0:01

From the New York Times, I'm Sabrina

0:03

Tavernisi, and this is The Daily. Many

0:14

American colleges have stopped requiring

0:16

standardized tests, like the SATs,

0:18

on the theory that they

0:20

hurt diversity. But new

0:22

research suggests that colleges may have made

0:24

a mistake. Today,

0:28

my colleague David Leonhardt on the

0:30

war on the SATs, and

0:32

why colleges are still reluctant to

0:35

bring them back. It's

0:43

Wednesday, January 17th. So

0:51

David, ever since the Supreme Court

0:53

struck down affirmative action in college

0:55

admissions, it opened up

0:57

this larger conversation around the college

1:00

admissions process. What's

1:02

fair, and what tools do we

1:04

have to create diverse student bodies

1:06

now? And recently, you've

1:08

been reporting on the SATs in

1:10

this context. Tell us

1:12

why you decided to focus on the SATs in

1:15

particular. There's been a

1:17

radical change with standardized tests in this

1:19

country, both the SATs and the ACTs,

1:21

which many students also take when applying

1:23

to college. And for years,

1:25

people have not liked the SAT. I mean,

1:28

I'm sure you remember taking it, Sabrina. It's

1:30

not fun to take. Who likes the SAT?

1:32

Yeah. I mean, I can still remember the

1:34

dark gym I went and sat in anxiously

1:36

35 years ago. And

1:39

on top of the inherent unpleasantness of

1:42

standardized tests, I think a lot of

1:44

people, particularly on the political left, have

1:46

worried that standardized tests are an

1:48

enemy of diversity. And so

1:50

there's been this criticism bubbling up, and

1:52

then comes COVID. And

1:54

during the pandemic, it was basically

1:57

impossible for teenagers to go out

1:59

and deal these standardized tests.

2:02

And so one college after

2:04

another announced you no longer have

2:06

to take the SAT or ACT

2:08

to apply here. They went test-optional

2:11

as they called it. And is

2:13

this most colleges? Yes, nearly

2:16

all colleges. And when the colleges

2:18

announced it they said this is a temporary move,

2:21

but almost all colleges

2:23

have remained test-optional. So

2:26

that's a really big change in college

2:28

admissions. Right. And I got interested in

2:30

that change to understand what has it

2:32

meant that colleges have moved away from

2:34

these standardized tests that they required for

2:36

decades. It also turns out

2:39

that there's been some new research looking at

2:41

what is the use of the SAT, what

2:43

does it tell you about applicants. And

2:45

in part because of that new research

2:47

and in part because of the experiences

2:49

that colleges have had with an admissions

2:51

system that doesn't include standardized tests, there

2:54

are now a bunch of people in higher education

2:56

who are saying we made

2:58

a mistake and we should

3:00

bring back our test requirements.

3:03

Okay, so let's talk about the case to

3:05

bring it back. Now you were actually on the

3:07

show last summer and you talked about some

3:09

of this new research. Remind us

3:11

briefly of those findings David and tell

3:13

us where the SATs come into them.

3:17

So this in-depth study looking at

3:19

college admissions that was released last

3:21

summer ended up finding that the

3:23

richest applicants have huge

3:25

advantages in college admissions. And

3:28

a lot of people have assumed

3:31

that the SAT must be one

3:33

of the advantages that richer

3:35

applicants have. Because think about it, if

3:38

you're rich you can take test prep classes.

3:40

Right. You can take the SAT multiple times.

3:42

You also might go to a private school

3:44

or a top public school that's going to

3:46

prepare you better for the test. There

3:49

are all kinds of ways in which you might have

3:51

an advantage on the SAT because of wealth. But

3:54

it turns out that many of the

3:56

other aspects of the admissions process are

3:59

more tilted toward the rich than

4:01

standardized tests. Think about

4:03

extracurricular activities. Who can pay to

4:05

take music lessons? Who can pay

4:08

to travel to foreign countries and

4:10

participate in projects that

4:12

expand their horizons? Right. Cures for cancer

4:14

in a summer project. Exactly.

