In our blog discussion of Stanford’s requirement that Nobel Prize winner Malala Yousafzai must take the SAT, a reader suggested that she should apply to Wellesley instead. Wellesley is my alma mater, and I seconded the idea. A few of our blog’s skeptics sent me copies of the admissions requirements to “prove” that Wellesley would not make any exceptions for Malala.
I contacted the administration at Wellesley and received this response from Joy St. John, the Dean of Admissions:
“I cannot say definitively what the admission decision would be in Malala’s case because
the Board of Admission (which includes faculty, students and administrators) makes
Wellesley’s admission decisions. I can say, though, that while Wellesley requires SAT
testing for admission (except when the student is living in a country where neither the
SAT or ACT is administered), we work to assist students (on a case-by-case basis) who
have questions or challenges in complying with the requirement. If Malala, a young
woman with such a distinguished background, also has compelling academic credentials,
we would work very hard to clear the path toward her admission to Wellesley.”
I take that response to mean that Wellesley would find a way to “clear the path” to admit this remarkable young woman, whose accomplishments dwarf the value of the SAT.
Malala, if you get this message, go to Wellesley and enjoy “the Wellesley Effect,” which has produced remarkable women of accomplishment and leadership.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I made the same suggestion to the Smith alumnae FB page and got essentially the same reply. I’m hoping it filters up the line to Hamp and that they reach out to her. She’d do well at either school.
LikeLike
Interesting to say the least. Yet once again. We should be interested in EDUCATION, not test scores.
LikeLike
If Stanford waives the SAT requirement for her, then they’ll have to do that for *all* Nobel laureates. 🙂
LikeLike
Wow! And the horror of it all: that would leave a gaping hole open for all those prospects that think they can get in just because they were almost murdered defending the right of girls and women to get an education and who continue to receive credible death threats!?!?!
Glad Stanford is holding the line.
😏
Because maybe, just maybe, Malala will get into a place like Wellesley that actually deserves her and will provide a learning and teaching environment that welcomes Nobel Prize-caliber students.
One can only hope…
😎
LikeLike
But I thought that whole thread was based on a posting that had no basis in reality. There was no evidence that Malala wanted to apply to Stanford, except for a tweet by someone suggesting if she did, she would have to take the SATs just like Wellesley expects every student who is able to take the SATs. There was nothing in Joy St. John’s reply that suggested that they wouldn’t, and I assume unless it proved to be a financial or other hardship, they would expect Malala to take the SATs just like other students in England do. And even then, they said they would “work with her”, which may just mean to find a way to the SATs without it being a hardship!
The larger point is whether some students get to be exempt from taking a standardized test that is required from every other student (aside from hardship). I have no problem with universities giving ALL students the opportunity to opt out of the SATs. But I doubt any university – including Wellesley – would make exceptions for special cases unless it is for hardship, not for fame or accomplishments.
LikeLike
Oh, I don’t know. I think if a junior Bush didn’t want to take the SAT/ACT, nearly every college would find a way to let him/her in without that pesky little detail.
LikeLike
Well that’s my point – if there is a hard and fast rule about all students being required to take the SAT, then a junior Bush has to take them. However, there isn’t a college that I know of that has a cut off score, so it’s not as if the student has to do especially well on them.
But I think you are wrong about a student getting in ONLY because of his or her parents’ fame or connections. They still have to be a decent student and not a complete screw up these days. They just don’t have to be particularly special the way other students who apply do. Their “specialness” is how much their family will donate, which helps the same way a Nobel Prize would. It means as long as everything is else — standardized test scores and grades – are decent, they will be admitted. Some kids really are not academically inclined and struggle in high school and Stanford or Harvard isn’t going to accept them no matter who their parents are.
LikeLike
I was a ‘legacy’ at Cornell U, as an applicant in the late ’60’s. My great-grandfather had had a long & storied history as a Classics prof & general polyglot [fluent in 16 languages by the time he died after 50 yrs as a professor], & I was applying for Fr Lit major, w/hopes of developing 2 more languages before BA grad. Plus I had multiple aunts & uncles, grads in Geology, Bus,, Fine Arts, ILR (int’l Labor Relations), & current cousins doing well in Engrg, PolySci & Bus.
