Malala Yousafzai is the Pakistani girl who was shot by the Taliban on her way to school; she survived to became a world-famous advocate for girls’ education.
She won the Nobel Peace Prize for her advocacy and courage.
She decided she wants to go to Stanford University to study politics and philosophy.
But Stanford will not accept her unless she takes the SAT and presumably scores the requisite points.
I can understand that Stanford wants to maintain its high standards, but shouldn’t a Nobel Prize count for more than an SAT score?
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Reblogged this on Politicians Are Poody Heads and commented:
Stanford has a stick up their collective, supercilious asses. I would think that any good university would be thrilled to have Malala as a student, and do everything it could to help her.
Zorba is right. Any university would be happy to have Malala and she should take them up on the offers she gets. And send those universities’ acceptance letters to Stanford. With a picture of a certain one of her fingers raised.
Stanford is a school for snobs despite that some of my relatives went there, My son, who was accepted, chose Yale over Stanford.
Malala should be a prime candidate for acceptance by all of America’s top schools. The SAT is a false evaluator of ability.
Oh, no! My son chose Stanford but he chose it for its engineering school!
I don’t understand this point at all. If a university has a standardized test requirement, it is a requirement. In the article linked, there is no reason to assume that Malala will not do well as she seemed to ace her GCSE exams and there certainly isn’t a cutoff score she needs to achieve. Presumably they’d let her in with as low a score as the lowest scoring athlete, right? Or lowest scoring son or daughter of their highest billionaire donor.
In the article linked to, in the Guardian, Malala also posted her top GCSE scores and said she wanted to study in the UK, ideally at Oxford. So what happened? And why Stanford?
This seems like a really pointless post, in my opinion. So much going on with terrible education public policy in this country, and a university is not bending the rules for a prominent and accomplished applicant. Since taking the SAT is such a small hoop to jump through, I just don’t feel the outrage.
There is an interesting discussion to be had as to whether standardized tests should be dropped, or “optional” in the college admissions process. But why drop the requirement for one prominent person while keeping them for other students?
Perhaps the point is that the SAT defies reason itself. Sometimes it takes an extreme example to show this more clearly. People should be admitted based on their merits, not a single standardized test score. If this policy doesn’t make sense for one accomplished person, why does it make sense for so many others?
I think she should either take it or go to another selective school that does not require it. Fair is fair. I admire Stanford for sticking to their policies. And I admire her for trying.
Sure, it’s “fair” in a small way, in the sense that “rules are rules.” It’s unfair from a broader perspective, in that the rule doesn’t allow what would actually make more sense.
The SAT doesn’t make sense for lots of students. Is there reason to think Malala herself thinks it is “unfair” to make her take the SAT and thinks she should be exempt because of her Nobel Peace Prize?
I made a response to you above. Another one would be that perhaps, if we’re not going to abolish the SAT for everyone, then make exceptions for certain people who have clearly demonstrated more than an SAT could ever show.
I have to agree. She already earned entrance in so few years.
Since 1949 US educated students have won more than 300 Nobel prizes while in China and India than 8 in the same period. I chose 1949 because that was when the current Chinese government took control. Yet, people want us to adopt the extreme discipline teach to the test philosophy that characterizes Chinese education. College Board and their testing systems should go away.
I’m not a big fan of standardized tests, but US educated students who won all those Nobel prizes most likely went to colleges that required some standardized tests. There were never hard cut offs — it was simply one additional factor in the student’s application, as presumably it will be for Malala.
I am pretty sure that is not true for about half of the Nobel Prize winners. For example, it was 1960 before UC California started requiring SAT’s and now their president has recommended abandoning that requirement. ACT did not begin until 1959.
I’m thinking you are right. No one talks about “Gentleman Cs” anymore. When my father went to school (early 40s), there were obvious legacy students who were far from “the best and the brightest.”
What one does in life, even in the young life of Malala, counts for more than any test score.
Oh, Diane, how disappointing. This is how some of those elite schools come to admit so many legacies. No need to have standards or rules, just admit them on who they know.
You are completely assuming that there is a cut score she must achieve. Many factors are considered for admittance. But let’s assume she was mentally disabled but so charismatic, she could lead a social movement and achieve such a prize. Would it be fair to put her in a classroom with those who learn so much faster? Should the professor fail her if her analytical writings don’t warrant a passing grade even though she can inspire millions through her speeches? Should some students get a pass around the rules because…. well some political operative says so?