4:16

Who can pay to participate

4:19

on travel sports teams? And

4:21

it's not just extracurriculars. Think about

4:24

all of the editing that highly

4:26

educated affluent parents do of their

4:28

children's college essays. Think

4:30

about the quality of a school recommendation that

4:33

you're going to get if you go to

4:35

a private school as opposed to a public

4:37

school where the guidance counselor has 500 students

4:39

who merit. Right. And

4:42

so actually standardized tests, a

4:44

single test that everybody must

4:46

take, the same test, end

4:49

up being less tilted toward the

4:51

wealthy than many other aspects of

4:53

the process like extracurriculars and essay

4:55

writing and school recommendations. So

4:58

let's pause and unpack that a little bit, David, because

5:00

I think it will be surprising for listeners. I mean,

5:03

SATs, you think test prep,

5:05

you think advantage parents pouring

5:07

money, pouring time, pouring effort

5:09

into this test prep. Doesn't

5:12

that confer advantage on the wealthy?

5:15

Well, first, I should make clear

5:17

there are gaps along racial

5:19

and economic lines in average

5:21

SAT scores. Upper income

5:23

students do better on average than

5:26

lower income students. White and Asian

5:28

students do better on average than

5:30

black and Latino students. And

5:33

this is probably the main point that the

5:35

critics of the test make. They

5:37

say, look at these gaps, the test must be

5:39

biased. But let's start with test

5:41

prep. The evidence suggests that

5:43

test prep actually causes only a tiny

5:46

part of these gaps, maybe

5:48

not that different from zero. And

5:50

the way to see that is to

5:52

look at other tests that millions of

5:54

students across the country take, but

5:57

don't take test prep for. And

5:59

Maybe the best. No one is called

6:01

the Nape. It's nickname is the Nations

6:03

Report Card. It's a test nationwide that

6:05

elementary school students in middle school students

6:08

takes. There's a good chance that you

6:10

or your students have taken the name

6:12

in your state, but that they called

6:14

it's something other than the Nathan Locally

6:16

effect. And so no one takes deep

6:18

test prep Because for an individual student,

6:20

the Nape doesn't really matter. It's instead

6:22

used to see which school districts are

6:24

doing well which states are doing. It's

6:26

a tool for states and local school

6:29

district to see. How. They're doing. That's.

6:31

Exactly right when you see headlines once

6:33

a year come out about how much

6:35

fourth graders or eighth graders have learned

6:37

in the United States that comes from

6:39

the nape. And what's really strike? Is

6:41

that the economic gaps that is

6:43

between how richer and poorer students

6:45

do and the racial gaps. Are

6:49

incredibly similar on the nape as

6:51

they are to the Se te.

6:54

And soaks that is another. Way

6:56

of saying test prep just isn't that big

6:58

a deal. Hockey. So there

7:00

are these gaps in both V S

7:02

A T's and than meets these other

7:04

important national tests and their deaths As

7:07

he said along economic and racial blinds.

7:09

So if you didn't test practice actually

7:11

driving the gaps that I guess the

7:13

question is what is in I thinking

7:15

it has something to do with the

7:18

inequality in America. Yes, The

7:20

tests are picking up real inequities

7:22

in American life. Think about it.

7:25

We live in a society with

7:27

enormous economic and racial inequality. You

7:30

see this in nearly every measure

7:32

of American life, homeownership, life expectancy

7:34

poverty. The Black poverty rate, for

7:36

example, is substantially higher than the

7:38

white and Asian poverty rate. Now,

7:41

does that mean that the poverty

7:43

rate statistic is biased? Of course

7:45

not. It means we live in

7:47

an unequal society. The problem is

7:49

the underlying reality. It's not the

7:51

statistics, and I think in the

7:54

debate over standardized tests, a lot

7:56

of people have conflate of those

7:58

two things they've setting. there are

8:00

these racial and economic gaps, therefore

8:02

the tests must be biased, as

8:04

opposed to there are these racial

8:06

and economic gaps because there are

8:08

racial and economic gaps in

8:11

almost everything in American life.

