Harvard will require Test Scores starting next year

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:95% will STILL get rejected.

Yawn.

Maybe more like 90% now

Average of last 10+ classes acceptance rates suggests otherwise.

#clueless

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this is for current Juniors? my kid has no interest in Harvard, but this seems really really late to make this call for this class

Tend to agree. I think it’s a reflection of how ill prepared TO kids were.

There is zero evidence of this or else schools would be releasing the hard data

Dartmouth had the highest rate of students on academic probation ever. They admissions director attributed this directly to the TO policy and the data was consistent with this claim.

Citation. This is not true.

Dp, but I believe this comes from the podcast with the Dartmouth and Yale admissions officers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If you genuinely believe Bias Victim deserves a spot at Selective U., what is Victim's game plan once admitted? To major in dance? How will Selective U. be any different that Biased Public Schools with respect to offering teaching "styles" AND evaluation of material that is not "biased"?

The game plan is to receive affirmative action in perpertuity for life. This actually happens. The underqualified URM who gets into a selective college, gets another bump in medical school affirmative action for bombing the MCAT and having a low science GPA, and then another bump for residency and another bump during hiring. It never ends.

Dude. You people really live in fantasy land. And are so hateful I can't understand. And uninformed. I won't say unintelligent because even smart people can be raging bigots.

Not the PP, but my company leadership explicitly told us to lower the bar for black candidates when hiring. Explicitly.

Sure they did. And even if that did happen, I'm sure that you're talking about being a pilot or a doctor. Cuz of course you are.

Nope, computer scientist. I was frankly stunned when they came out and said that. It’s always hinted at and they’re always stressing diversity, but this was overt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:95% will STILL get rejected.

Yawn.

Maybe more like 90% now

Average of last 10+ classes acceptance rates suggests otherwise.

#clueless

Application numbers dropping will help rate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:95% will STILL get rejected.

Yawn.

Maybe more like 90% now

Average of last 10+ classes acceptance rates suggests otherwise.

#clueless

Application numbers dropping will help rate.

At best, the acceptance rate will go from 3.5% to 6ish% based on pre-TO data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this is for current Juniors? my kid has no interest in Harvard, but this seems really really late to make this call for this class

Tend to agree. I think it’s a reflection of how ill prepared TO kids were.

There is zero evidence of this or else schools would be releasing the hard data

Huh? Just the opposite. Schools are embarrassed by this failed TO experiment, which they were so proud of instituting for equity purposes. Only UT released the hard data - TO kids were on average a full GPA point lower once enrolled.

Oh my god, you are going to be so sad when you find out that kids with underperforming GPAs are now going to get in because their test scores are so high, instead of high GPAs and no or lower test scores. And ermagherd, A LOT of those kids are going to be minorities. Gasp!
A lot of you live in this bizarro world, looking for justifications and excuses and rationalizations for why your poor kid wasn't admitted.

Talk about victim mentality.

While I would maybe believe that you can be smart and not "test well," it doesn't work the other way -- you cannot be dumb and get a high score. It's not possible. Kids with low GPAs and high scores are usually very smart rebels who refuse to do busywork in subjects that they hate. These people then go to college and do very well, because they can choose their classes.

Pp above is 10000% correct.

Or they still don't do the best, because they only do well in courses they like. So Gen Eds and their major required courses they have no interest in they do poorly in.

I've seen it both ways.
Me personally, I'll take a kid who is a hard worker and gives 120% versus someone who only does well if they have an interest in what they are assigned.

[Anonymous]

so what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:95% will STILL get rejected.

Yawn.

Maybe more like 90% now

Average of last 10+ classes acceptance rates suggests otherwise.

#clueless

Application numbers dropping will help rate.

At best, the acceptance rate will go from 3.5% to 6ish% based on pre-TO data.

Ok...so ~94% will get rejected from Harvard - instead of 95%

Progress..

