new policy is well in keeping with the values that Loyola professes as a Jesuit institution of higher learning. I look forward to seeing what is ahead for Loyola and I suspect the caliber of students will continue to rise.

I'll try and make this short and sweet. The problem that I see lies within an individuals control over the college admission situation.

Now, instead of being able to take the SAT/ACT and have a sturdy influence over ones score, the obvious choice for many is going to be to bypass the expensive and time consuming the test and apply without taking it. As a result, Loyola is obligated to pay more attention to a high schools overall ranking when its taking into consideration students. After all, many of us realize that a 3.9 in one place may be a 2.5 in another. The way I see it is that this is unfair, taking away a significant amount of control from the situation control for the student who is attempting to enter the college. Consequently, individual ability is negated, and they are classified too heavily as part of a greater group based on their high schools rankings.

Thanks!
-DK

As a rising junior at Loyola I have to say that I feel the Alumni are overreacting to the school's change in acceptance policy. I was rather surprised to see that this was really even an issue. Other colleges- often just as prestigious if not more- have done away with SAT scores with little effect on their standing in national rankings. For instance, Holy Cross has stopped accepting SAT scores a couple years prior and nothing has happened their prestige of the school or their alumnus. Furthermore, Holy Cross added an interview process for all applicants (likely in place of the SAT). I actually felt when applying to Holy Cross that the interview process did me more justice than my SAT scores ( I got into both Loyola and Holy Cross so do not assume that I was hiding poor SAT scores).

All I am saying is that the SAT is no longer the only concrete measure of one's academic capabilities for colleges anymore. It has been proven that the SAT may in fact only measure certain kinds of intelligence and completely misinterpret others.

Albert Einstein flunked out of high school; try to have an open mind alumnus.

As a recent graduate from Loyola I have no problem with the new policy, I am actually in favor of the policy. The first comment posted makes a great point. They state "If coached by interested volunteers in their communities they [less affluent individuals] can study hard for the SAT and score as high as their compatriots from more affluent neighborhoods", but they have to depend on volunteers to help them to do well. If everyone can not receive the same preparation for the SAT or ACT then no one should be able to receive it. Just because someone has money should not mean that they get into better colleges because they can afford the hundreds of dollars to take a prep course. For those students who are not wealthy even taking the test can be a challenge, not everyone can afford to take the test at all, let alone multiple times in order to possibly get a higher score.
The SAT and ACT are also not used to predict a person's success past the first year of college and as many of us can confirm, the first year can be rough academically and socially.
By not making someone submit SAT or ACT scores in no way lowers the caliber of students that Loyola will attract. As someone who questioned applying to Loyola because they did not think that their scores on a test were high enough and who succeed at Loyola despite what a standardized test said I say go forward with the policy.
If Loyola wants to be the most comprehensive Catholic institution in a few years then this is a step in the right direction. Open the doors of Loyola to grant the fantastic education that I received and that countless others have received to those who once thought that Loyola and schools of its caliber were out of their reach. By doing this Loyola says that one three hour test will not weigh as much or more than four years of hard work.
If someone has cheated through their high school career and gets into Loyola we have to have faith that the institution that we decided to get our education at will weed them out. In essence we have to have faith in Loyola, although faith does not mean not questioning the decisions that are made. We were taught to question the world around us and we would not be Loyola graduates if we did not pose questions.

As a recent Loyola grad, I just want to say that I wouldn't trade the education I got there for the world. I loved all of my professors dearly (except maybe two), and would go back in a second to study under them more if I could (afford it).

That being said, over the past four years, I've become more and more disenfranchized with the administration's attempts at artificial diversity. They brag about the increased diversity of each new class it admits, but neglect to mention that black and white students generally form their own separate groups and cliques on campus, anyways. However, I never saw any outright racism among the students myself. (However, I won't attest that there isn't any at all.) For instance, my roommate one year was black, and we were (and still are) good friends. However, he had his group of friends and I had mine. There was no antipathy anywhere, just different cultures liking different things.

The administration unfortunately does not want to admit this. My roommate also had many friends from high school at Morgan State. Frankly, many minority students don't consider Loyola because it's a predominantly white school. Likewise, I didn't consider Morgan State because it's predominantly black. It's not racism, but instead just wanting to be in a school where the students have a similar culture to mine, one I can connect to more easily.