There is no evidence Stanford will deny admission if she has anywhere close to a reasonable score. And from her background, she appears to be a very intelligent person. But when folks start asking for favors or waivers “just because“, that’s the beginning of corruption. And that’s exactly what she is fighting so hard to end.
One side is what she can learn as a student and that’s probably what can be learned at, pretty much, any western university. The other side is what she can teach as a student – her classmates will get incredible value out of her being there because of her life experience, her dedication to education and her strength of character in being able to stand up against some of the most evil people in the world.
If Stanford want to blow her off than that is their right but it says a lot about what they think education is about – book learning or lived experience.
You suggest that her “cut score” won’t matter — so there is a value to her just sitting there taking the test ? This argument should help people see just how crazy it is that we have the SAT at all — it’s a private product that’s not only outlived its usefulness, but never really had any in the first place….
The SAT was originally designed by one of the founders of IQ testing. Carl Brigham. Also, he was a racist
Emperor Virginia S(upervona) G(aijin) P(lanet)
Speaking of double-talking, flip-flop. So basically, you are saying that she has to sit in front of the computer for a bubble test and get a certain score on SAT or ACT to demonstrate her intelligence, by suggesting that the test has a diagnostic value to determine her fate in academic success even though the test does not guarantee anything about demonstrative academic skills in higher education whatsoever??? Never mind tens of thousands of American students cannot read and write in composition classes despite their high SAT/ACT scores.
No wonder the lines of your speculation in the middle of paragraph indicates your gross contemptuous, snobbish attitude.
Well, I’m sure this won’t be a popular answer but while I think the SAT is garbage, the answer is for them to get rid of it. Not to make it a rule for some and not others.
As long as the SAT is required for the rank and file it should be required of her.
What’s next, compromising admissions requirements for athletes, sons and daughters of politicians and famous people,… oh wait.
I must disagree. This is not the same as a legacy or an athletic scholarship. This is someone who has proven herself and has written a book–a bestseller to say the least. Many institutions give life credit when accomplished adults wish to return to college. In my view, she has enough life credit to be awarded a degree already.
If the policy is “everyone takes the SAT” then everyone takes it. I might agree with you in terms of her accomplishments but what about other kids with the same or greater potential in different circumstances.
As an institution of learning, shouldn’t they give the kid with potential the shot rather than the one who’s arguably accomplished more than their graduates?
In any event, you’re saying they should violate their own policy, I’m saying that’s not appropriate and if they wanted to they could change their policy.
Mike,
I am saying that the SAT is not as valid a predictor of college success as GPA over four years. In Malala’s case, she has something better than GPA. I think Stanford should ditch the SAT.
Zamansky: If the policy is “everyone takes the SAT” then everyone takes it.
To go along with your position, what if she didn’t do that great on the SAT. Does that mean she has no potential? or that she shouldn’t be accepted at Stanford?
Keep in mind she graduated from a good British high school with good grades.
Diane,
Yes – I agree – I said I thought the SAT was garbage and I agree they should change their policy.
What they shouldn’t do is allow an exception because someone is well know.
I wonder what they do for other non US high school grads.
hmm. I think there is a difference between being “well known” (a celebrity) and winning a Nobel Prize.
Stanford should be wooing her. She could teach a class there and enlighten some of the future tech billionaires.
Yes, Diane..I agree that Malala could teach a class on the selfless absence of greed as a motivator to do good. The future billionaires, and children of billionaires in her classes might learn a whole new behavior pattern. But then, Stanford is in Palo Alto which is so close to Sacramento where the “angry Korean woman” Rheeformer resides and counters this lesson.
I suspect that this is actually precisely why Stanford has taken this position.
They are probably afraid that if they don’t, some privileged white American male (forgive the redundancy) will claim he was “unfairly” denied admission.
..or white American female.
Get real if you think every student admitted to Sanford took the SAT test. To refuse to acknowledge that our society is not based on who you know v what you know is unrealistic. There are always, always, exceptions to any rule. If these elitist at Stanford wanted to, they could admit her without the test or allow her to just take it without it having the ultimate say over admittance.
What makes you think the SAT will have “the ultimate say over admittance”? It is just one factor, as it is for every student who applies. But students, even if they come from another country, must take a standardized test.
In the common parlance of educators, most other things would be more important than a test score.
Stanford needs to get with the times: More and more post-secondary institutions—including many of the elite colleges and universities—are jettisoning the SAT or ACT requirement, recognizing, as many researchers did as far back as the early seventies, that their “predictive value”, assessing how well a student will perform in college based on SAT scores, are no better, quite literally, than rolling a pair of dice.