8:13

In other words, the SATs are

8:15

actually mirroring back American reality, showing

8:18

this deep problem that we have,

8:21

like effectively they're the messenger, right? And

8:23

you're saying, don't shoot it. That's

8:26

right. But if there are

8:28

these gaps, why should we use the

8:30

SATs in college admissions? First

8:32

of all, almost nobody is suggesting that

8:34

the SATs should be the only factor

8:36

or even the dominant factor in college

8:39

admissions. What the advocates for it are

8:41

saying is that it should be one

8:43

factor. And the key thing

8:45

here is that the SAT and the ACT

8:48

turn out to be a

8:50

very good predictor of how

8:52

students are going to do

8:54

in college academically, especially at

8:56

the most selective colleges. The

8:59

data shows that students who do better on the SAT

9:02

are gonna have higher GPAs in

9:04

college on average. The

9:06

SAT and the ACT also predict what kind of

9:09

graduate schools these students are gonna go to,

9:11

which is a sign that they did better overall

9:13

in college. In fact, SATs

9:15

turn out to be a significantly better

9:17

predictor than high school grades do. And

9:20

why is the test better at predicting success

9:22

than high school grades? First

9:24

of all, high schools are incredibly

9:26

different. An A at one high school isn't the

9:28

same thing as an A at another high school.

9:31

And second of all, something important has

9:33

changed here, which is grade inflation. High

9:36

school students just get much higher grades than

9:38

they used to. And so

9:41

these college admissions officers are left

9:43

looking at transcripts where nearly

9:45

all the students are getting nearly all A's.

9:48

They can't make decisions based only

9:50

on that. Standardized tests are more

9:52

rigorous because there's more of a

9:54

distribution and because everyone's taking the

9:56

same test. Got it. The

10:00

key arguments for using the test

10:03

is that there are kids from

10:05

disadvantaged backgrounds who do really well

10:07

on the SAT and ACT. There

10:10

are lower income kids who do well.

10:12

There are black and Hispanic kids who

10:14

do well. And one of the arguments

10:17

of the test advocates is that those

10:19

are specifically the kids who are being

10:21

hurt in a system where they don't take

10:23

the test. They are not

10:25

being given a chance to show

10:27

their potential in a way

10:29

that high school grades just can't capture

10:31

as well. There are

10:34

too many students getting A's for any

10:36

one of these colleges who admit. So

10:39

if they just are going to use grades,

10:41

they're going to have to do a whole

10:43

lot of guesswork. They're going to

10:45

have to say, we think this kid with

10:47

straight A's is more promising than this other

10:49

kid with straight A's. Because

10:51

when they combine the two, they say,

10:53

oh look, we're looking at these five

10:55

kids, all of them from disadvantaged backgrounds.

10:58

All of them have close to straight

11:00

A's. But look at these

11:02

two or this one who really stand out

11:04

on the standardized test. No, they didn't do

11:06

quite as well as kid who went to

11:09

a private school or a public magnet school,

11:11

but they did well. And

11:13

that is a sign of enormous

11:15

potential. And if you don't

11:17

have the SAT, and admissions officers have

11:19

told me this directly, if

11:21

you don't have the SAT, you

11:23

really have to guess which

11:26

one of those kids is likely

11:28

to do the best at these

11:30

colleges. Interesting. And it is a

11:32

particular problem for kids from disadvantaged

11:34

backgrounds, because these admissions officers have

11:36

a much better sense of exactly

11:38

what the classes and the grades

11:40

and the transcripts at

11:43

these magnet schools and these private schools

11:45

that every year Have multiple applicants

11:47

to these schools. It's the high schools

11:49

that don't have that many applicants to

11:51

the school When they're looking at these

11:53

kids who have straight A's. And they're

11:55

choosing among kids, all of whom have

11:57

approaching straight A's at different. The

12:00

to standardized tests can be particularly

12:02

helpful in saying that is the

12:05

kid who is likely to thrive

12:07

on our campus. So.