That being said, the administration needs to look at what will improve the school itself (this means the students), not what will improve the image of the school. Keep giving a good education and putting out good students will do that more than anything else. I don't how the school can remove an entire factor from consideration, and then say it's considering its decision a holistic one. Maybe memorizing 500 analogies is useless, but knowing some core etymology is certainly important. Likewise, knowing calculus might not benefit a lot of people, but some basic knowledge of trig and geometry should be standard faire if you want to get into a prestegious instution. And with so many resources on the internet, which can be accessed from any library, there's no reason students in bad public schools can not access these resources. It's determination mixed ability to learn that will set them apart. And that's the way it's supposed to be.

And for the record, I received a 1320 on my SATs (20 point difference between math and verbal) and I didn't receive a dime either. My family is comfortable, but by no means rich. I went to public school in a small rural town. From age 16, I worked at a sub shop every summer starting at $5.25 an hour to pay for my expenses. I can't pay $50k a year with that, but Loyola seems to think other things are more important to decide who gets financial aid. But that's another topic.

Also for the record, Einstein didn't "flunk" out of highschool. He withdrew to move to Italy with his family, who were having financial difficulties. The guy read Kant and Euclid before he was a teenager. I can almost guarentee he would have gotten an 800 on his math SATs which would make up for even a mediocre score on the SATs.

I am completely outraged by this. Not only is this a terrible decision made by the college, it was not even discussed about with the college students. Stop lowering the standards of our school.

If Loyola wants to recruit a more diverse student body of more lower SES students, why don't they LOWER TUITION PRICES!? It isn't that lower SES students don't think they will be able to get into Loyola, it is that they see the high tuition price and turn away.
I have a single mother paying for my education at Loyola and she still has to pay $30K a year that we cannot afford. Every time I get more help in the form of grants, etc Loyola just reduces their grant to me so that I am always paying the same high price. "Men and women for others" is not how their financial aid is working - they are stingy!
What is the point of changing our name to University to appear more prestigious when we LOWER admission requirements?

i didn't go to loyola, but it was one of my choices when i was making my decisions back then. i don't understand why it's such a big deal. i went to college a few years after graduating high school, so my SAT scores didn't matter. what i can say, though, is that my scores SUCKED, and i would never be considered for any school. BUT, i ranked in the top of my class, had a great GPA, and had a lot of activities and i did very well in school. i hated the test, because it's crap (in my opinion) and doesn't tell anyone how well you'd do in college. i'm sure there are students that did well on the test but didn't study, didn't go to class, got bad grades, and wasted their parents' money. get over it.

But, they'll get better lacrosse players

The decision to stop using ACT/SAT results in no way impacts the "prestige" of a university. On the contrary, it remarks that the institution is looking at the comprehensive profile of a student regardless of score; as it stands, most students will wind up sending their scores to Loyola under the new "test optional" program as the large number of universities still require college board scores. Additionally, student GPA's, class rank, etc are all re-calculated at Loyola, as they are at all higher education institutions, so the caliber of student will not drop dramatically once scores are considered optional. All high schools are required to submit a school profile allowing the university to know more about the student body/classes offered/graduation rate and such. Furthermore, this decision was clearly not made lightly, and will stand, regardless of apprehension or resistance from Loyola grads. This decision does not undermine any degrees offered, past or present, but instead represents the administration's desire to effectively evaluate all student applications as to determine the applicant's potential to succeed at Loyola.

My problem with this situation is that the administration hid this information from current students and alumni. The SAT is a tool that helps the admissions board in vetting a potential student. It should never be used as the only factor in an application. With that said, I would have no problem with Loyola's enactment of a testing optional policy, if, and only if, they required a minimum GPA for entry; providing they research the standings of high schools in the application pool. It is disheartening to learn how unappreciated an alumnus' voice is in major decisions affecting the college, or, excuse me, university. The Loyola College I applied to, and attended, was a wonderful institution that promised an education of the whole person. Though, I admit, I received a great education from Loyola, I have a serious issue with how they handle the so-called "advancement" of the school. I do not want to say that I regret my decision to attend Loyola, but if I knew this was in the cards, I would have saved myself the heartache (and money) of watching a school I love be destroyed by a money-hungry President and Board of Trustees. Loyola University will always be a beautiful campus, but it needs to return to the ideals of the Jesuit education. They need to not be so focused on what makes them look good to others, but be good for the sake of being good. If they're doing the right thing, they'll be noticed for that. Reducing their standards of acceptance while still maintaining their high tuition costs really won't add diversity. I think the only thing you'll see an increase of is people from the tri-state area with mediocre grades and lofty trust funds gaining admittance and ruining our academic standards. Furthermore, I find this decision absolutely pretentious and demeaning to those individuals who are of a certain socio-economic background. How would one feel if they knew that the only way they got into a college like Loyola was because they lowered their standards? I urge Father Linnane and the Board of Trustees to find a happy medium with this situation. A lot of recent alumni are in financial distress because of the high costs of the college and the lack of jobs on the market; the last thing we need is for potential employers to think that we went to a school because it was easy to be accepted. We do NOT need our degrees to be looked down upon in the slightest. If this situation is not resolved in a way that, at the very least, ADDRESSES our concerns, my financial support for the college will end immediately. Oh, and by the way Father Linnane, despite my loan bills that keep coming in, I sacrificed to donate to the future of Loyola. To hear comments about those who say they won't donate haven't donated anyway is disgusting. Maybe they just weren't able to afford it because of you're insanely high tuition, but that's a topic for another day. Just listen to your students and alumni, I'm sure we can reach a point where we're all able to agree.

