February 28, 2002

Board Removes Scoring Choice

Print More

Michael Taylor ’05 took the Math I-C SAT II subject test for the first time after his sophomore year of high school. Unhappy with his score, he took the test two more times during his junior year, then sent only the highest score to colleges. Admissions offices never knew of his lower scores.

A decision made by the College Board last week, however, will no longer allow students like Taylor to Score Choice. Beginning in the fall of 2002 or 2003, students will not be able to pick which SAT II scores to send to colleges, universities and scholarship programs.

Score Choice has been used by the College Board since 1995 and was “intended to give students greater control over the admissions process,” according to a College Board statement.


“Eliminating Score Choice was an excellent and long overdue decision,” said Doris Davis, associate provost for admissions and enrollment and also a member of the College Board Guidance and Admissions Council (GAAC).

“I’m sure that some students will be more selective about which SAT II exams they take, but I don’t think the elimination of Score Choice will have a dramatic effect on the process,” Davis added.

In December of 2001, the GAAC decided that Score Choice “encouraged ‘gamesmanship’ and favored students wealthy enough to repeat tests,” according to the College Board.

The College Board also based its decision on the fact that many students who do use Score Choice later forget to release their scores at all.

“Getting rid of Score Choice will ensure that only deserving students get in good schools, not kids that take ten SATII’s and pick their best ones,” said Keith Greene ’04.

Other students, like Taylor, disagree with the decision.

“Any change in the system that increases the already dangerously high levels of stress applying to colleges is a change for the worse,” Taylor said.

“Taking away Score Choice will increase stress [and will] make people take tests closer to the deadline,” said Taylor. “It just seems like an unnecessary burden.”

Archived article by Marc Zawel