[Anonymous]

Now that Harvard is doing it most others will follow suit

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If you genuinely believe Bias Victim deserves a spot at Selective U., what is Victim's game plan once admitted? To major in dance? How will Selective U. be any different that Biased Public Schools with respect to offering teaching "styles" AND evaluation of material that is not "biased"?

The game plan is to receive affirmative action in perpertuity for life. This actually happens. The underqualified URM who gets into a selective college, gets another bump in medical school affirmative action for bombing the MCAT and having a low science GPA, and then another bump for residency and another bump during hiring. It never ends.

Dude. You people really live in fantasy land. And are so hateful I can't understand. And uninformed. I won't say unintelligent because even smart people can be raging bigots.

Not the PP, but my company leadership explicitly told us to lower the bar for black candidates when hiring. Explicitly.

They did not. What bar?

Are the people denying the open secret in academics and the professional world really that clueless? Do you work outside your home? Of COURSE, standards are routinely lowered, and it starts with our friend upthread whose daughter scored 1290 and got into Georgetown. There are only a few thousand black students graduating each year who have even met the baseline of "college prepared." Those who meet those benchmarks are admitted by the elite institutions, but as you go down the rankings, those schools still need to show a diverse class, and kids who truly do not belong in college are admitted.

Because of lack of preparation and "mismatch" between preparation and IQ with the rest of the student body, the graduation rates for blacks are much lower, making the pool of students available to create diverse classes in grad schools and corporate hiring classes even lower, and these institutions reach further down the rankings to fill classes. There are innumerable internship programs for minority students at all of our elite corporations trying to compete for these kids as early as possible.

Um, can you please show us the statistics for students of color not graduating from these top universities. Please. I am the "friend" from above. Shall I reiterate, that 3 semesters in, she had a 3.9 GPA, and is on track to have another 3.9 this semester. Plenty of her classmates who are also students of color--and some of them athletes as well--are thriving. You are making these things up to support your racist garbage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this is for current Juniors? my kid has no interest in Harvard, but this seems really really late to make this call for this class

Tend to agree. I think it’s a reflection of how ill prepared TO kids were.

There is zero evidence of this or else schools would be releasing the hard data

Huh? Just the opposite. Schools are embarrassed by this failed TO experiment, which they were so proud of instituting for equity purposes. Only UT released the hard data - TO kids were on average a full GPA point lower once enrolled.

Oh my god, you are going to be so sad when you find out that kids with underperforming GPAs are now going to get in because their test scores are so high, instead of high GPAs and no or lower test scores. And ermagherd, A LOT of those kids are going to be minorities. Gasp!
A lot of you live in this bizarro world, looking for justifications and excuses and rationalizations for why your poor kid wasn't admitted.

Talk about victim mentality.

While I would maybe believe that you can be smart and not "test well," it doesn't work the other way -- you cannot be dumb and get a high score. It's not possible. Kids with low GPAs and high scores are usually very smart rebels who refuse to do busywork in subjects that they hate. These people then go to college and do very well, because they can choose their classes.

Pp above is 10000% correct.

Or they still don't do the best, because they only do well in courses they like. So Gen Eds and their major required courses they have no interest in they do poorly in.

I've seen it both ways.
Me personally, I'll take a kid who is a hard worker and gives 120% versus someone who only does well if they have an interest in what they are assigned.

You can "take" them (hard workers make good employees) but smart rebellious good test takers do pretty well in life. Though not with bosses, sometimes. I'm one (NMSF who got a C in AP US history but As in BC Calc and Physics so pretty weird GPA) and I've done well in all my work, have written a book, won awards and fellowships, etc. one of my big ex boyfriends was in the category too, now he owns his own law firm.


(My husband is a good test taker and 4.0 person and while he is an excellent employee, he's not a risk taker)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If you genuinely believe Bias Victim deserves a spot at Selective U., what is Victim's game plan once admitted? To major in dance? How will Selective U. be any different that Biased Public Schools with respect to offering teaching "styles" AND evaluation of material that is not "biased"?