To address those who say that Loyola is only concerned with image and not with doing the right thing . . .

Several studies have shown that the SAT discriminates against certain groups. Hispanics, blacks, women, and students with lower incomes have historically scored lower than white males. Now, there are arguments that this data could be flawed. Maybe it needs to be studied again.

But as far as doing the right thing . . . if there is any reasonable evidence that the test is discriminatory, wouldn't it be the right thing to stop using it until at least such time as it could be proven otherwise?

Plenty of people have also written about the value of their diplomas being lessened and admonished Loyola to "do the right thing." If you believe that the right thing is to turn a blind eye to potentially discriminatory practices in order to increase your earning potential, then you have missed the point of a Loyola education.

I disagree with Richard's original post. For over 12 years, I’ve worked in educational measurement, and fully support the decision to make the SAT optional. By looking at factors other than the SAT, which has little connection to actual student learning, the Loyola administrators are making a commitment to admissions as a human endeavor. I applaud this pursuit. I believe that the true value of my Loyola degree is based on what I became, not what I was upon entering. Loyola graduates are known to be hard-working, ethical, intelligent people, and I know this because almost every interviewer I’ve met with has mentioned positive experiences with Loyola grads. I’ve never been asked what I scored on the SAT, but people instead ask what Loyola helped me learn about the world and about myself. We all belong to a great tradition as Loyola graduates, and it is nothing short of dramatic hyperbole to believe that the core ethics of that tradition will evaporate due to an applicant having the option not to report a few de-contextualized numbers.

witness the 2nd phase of the "dumbing down of america"
instead of insuring all races/sexes/religions are educated enough to pass the test (and in the process stay up with the rest of the educated world) we decide to eliminate the test.

only in the United States do we ignore the cause of the problem and just eliminate the entire program instead of trying to understand the ramifications of having a nation of uneducated people who can be led by anyone who looks good and promises them anything they want, we just go along with it.

remember the Lemmings....
or do you even know what they were?

Loyola has been whining about "diversity" for two decades now and somehow continues to get the same white, middle class set of students from NJ/NY/all points NE. So, who cares? What exactly is more diversity really going to get you? If the school really cared about anything other than money, they'd reduce the tuition.

First, there are no studies that "prove" that SAT or ACT discriminate. You would think educated people would understand that people discriminate not a score from a test. I guess Loyola has been lowering its standards for some time now. And if schools really want to increase diversity, drop the application fee and make the application easier (i.e. your name and do you want to attend?) and forget SAT/ACT scores or over inflated HSGPAs.

http://www.mhec.state.md.us/higherEd/acadAff/AcadProgInstitApprovals/APTLogPD.asp -- Loyola's SAT Optional proposal was never submitted for review by the State of Maryland Higher Education Commission. The above is a link to the outstanding proposals, submitted as far back as 2008. If this was submitted and approved, it only happened since May 18th, in which case it was steamrolled through and not thought out.

Doesn't changing admissions standards require approval by those who grant it accreditation?

God bless the SAT, I would have never been accepted to Loyola with my H.S grades.

Nothing says Loyola is becoming a less demanding school, simply that the SAT isnt a good indicator of future success. Plenty of kids get high SAT scores and flunk out of various colleges from Navy to Loyola to UMD Goucher & TSU.

I think after all these years Loyola Admissions has a pretty good handle on the success factors of their best students.

Diversity is important. I graduated from Loyola 20 years ago and I still ahve to remind myself that the people I manage come from a variety of backgrounds, whereas Loyola gave me a worldview that the world is Irish, catholic with a handful of italians for good measure.