Stanford University: Here’s a chance for you to join the modern age and send a message to all that you’re not fixed on this antiquated and increasingly discredited standardized test—now revised with more explicitly commercial objectives in mind for Pearson, the new owner—and that you’re joining the more enlightened modern age.
Why don’t colleges just get rid of SAT all together. It has no predictive value of how someone will perform in college.
Eh, who needs Stanford? There are plenty of other fish in the sea.
Indeed.
And Stanford certainly knows that.
Can you imagine how the President of the university is going to ‘explain” this in the future?
“Well, yes, we had the chance to admit a Nobel Peace prize winner who also happens to be a very knowledgable and eloquent spokeswoman for human rights — but she didn’t take the SAT, so that’s that. Any other questions?”
Lol
And she probably has a reference from S Shazar, Stanford alum/McKinsey hire.
If only she could block effectively on an off-tackle run. She’d be set.
She should attend another university.
“Stupid Attitude Test”
You need not make me realize
You’ve really got a Nobel Prize
But rules are rules, as you can see
So you must take the SAT
Taking the SAT is simply required of all applicants, along with some other things like a high school transcript and teacher recommendations. The requirements can be found here: http://admission.stanford.edu/pdf/AppGuideFreshman.pdf
Stanford will admit her no matter what score she gets on the SAT exam, no matter what her high school transcript looks like, no matter if her teachers write a bad recommendation. Winning a Nobel prize does trump everything else, it is just that those other things are formally required of all applicants.
If Stanford will admit her regardless of her score, then why should she need to take the SAT at all? I will answer my own question: because the test exists only for itself. It has NO value.
Threatened out West,
The reason why they require an SAT score from her is that they require it from all applicants. Which of the required material do you want to leave out for Nobel prize winners? How about star athletes? Maybe they should not have to fill out the common application or turn in teacher recommendations.
TE,
I salute colleges that do not require the SAT or ACT. GPA over four years is a more valuable indicator. SAT is a money-making unnecessary burden on students
The university where I teach automatically admits anyone with a 2.0 GPA in their academic classes. For the students who come from weak high schools, ACT scores are a better indicator of retention and progression toward degree than high school GPA.
Diane, you know this is not true for several reasons.
1. The SAT predicts college success on uncontrolled trials as well as GPA does. When combined together, the SAT always improves the prediction of college performance over GPA alone.
2. The reason I say uncontrolled trials is that you have self selection going on. One of the main tenets of affirmative action is that, above a certain minimum threshold, small differences in entrance qualifications doesn’t matter. It’s better to have diversity as long as each person can perform the work. That is what those GPA studies show. As long as someone is capable of doing the work at Stanford or MIT or Harvard, it’s mostly a matter of discipline and effort. However, that is not the case when comparing a general state school to a competitive elite school. Or in comparing a community college to a top end public school. When students differ by 300+ pts on the SAT, they simply won’t be able to handle the same level work. All of those GPA studies are biased students with low SATs are not admitted to the most rigorous colleges. Thus, there is no way to independently prove GPAs are more reliable.
3. Self selection is a huge issue within colleges. As many of your readers will tell you (former teacher maybe), engineering degrees are MUCH harder than most other degrees. Many students switch to other majors when they can’t handle it. This is similar to the kids dropping out of a charter or a patient dropping out of a drug trial. Students with similar GPAs but widely different SATs enter a college with the same desired major – engineering. The student with lower aptitude (lower SAT) finds he won’t make it in engineering so he switches to humanities or maybe business. Both students graduate with similar GPAs (in fact, the smarter student may get a lower GPA in engineering since there is much less grade inflation).
Unless and until studies compare similar students in the same schools and majors, those “pro-GPA” studies are worth the paper they are printed on.
As for your other readers, do you realize how utterly hypocritical you are? You rail on and on about legacies or athletes getting lower standards. And yet you object to this girl even being asked to take the SAT. Every indication shows that 1) she has no objection whatsoever and 2) she would ace the SAT. But Diane provides a misleading post indicating the girl might be opposed to taking the test and if her scores do not rise above some “cut score” then she would be rejected. Diane has absolutely zero evidence of either but her rapid readers just jump on those assumptions to rail against the SAT.
Everybody knows there is only one reason you all hate the SAT. It’s because what it says about the talent and aptitude of virtually each and every one of YOU. Not good to say the least! And by the look of that spatial intelligence score, remind all your friend and family to NEVER trust you to provide directions!
Another possibility is because it’s a formal application requirement per Yale’s admissions policies, and that the admissions department has not been authorized to discard formal application requirements whenever ever it deems it appropriate to do so in its own discretion.