The game plan is to receive affirmative action in perpertuity for life. This actually happens. The underqualified URM who gets into a selective college, gets another bump in medical school affirmative action for bombing the MCAT and having a low science GPA, and then another bump for residency and another bump during hiring. It never ends.

Dude. You people really live in fantasy land. And are so hateful I can't understand. And uninformed. I won't say unintelligent because even smart people can be raging bigots.

Not the PP, but my company leadership explicitly told us to lower the bar for black candidates when hiring. Explicitly.

They did not. What bar?

Are the people denying the open secret in academics and the professional world really that clueless? Do you work outside your home? Of COURSE, standards are routinely lowered, and it starts with our friend upthread whose daughter scored 1290 and got into Georgetown. There are only a few thousand black students graduating each year who have even met the baseline of "college prepared." Those who meet those benchmarks are admitted by the elite institutions, but as you go down the rankings, those schools still need to show a diverse class, and kids who truly do not belong in college are admitted.

Because of lack of preparation and "mismatch" between preparation and IQ with the rest of the student body, the graduation rates for blacks are much lower, making the pool of students available to create diverse classes in grad schools and corporate hiring classes even lower, and these institutions reach further down the rankings to fill classes. There are innumerable internship programs for minority students at all of our elite corporations trying to compete for these kids as early as possible.

Um, can you please show us the statistics for students of color not graduating from these top universities. Please. I am the "friend" from above. Shall I reiterate, that 3 semesters in, she had a 3.9 GPA, and is on track to have another 3.9 this semester. Plenty of her classmates who are also students of color--and some of them athletes as well--are thriving. You are making these things up to support your racist garbage.

I did not pinpoint graduation rates at top universities. They are admitting the black students of highest caliber, and have the resources to provide all kinds of supports, including special summer sessions to remediate skills. Here are plenty of statistics on the racial graduation rates.

https://uncf.org/the-latest/african-americans-and-college-education-by-the-numbers
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/raceindicators/indicator_red.asp
https://hechingerreport.org/%E2%80%8B%E2%80%8Bwhy-white-students-are-250-more-likely-to-graduate-than-black-students-at-public-universities/

Lots of reviews of "mismatch" studies, both pro and con:
https://manhattan.institute/article/does-affirmative-action-lead-to-mismatch

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If you genuinely believe Bias Victim deserves a spot at Selective U., what is Victim's game plan once admitted? To major in dance? How will Selective U. be any different that Biased Public Schools with respect to offering teaching "styles" AND evaluation of material that is not "biased"?

The game plan is to receive affirmative action in perpertuity for life. This actually happens. The underqualified URM who gets into a selective college, gets another bump in medical school affirmative action for bombing the MCAT and having a low science GPA, and then another bump for residency and another bump during hiring. It never ends.

Dude. You people really live in fantasy land. And are so hateful I can't understand. And uninformed. I won't say unintelligent because even smart people can be raging bigots.

Not the PP, but my company leadership explicitly told us to lower the bar for black candidates when hiring. Explicitly.

They did not. What bar?

Are the people denying the open secret in academics and the professional world really that clueless? Do you work outside your home? Of COURSE, standards are routinely lowered, and it starts with our friend upthread whose daughter scored 1290 and got into Georgetown. There are only a few thousand black students graduating each year who have even met the baseline of "college prepared." Those who meet those benchmarks are admitted by the elite institutions, but as you go down the rankings, those schools still need to show a diverse class, and kids who truly do not belong in college are admitted.

Because of lack of preparation and "mismatch" between preparation and IQ with the rest of the student body, the graduation rates for blacks are much lower, making the pool of students available to create diverse classes in grad schools and corporate hiring classes even lower, and these institutions reach further down the rankings to fill classes. There are innumerable internship programs for minority students at all of our elite corporations trying to compete for these kids as early as possible.

Um, can you please show us the statistics for students of color not graduating from these top universities. Please. I am the "friend" from above. Shall I reiterate, that 3 semesters in, she had a 3.9 GPA, and is on track to have another 3.9 this semester. Plenty of her classmates who are also students of color--and some of them athletes as well--are thriving. You are making these things up to support your racist garbage.