12:09

In series this sounds like a youthful

12:11

strategy, right? but our actually using D

12:14

S a T's in this way. Will

12:17

M I T is a really interesting

12:19

example here at Mit. As the Massachusetts

12:21

Institute of Technology, it's one of the

12:24

most selective colleges in America. It

12:26

is also one of the only

12:28

colleges the reinstated it's requirements that

12:31

applicants take the A C T

12:33

who are the city A very

12:35

short list. And part

12:37

of that reason that they did

12:39

was when they when, and they

12:41

studied the last fifteen years. They

12:43

found that the students who may

12:45

had admitted despite having lower test

12:47

scores just didn't do as well

12:49

there. And not only that, but

12:51

they found that they could admit

12:53

a highly diverse klaus while using

12:55

the Se Te as one of

12:57

the factors to the current first

12:59

Your Class at M I T

13:01

which was admitted using it as

13:03

a T or a City requirement.

13:06

Is about thirty percent black or

13:08

Latino. It is well more than

13:10

fifty percent students of color. It's

13:12

about twenty percent students who receive

13:14

Pell grants, which is the largest

13:16

federal financial aid programs. Which means

13:18

that Mit is more economically diverse

13:20

than a lot of other elite

13:23

classes. And what the Dean of

13:25

Admissions Stewart shrill told me to

13:27

see said look using ease alone

13:29

were not enough for us to

13:31

admit a class. They're just too

13:33

many kids who get A's and

13:35

we couldn't be sure. that was

13:37

telling us that they could actually

13:39

do m i t work but

13:41

when we combined greets with standardized

13:43

tests with other parts of the

13:46

application when we gave kids credit

13:48

for overcoming adversity often economic adversity

13:50

but we also look for kids

13:52

who don't really well on the

13:54

se te we were able to

13:56

admit a class that was both

13:59

diverse an extra extremely well-prepared

14:01

academically. So David,

14:03

essentially what you're saying here is

14:05

that the humble and hated SAT

14:07

is imperfect, but

14:09

is the only one real yardstick

14:12

we have in an imperfect

14:14

system and doesn't need to harm diversity if

14:16

you use it in conjunction with other things.

14:19

But you know, my mind is going back to the beginning of our conversation.

14:22

You said that the test is still not being

14:24

used by a lot of colleges out there. Have

14:27

they seen this data? Are they going to act

14:29

accordingly? They have

14:31

seen this data for the most part. And

14:35

that raises a fascinating question Sabrina,

14:37

which is given the data, why

14:40

haven't they gone back to using the SAT?

14:54

We'll be right back. Hey,

15:00

it's Anna Martin from the New York Times

15:02

and I'm here to tell you about something for

15:04

New York Times news subscribers. And honestly, if you're

15:06

a podcast fan, you're going to love this. It's

15:09

an app called New York Times Audio,

15:12

where you can get the latest dispatch.

15:14

It's 10 a.m. in keys with a

15:16

really loud knife. Perfect your technique. A

15:18

splash of soy sauce and then a lot

15:21

of red pepper flakes. I'll contemplate the future.

15:23

A computer program is passing the bar exam.

15:25

And we are over here pretending not to

15:27

be amazed by that. It has exclusive shows

15:30

from the New York Times. It's the headlines.

15:32

Storytelling from serial productions and this American

15:34

life. Act two. A fiasco involving

15:36

a village, marauding zizadah and some

15:38

oil. Sports from the athletic. And

15:40

those big moments she puts the

15:42

gmos back. And narrated articles from

15:44

the times and beyond. In recent

15:46

years the unexpected sounds of ice

15:48

have periodically gone viral. New York

15:50

Times audio. Download it now at

15:53

nytime.com I'll.