This is just a simple point about process and administration. Yale itself can certainly ditch the SAT requirement entirely if it wants to. Or it could rewrite its policies to permit the requirement to be waived under certain circumstances. But if we believe that universities should follow their own rules, then Malawi shouldn’t be admitted on a one-off discretionary decision, even if it seems like good common sense.
I think their policy is a red flag. They are cowards for relying on the SAT to make admission decisions. Wouldn’t it be great if she chose Wellesley?
yes, Malala, go to Wellesley!
My alma mater will welcome you with garlands and a parade!!
Boo to Stanford!
Dr. Ravitch,
Your alma mater would also require her to take the SAT or ACT exam.
How do you know?
I used google to go to Wellesley’s web page and followed the link to international admissions. The relevant statement is
“Every applicant to Wellesley must take the standardized examinations except applicants from countries where the SAT or ACT is not administered. It is strongly recommended that international students whose native language is not English take the TOEFL (see below).
Wellesley requires that applicants take the SAT Reasoning Test and two Subject Tests or the ACT with Writing. For frequently asked questions about standardized testing and “score choice” options, see FAQ.”
link: https://www.wellesley.edu/admission/esp/international/instructions
Directly from the horses mouth.
“Wellesley requires that you submit the SAT Reasoning Test and two SAT Subject Tests or the ACT with Writing. For students who are pursuing quantitative subjects such as mathematics, biology, neuroscience, etc., we strongly encourage you to take at least one quantitative SAT Subject test. If you take the ACT: Wellesley requires the ACT with Writing Test. The TOEFL is strongly recommended for students whose native language is not English. See the SAT and ACT websites for test deadlines. See #9 below for information about the redesigned SAT and Wellesley’s requirements.”
Besides Wellesley pales when compared to Stanford.
Don’t boo Stanford.
Raj and TE,
I think Malala is an international student and therefore exempt from the SAT.
Raj,
I went to Wellesley, did you?
How can you compare it to any other institution?
My education served me very well.
I beg to correct you. An International student whose native language is not English (e.g.., Malala) has to take one more exam called TOEFL in addition to SAT or ACT. It says so in the Wellesley web site that I quoted earlier. Do not make up facts. It is not nice.
Take my example, I had lived in this country for two years and married an American woman, but I still had to take TOEFL in addition to GRE to get admission to Graduate School at Berkeley. That was long time ago, now Berkeley does not require SAT for undergraduate admission well ahead of Stanford or Wellesley.
I think she should go to Oxford.
I think she should go anywhere but Stanford.
They made their bed.
Now they have to lie in it.
SomeDAM Poet:
TARGO!
😎
If you waive it for one, you’re gonna have to waive it for others. It’s a fairness issue. You can change the admissions standards to admit any/all Nobel prize winners. As well as top-ranked quarterbacks, of course.
Malala is, by far, the youngest person to ever win a Nobel Prize. Most laureates already have degrees, so this isn’t becoming some kind of precedent. And don’t tell me that the wealthy really have to take the SAT/ACT to get into Stanford. Wave enough money around and the test will be waived.
Threatened Out West,
Why do you think that SAT exams are waived for the wealthy? Do you have any information to support this belief?
TE, I don’t think SAT exams are waived for the wealthy. But I do know that rich parents pay for SAT tutoring. That’s an unfair advantage.
The point is not whether she should have to take the test. The real issue is that Stanford, or any school, puts so much emphasis on a test. I’m a great admirer of Malala and have encouraged many of my students to read her book, but wouldn’t it be fascinating if she scored too low for admittance and Stanford was forced, by their blind adherence to a test, to deny her? While I wish nothing but good for this courageous young woman, it would be a powerful way to highlight what’s wrong with this system.
Tom,
How much emphasis does Stanford put on the SAT test? Is it as much as they put on the other required parts of the application? Is it as important as athletic ability?
She will be admitted. She just has to do what everyone else does: submit teacher recommendations, high school transcripts, fill out the application form, and submit an SAT score
I think that young lady can handle anything that is thrown at her. There are other schools that would be thrilled to have her.
Students from other nations should keep in mind the new SAT
“Reading Test always includes . . .
One passage or a pair of passages from either a U.S. founding document or a text in the great global conversation they inspired. The U.S. Constitution or a speech by Nelson Mandela, for example.”