+1000

By and large, the T20 are NOT taking URM or low income kids that won't succeed! They are taking highly qualified kids who happen to be URM or low income or first gen. Kids for whom it is incredible (based on their first 18 years/HS attended/etc) to be so highly qualified (and largely it has most to do with their family income levels/quality of schools attended/overall environment for the last 18 years, NOT race). They are finding those who will benefit the most from a T20 education (HiNT: it's not the UMC/Wealthy kid from big east coast city suburbs like DCUM) and giving them that opportunity. Those kids may not have attended a HS where taking Calc BC in 10th grade is even a thing, heck it might not even be an option in 12th. Those kids did not have tutoring starting in Pre-K upward to keep them on track for greatness. Those kids take the most rigorous options available to them given their lives---but the fact they didn't have 12+Aps in HS does not mean they are not extremely smart and willl not be able to do well at a T20

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this is for current Juniors? my kid has no interest in Harvard, but this seems really really late to make this call for this class

Tend to agree. I think it’s a reflection of how ill prepared TO kids were.

There is zero evidence of this or else schools would be releasing the hard data

Huh? Just the opposite. Schools are embarrassed by this failed TO experiment, which they were so proud of instituting for equity purposes. Only UT released the hard data - TO kids were on average a full GPA point lower once enrolled.

Oh my god, you are going to be so sad when you find out that kids with underperforming GPAs are now going to get in because their test scores are so high, instead of high GPAs and no or lower test scores. And ermagherd, A LOT of those kids are going to be minorities. Gasp!
A lot of you live in this bizarro world, looking for justifications and excuses and rationalizations for why your poor kid wasn't admitted.

Talk about victim mentality.

While I would maybe believe that you can be smart and not "test well," it doesn't work the other way -- you cannot be dumb and get a high score. It's not possible. Kids with low GPAs and high scores are usually very smart rebels who refuse to do busywork in subjects that they hate. These people then go to college and do very well, because they can choose their classes.

Pp above is 10000% correct.

Or they still don't do the best, because they only do well in courses they like. So Gen Eds and their major required courses they have no interest in they do poorly in.

I've seen it both ways.
Me personally, I'll take a kid who is a hard worker and gives 120% versus someone who only does well if they have an interest in what they are assigned.

You can "take" them (hard workers make good employees) but smart rebellious good test takers do pretty well in life. Though not with bosses, sometimes. I'm one (NMSF who got a C in AP US history but As in BC Calc and Physics so pretty weird GPA) and I've done well in all my work, have written a book, won awards and fellowships, etc. one of my big ex boyfriends was in the category too, now he owns his own law firm.


(My husband is a good test taker and 4.0 person and while he is an excellent employee, he's not a risk taker)

There are plenty in each category that will succeed. One data point doesn't change that. However, I also know several kids from HS who were really smart and lazy in HS because as you say "school was boring and didn't interest them". Some have succeeded, others did not. Because ultimately you must have a drive to succeed at some point. And for most (unless Mommy and daddy can fund your ventures) that will involve working a real job at some point with deadlines, other people and bosses and you have to work with them.

I also know top of the HS class kids who went on to be top of college academically and continued to excel thru life as well and take risks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:95% will STILL get rejected.

Yawn.

Maybe more like 90% now

Average of last 10+ classes acceptance rates suggests otherwise.

#clueless

Application numbers dropping will help rate.

In the first year, without TO, they may drop. But within a year or two, they will go back up again, when people realize that Harvard does, and always hasm accepted students with 1400 SATs. Strong students will get admitted with those scores and more eligible students will apply. TO kept so many qualifed students from applying that the student bodies just aren't of the quality they were before TO--and no, not because "stupid" kids with low scores who hid them were admitted, but because the admissions committee no longer had as broad a pool to choose from. Again, it's been said here many times, by many posters, reinstating test-required does not benefit the rich, white Yorktown HS kid with the 1530 whose mom thinks didn't get in only because a TO kid took her spot.