My stdzd tests, ie SAT’s, showed simply that I was acceptable (very hi on ELA , sub-par in Math/ Sci). I will never forget the interchange w / the Arts Dean at my interview. I had just learned I’d flunked advanced chem regents, & asked whether I’d have to take Chem again as an undergraduate. He asked, ‘will you be a chem major?’ Answering in the negative; he suggested I needn’t worry about it. It was obvious from my hs transcript that I had unusual ability in for langs & Eng lit; that was good enough for him.
Granted I struggled thro the first two-year core courses with barely a ‘C’, but came into my own Jr-sr-yr courss in my my major with all A’s, graduating w/the expected ,BA, which led to immediate placement post-grad as lead Fr-teacher, 5 levels, in a loc sl private school.
Meanwhile, the local pay for priv-school was well-below publics; I soon moved on on an effor pt go find better pay,
LikeLike
Details, details.
LikeLike
Any school should be honored to have Malala as a member of its student population. The powers that be should certainly be able to use their discretion to admit a unique individual who would only enhance their student body. History is replete with such cases; why would any school NOT want her as a student?!
LikeLike
Makes me wonder how many brilliant students went to other schools (not Stanford) because those other schools looked at the students accomplishments and not abilities to take a test… 🙂
LikeLike
No decent college cares about “abilities to take a test” above all else. It is just one piece — if you look at the median scores, even if they are high it means half the students are BELOW that, and how much below depends on their other accomplishments (which can include amazing football prowess, having a billionaire parent who has donated millions, or even a Nobel Prize.) I am all for getting rid of standardized tests if colleges want to do that, or making them optional, but why is there a need to treat some students differently than others?
LikeLike
NYC public school parent… yeah right… you live on a rather different planet if you think a student with average SAT, stellar grades and amazing activities and accomplishments has equal footing with a student who has all that plus top scores too. Top schools should not admit based on test scores but when all other factors are stellar – test scores matter! If a student does not do well on these tests and applies to top tier schools, they do not have a snowball’s chance in hell of being accepted unless they have a very monied family who has members at the school and continue to fund the school or unless the school does not require SATS and there are some.
LikeLike
artseagal, I truly don’t understand what your point is. Two students who both have stellar grades never have EXACTLY the same “amazing activities and accomplishments”. If one is a star athlete, they will get in over the one who isn’t, even if the one who isn’t has better SAT scores. And if they are both good athletes, it is just as likely to be the coach’s decision — who helps the team more by filling an empty position – than it is who has higher SAT scores. In fact, a student with perfect SAT scores is very often turned away in favor of one with lower scores, even if both have excellent GPAs.
If you are applying to Stanford from a high school like Stuy, where many kids excel, the accepted students aren’t the ones with the highest SAT scores. They are the ones who have something special that the admissions committee is looking for — be it outstanding artistic or athletic ability, a billionaire dad (unlikely), or the winner of the Intel Science Competition (kind of like the Nobel Prize – it likely trumps high SAT scores but doesn’t excuse the student from taking them).
On the other hand, if you come from a no-name high school and you have perfect SAT scores, or just extraordinarily high ones, you will probably get a very close look. That’s how SAT scores work and I don’t see them as really shutting out kids from good schools. A top student will get into a fantastic college even with mediocre SAT scores — it may not be Stanford, but admissions to Stanford is a crapshoot no matter what your SAT scores are anyway.
LikeLike
I just realize my comments above seem to be defending the SAT, which isn’t my intent. I don’t really care if colleges use them or not. But I know if a college starts deciding that some students are above even having to sit for the exam, while other students are required to take them, it opens lots of room for corruption. What’s ridiculous about this post is that it is very likely that Malala herself would agree with that! And why anyone thinks she has to score especially high to get admitted is beyond my understanding. Given her other accomplishments, a low SAT will not keep her out anyway. (Although she very well MAY score incredibly high no matter what.)
I happen to think that colleges who are abolishing the SATs are doing it to cater to RICH parents and not because they want poor, low-scoring kids. If a private school says that their big donor’s child is a good student, and that’s all the college has to go on, they will be delighted to accept that child. In the old days, that rich donors child might come with a low SAT score, but now admissions committees no longer have to feel guilty — as long as the students can pay the $65,000/year tuition and their private schools have given them decent grades, why not accept them? After all, there are no middle class or poor kids with much higher SAT scores who can complain, right?