Maybe Malala will answer questions about her work– though she’s more likely to get something from U.S, history.
https://collegereadiness.collegeboard.org/sat/inside-the-test/reading
Maybe she’s not even close to smart enough to go there and pass the classes. She got the Nobel peace prize for her advocacy for females’ rights to get an education. That doesn’t mean she can pass the required courses. Let her take the tests and give some fudge room if she can demonstrate decent competency at least. Geez people!
(Translating from the English education system to the American education system by a Kiwi )
Malala is in an English High School. In Grade 10 she sat national exams in these subjects and got these grades.
Maths A* (roughly A+)
Extension Maths A*
Biology A*
Chemistry A*
Physics A*
Religious Education A*
History A
Geography A
English Language A
English Literature A
So she has a 4.0 GPA.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/aug/21/malala-yousafzai-gcse-education-a-grades
So tell us – what is a score on the SAT going to tell Stanford U that they can’t get from this?
This is disturbing. A Nobel Peace Prize Winner, isn’t enough?
Tell her to choose Berkeley. Go Bears.
They give Nobel Laureates on-campus parking too! Go Bears!
Poo to Pearson’s SAT. This young woman wrote a book. Doesn’t that procr her thinking, writing snd verbal skills? She is a magnificent speaker and would honor any school she goes to. I read that Malala took a test in England that was equivalent to the SAT (I can’t remember what it was called). If a school needs a test, use that if you must.
I’m guessing that Stanford doesn’t want to make exceptions. I’m willing to bet they will accept Malala. These people are not stupid.
Why is such a big issue being made out of Malala having to take the SAT? She is obviously a very bright young lady. I assume she chose Stanford for what she thought she could gain from receiving an education there not for what she felt she had to offer to the school. So let her act like any other student and take the test and leave her alone. We all know that high school records are a much better indicator of college success. That is true of all students who also are still required to take the test if they wish to attend Stanford. I don’t know what she thinks about the fuss, but perhaps she would like to recede into the woodwork every once in awhile and not have her every act become an international event.
I suppose taking a bullet for Education is not the same as sweating out the SATs. But I thought the SATs were on the way out???
I hope some of the other ivy leagues reach out to her, but I can see her wanting to live on the West Coast too. Good Luck Malala!!!
What a sick irony. The Taliban was in the way, now it’s the education industry profiteers and the American elite. Stanford should be ashamed.
“Tally Me Banana”
Shot by the Taliban
SAT by the Stanford
Hey, Mister Tallyman
Tally me banana
“Tally Me Banana” (take2)
Shot by the Taliban
SAT on by Stanford
Hey, Mister Tallyman
Tally me banana
That’s fine if Stanford wants her to take the SAT as long as it’s just a yardstick and not requiring her to get a certain score. Stanford may just want to see what her score is in comparison to the candidates they accept into the program/university. I am fine with it but if Stanford requires her to obtain certain score before admitting her, then I would question Stanford’s professional ethos in what they really believe in and value–a score in number or the long standing regard for the Nobel Peace Prize.
J Salomon,
There is no required minimum score for admission to Stanford.
Stanford can accept whom it pleases. It would not turn down the daughter of a sitting U. S. President, for example.
“One child, one teacher, one book, and one pen can change the world. Education is the only solution.” — Malala Yousafzai, at her UN speech
“One student number , one ed-u-bot, one iPad, and one test can change the world. Testing is the only solution.” — Arne Duncan
“A Test can change the World”
A test can change the world
A Pearson change a person
Especially a girl
So take the latest version!
How many standardized tests has she had to take where she comes from? The SAT does have implicit assumptions about prior experience with such tests.
The interesting thing about this is that Malala must have known Stanford’s application requirements before she submitted without an SAT score. She has a 4.0 average in her classes at an English school — and her speeches alone about “free education for all girls” make it very clear that she is very smart and politically savvy.
Most girls in countries like Pakistan not only have no exposure to tests like the SAT, but probably can not even afford the required fee.
I would guess that this is Malala’s very clever way of raising the issue of fairness and wisdom of requiring this test for admission to college.
She’s an activist for human rights (and for women / education). She was nearly assassinated by those who would silence her. And she wins the Nobel Peace Prize at age seventeen. What more would Stanford like Malala to do before considering whether she should be considered for a place in the freshman class? Write the obligatory essay about her passion to make the world a better place?
Really, Diane? I am astounded by your question! You know, if they grant one Nobel Prize winner access, well, surely you might imagine the repercussions.
Clarity,
You are right. If they let one Nobel Peace Prize winner in without an SAT score, Stanford would have to admit others, like Desmond Tutu and Barack Obama.
I think they would be far more interested in admitting athletes without standardized test scores of only the NCAA would allow it.