16:00

Be so given the evidence you've laid out

16:02

for me. David, Why. Aren't schools eager to

16:04

bring back the S a T's. I.

16:06

Think it's important to say that

16:08

actually, most Americans are in favor

16:10

of using standardized tests. There's been

16:12

some polling on this. Eighty five

16:14

percent of Americans say that standardized

16:16

test should be a factor in

16:18

college admissions. A large majority of

16:20

every racial group says they should

16:23

be a factor in college admissions.

16:25

Ah, what colleges are, of course,

16:27

not a cross section of America

16:29

in our polarized society. Colleges are

16:31

one of the places that are

16:33

most strongly connected to the political

16:35

left in this country. So. On

16:37

the left, standardized tests have been

16:40

for some time unpopular and have

16:42

become increasingly so in part because

16:44

cove it gave colleges and opportunity

16:47

to rethink this. But. In

16:49

part because they think that it is

16:51

an enemy of diversity, right? That is.

16:53

Correct Fit. One of those

16:55

passionate beliefs of the political

16:57

left is the importance of

17:00

diversity and particularly racial diversity,

17:02

and many people in college

17:04

campuses have a genuine fear:

17:06

Any reasonable fear that standardized

17:09

tests could be used to

17:11

reduce the diversity of their

17:13

campuses. Now, these fears that

17:16

the tests could reduce diversity

17:18

on campus. Have a

17:20

connection to the history of these

17:23

tests, although it's a somewhat nuanced

17:25

history. So, college standardized tests. Were.

17:27

Invented in the early twentieth century as

17:30

part of the progressive movements in this

17:32

country, and that was a complicated movement.

17:34

It also had major streams of racism

17:36

eugenics in that movement, and today we

17:39

tend to think of racism in terms

17:41

of skin color, in particular, terms of

17:43

white black. At the time, none of

17:45

the selective colleges were entertaining the idea

17:48

of admitting meaningful numbers of black Americans.

17:50

The race debate it's I was actually

17:52

quite different as it is true that

17:54

some of the people who were designing

17:56

the test expected. That the tests would

17:59

show that. Anglo-Saxons would

18:01

do better than Jews and Southern

18:03

Europeans. This was an era of debate

18:05

about American immigration policy. That was

18:08

the flavor of the day of elites

18:10

who were racist, that people from Southern Europe,

18:12

Italians, Jews, Greeks, would not be able to

18:14

do as well. That's correct. Now,

18:17

some of the other early advocates and

18:19

inventors of the test had a different

18:21

view. These

18:23

were administrators at Harvard who were worried

18:25

that the American elite was drawing from

18:28

too narrow a pool of people, white

18:30

Anglo-Saxon Protestants, and that if America

18:33

was truly going to be a

18:35

world leader, it needed a stronger

18:37

elite. It actually needed

18:39

to use these standardized tests to

18:41

find students who weren't naturally going

18:43

to be at a place like

18:45

Harvard, but in fact deserved to

18:47

be. In fact, we're extremely talented. They

18:50

thought that the standardized tests

18:52

could actually diversify the students

18:54

at these elite schools. It's

18:57

truly a very mixed history with this

18:59

test in terms of the intentions.

19:02

Very mixed. You had people who both

19:04

saw them as a way to restrict opportunity, and

19:06

you had people pushing for them who saw them

19:08

as a way to expand opportunity. But

19:10

today, critics of the tests tend

19:13

to emphasize only one half of

19:15

that history. Part of

19:17

the reason that they do is they see

19:19

a real connection to today. They

19:21

say, look, the people who created these

19:23

tests were racist, and there

19:25

are real gaps today by economic

19:27

class and by race. They connect

19:29

these two, and they say, this

19:32

is just not something that we should be using.