LikeLike
I think the point is missed entirely if we do not seek an end to standardized tests such as the SAT. These tests are not a true measure of a student’s real or potential capabilities. Many wonderful schools agree, and so do I.
http://www.fairtest.org/university/optional
LikeLike
Thanks, Diane, for pushing along the Wellesley college choice. Although I had no idea about the value of a woman’s college when I attended Smith College in the late ’60s, I benefited tremendously from Smith’s singular focus on PEOPLE LIKE ME — i.e., young women. It was MY mind that was being stretched, and MY talents that were being developed. I did not have to compete with loud young men for attention and support The education I got was fantastic and prepared me well to face life’s challenges. In the late ’90s my daughter arrived at the same conclusion and also got a fabulous Smith education.
I’m sure Wellesley would be a tremendous choice for Malala, a young woman who is truly unique, yet so “typical” of the terrific women who benefitted from Wellesley and Smith.
LikeLike
This is a manufactured outrage. Contact Stanford and find out if they answer the question about clearing the way for Malala Yousafzai any differently from Wellesley.
She strikes me as a young woman with enough humility not to ask Stanford, Oxford, or any other university to grant her automatic admission; moreover, she clearly has the academic chops to be admitted, and Standford also lists “extracurricular activities,” “talent/ability,” and “character/personal qualities” among the “MOST IMPORTANT” factors they consider in their admissions decisions, while Wellesley lists only “character/personal qualities” along with the academic factors.
What teenager on the planet has more evidence of worthy extracurriculars, talent/ability and character than Malala?
I predict that if Malala applies to Stanford, she will be admitted with a full scholarship. I don’t think she’s sweating this.
LikeLike
Tom,
I dont have the connections to get an answer from Stanford. If any reader does, please let me know what they say, whether the story is true or false.
LikeLike
Googling around, I’m going to assume that Malala Yousafzai’s interest in Stanford is born of her relationship with the Stanford grad Shiza Shahid, who met her in 2009 and runs the Malala Fund.
Given their mutual interest in working to empower girls through education, Stanford, with its School of Ed, may be more alluring than Wellesley with its much smaller department and faculty….No disrespect to Wellesley, alma mater to three in my family.
LikeLike
Tom,
I would love to meet this courageous and brilliant young woman. She will be welcomed wherever she goes.
LikeLike
Oh please. Whether Malala has to pass this or that admissions test. Obviously any selectlve US college would be happy to have her as a matriculated student regardless of her standardized tet scores. Let s get real.
LikeLike
In the race to identify schools that have decided to eliminate or disband the SAT/ACt test requirement for admission, Mount Holyoke College, one the the ‘Seven Sisters Ivy colleges’, was among the first to recognize that the SAT was not an indication of high collegiate capability nor capacity. Increasingly, more institutions are framing their admissions acceptances on authentic criteria.
LikeLike
Two quick points:
1. The SAT – like its cousin, the ACT – is a poor test that doesn’t measure much other than family income. Why is any college using the SAT? Oh yeah, because colleges use tests like the SAT to boost their own prestige in rankings like that [produced by US News & World Report and to dole out financial aid to those who need it least.
2. The cost to attend Stanford – without any aid – is more than $45,000 a year. At Wellesley, the cost is more than $62,000 a year. Are either of those schools really worth that much cash?
LikeLike
Fwiw, Wellesley and Stanford have need-blind admissions for US students, and students with real financial need get substantial financial aid. There are many private universities and colleges that cost as much or more (Stanford tuition + other expenses is about $58,000–you quoted only the tuition cost) that are not need blind.
Wellesley especially gives a great deal of financial aid; according to the Common Data Set–a document every higher ed institution completes annually and a goldmine for understanding an institution’s financial aid policies–1392 of 1532 students qualified for and received financial aid, and the average financial aid award was $42,400.
Wellesley alums in my family had very generous financial aid.
LikeLike
Alternate title:
“Malala matter and my alma mater”
LikeLike
I took this question to the students in my remedial reading classes at a community college. Even though many of them try to argue that they are the exception to rules (like my rule that “I don’t care why you were absent; you weren’t in class”) they unanimously agreed that no one should be exempt from the rules.
I agree–it’s a stupid test. Why is Stanford (or anywhere else for that matter) still requiring it? And did anyone find out whether Malala herself feels she should be exempt? As one student said, “I bet she doesn’t. She’s smart.” And I’d be willing to bet that YoYo Ma submitted his SAT scores to Harvard.
LikeLike
Yes, Diane, Wellesley would be a perfect fit for someone like Malala! She’d be surrounded by remarkable women like herself–and it would be the springboard to even greater leadership and achievement throughout the rest of her life. Signed, Wellesley grad class of ’92
LikeLike