19:35

I wonder, based on what you told me

19:37

with the MIT example and how the SAT

19:39

can be used to create diverse student

19:41

bodies, are colleges looking at that

19:43

and starting to say, maybe we shouldn't

19:45

be so concerned? Maybe we should

19:48

reconsider bringing the SATs back?

19:51

Yes, some of them are right now, but

19:53

they're also anxious. Part

19:56

of the reason they're anxious is the Supreme

19:58

Court decision last year. that forbids

20:00

colleges from using race in

20:03

college admissions. So in

20:05

the wake of that decision, it's very

20:07

clear that people on the political right,

20:09

some of the same people who brought

20:11

that lawsuit that led to the Supreme

20:13

Court decision are gonna be

20:16

scouring the college admissions

20:18

process and looking for signs that

20:20

colleges have deviated from what the

20:22

Supreme Court has said

20:24

that they can do. A

20:26

system that uses SATs has

20:28

the potential to give grist

20:30

to those conservative critics. They

20:32

can say, hey, wait a

20:35

minute, why did you admit

20:37

this kid of one race who has a

20:39

1,400 when you

20:41

rejected this kid of another race with

20:43

a 1,500? Whereas

20:45

a system without standardized tests

20:48

is just fuzzier, it's more

20:50

subjective, and it potentially creates

20:52

less legal jeopardy for

20:55

colleges. And in fact, if

20:57

I remember correctly, it was also precisely

20:59

the argument the plaintiffs in the Harvard

21:01

case were bringing before the Supreme Court, right?

21:04

Hey, I got a high score and they

21:06

didn't let me in because of my ethnicity.

21:08

It was one part of their argument, but it was an

21:10

important part. And how big of a

21:12

legal risk is this for these colleges?

21:15

I think we don't yet know. Remember, the

21:18

idea of using the SAT in college admissions

21:20

is not just the hypothetical. MIT is doing

21:22

it, Georgetown is doing it. Some of the

21:24

top public universities in the country are doing

21:26

it. They all say they are

21:28

doing it. They are creating diverse classes, and

21:30

they are doing it while following the law.

21:33

And if when the evidence continues to

21:35

emerge and it becomes clear, oh, it

21:37

is possible to use the SAT and

21:40

still have diverse classes, my

21:42

instinct is the legal risk may not be as

21:44

big as colleges fear, but I just don't think

21:46

we know yet. So on

21:48

the one hand, schools have all of

21:50

these reasons for not wanting to require

21:52

the SATs, but

21:55

on the other, you have this data showing

21:57

that SATs can be pretty useful for

21:59

college admissions. Which makes me

22:01

wonder, is there a cost to schools

22:04

not using the SATs? Well,

22:06

it depends who you ask. So critics

22:08

of the test would say there really

22:10

isn't that much of a cost, that

22:12

in these schools we're talking about phenomenally

22:14

qualified applicants, even those who would do

22:16

somewhat worse on the standardized test. These

22:19

students are not going to drop out for the most part

22:21

of these schools. They're still going to graduate and they're going

22:23

to have successful lives. And

22:25

what the critics of the test say is once

22:27

you start using the test, it's really hard not

22:30

to overuse the test because it's a number. And

22:33

instead of obsessing over modest

22:35

differences between how people do

22:37

on this test and modest differences in

22:39

how they might do at college, we

22:42

should instead see schools as engines of

22:44

social mobility. And we should ensure they're

22:46

admitting a diverse class of qualified students

22:49

and not worry too much about whether

22:51

they're admitting the very most qualified students.

22:54

Just work harder to find the best students and

22:56

not obsess over that number. Yeah,

22:58

and work harder to educate them once they're there.

23:02

And what the advocates for the test would say

23:04

is, look, these

23:06

are the world's finest universities. Part

23:09

of their mission is to develop

23:11

new cures for diseases that are killing

23:13

people and develop new forms of energy

23:16

that help reduce the damage from climate

23:18

change. They have a

23:20

mission of excellence. And part of

23:22

that mission is to go find the students

23:25

who are going to be able to do

23:27

that work best, to do the

23:29

research, to become the researchers of tomorrow and

23:32

educate them and set them up to succeed.

23:35

And so this actually gets at

23:37

something really fascinating, which is I

23:39

think one of the criticisms of

23:41

higher education from the

23:43

political center and the political

23:45

right have been that higher

23:47

education doesn't care that much

23:49

about excellence anymore. And

23:52

the standardized tests have become part

23:54

of this criticism. The Critics

23:56

of higher Ed have said, look, there is this

23:58

test that can tell you. Who

24:00

will do better in school

24:03

and yet you are ignoring?

24:06

And. If that has become wrapped

24:08

up in this whole larger political

24:10

debates that we're having right now

24:12

about higher education. So. There's

24:14

an incredibly busy question at the

24:16

heart of all. Of this which is.

24:19

What? Is higher education actually for

24:21

like? What's the end goal of

24:23

it is it to make classrooms

24:26

more diverse and to alleviate inequality.

24:28

In America or is it to create.

24:31

Merit. Based places where talented

24:33

students. Can see individually reach

24:35

their full potential. Yes

24:38

in almost every one or higher education would say

24:40

the answer is both. And.

24:46

I'll tell you my reading of

24:48

the evidence is that both is

24:50

reasonable. I do think that college

24:52

can be both diverse and axel.

24:55

But there's no question that there

24:57

are some tensions here. And in

25:00

particular, there's no question that a

25:02

system which standardized tests runs the

25:05

risk of reducing diversity. and as

25:07

system without standardized test runs the

25:09

risk of reducing x once. Said

25:13

those two things are intention and we're

25:15

living in a pretty important moment in

25:17

higher education right now. So what's the

25:19

answer? What's gonna happen? Or

25:22

here to find out soon. Schools are

25:24

looking right now at their admissions policies.

25:26

They're looking at this new evidence on

25:28

the As A T, an Ac teach.

25:30

They're trying to figure out whether to

25:32

reinstate their test requirements were to remain

25:34

test optional. They're trying to respond to

25:37

the Supreme court decision on admissions, and

25:39

it's clearly a really tumbled to with

25:41

time in higher education. It's also a

25:43

fascinating time because schools are trying to

25:45

decide what do we want to be.

25:54

like so much We'll

26:04

be right back. Reboot

26:07

your credit card with Apple Card. It

26:09

gives you unlimited daily cash back that

26:11

can earn 4.25% annual

26:14

percentage yield when you open a savings account.

26:16

A high yield, low effort way to grow

26:18

your money with no fees. Apply

26:21

for Apple Card now in the Wallet app

26:23

on iPhone to start earning and growing your

26:25

daily cash with savings today. Apple

26:27

Card subject to credit approval. Savings

26:29

is available to Apple Card owners subject

26:31

to eligibility. Savings accounts by

26:33

Goldman Sachs Bank USA member

26:35

FDIC. Here's what else you should

26:37

know today. The US military

26:40

struck targets in Yemen on Tuesday,

26:42

the third attack on the Houthis

26:45

since a US-led air and naval

26:47

barrage last week. The

26:49

American strike destroyed four missiles that posed

26:51

a threat to ships in the Red

26:53

Sea. The Houthis, backed

26:56

by Iran, are firing on

26:58

ships in protest against the war in

27:00

Gaza. And the US

27:02

and its allies are scrambling to keep

27:04

the critical pathway for the U.S. trade

27:09

in Yemen. Today's

27:11

episode was produced by Stella Tan

27:13

and Shannon Lin. It

27:16

was edited by Lisa Chow and Devon

27:18

Taylor, factored by Susan Lee,

27:21

contains original music by Marianne

27:23

Lozano and was engineered by

27:25

Chris Wood. Our theme

27:27

music is by Jim Bunberg and Ben Lansverk of

27:29

Wonderly. That's it for

27:32

the daily.

27:36

I'm Sabrina Taverne. See

27:44

you tomorrow.