Can a 3.6 get into Harvard?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No. DD had perfect SAT scores, perfect GPA with all AP classes senior year, 4 APs sophomore and junior year, 5 college classes, internships in the science labs at a local university, captain of varsity sport, leadership positions in 2 clubs, and extensive volunteer efforts (years, major projects). Rejected.

Outstanding candidate! Rejected from H, but was your DC accepted to YPSM? Top 10 USNWR Unis or Slacs?

[Anonymous]

of course not

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People in privileged positions defend reliance on standardized tests because it lets them believe there is a controllable, objectivity to things. That is true at most colleges, but only somewhat the case at our most selective schools. I remember well the episode oh The Sopranos where Meadow's mom acknowledged the reality that Tribal status would confer a key admissions edge.

Well, when these measured things have significant and consistent correlations to outcomes in the real world it's hard not to. Let's do an experiment; let in a bunch of kids with good grades (3.9+) and low SAT scores (< 1000) to MIT, treat them like the rest of the students and see how they do. I'll bet SAT at that point becomes HIGHLY predictive of success.

The experiments (sort of) have already been done. The College Board has long touted statistics correlating high SAT performance with college success. of course, it does not mean some students who do not test well can't outperform at college, but the test is very predictive generally.

More importantly, the comment about people who are "privileged" favoring standardized testing is quite naive. Indeed, people with true privilege - the wealthy in America for generations - had nothing to gain by such testing and much to loose. The SAT was originally seen as an equalizer letting the smart hard working public school kid prove he was as deserving as the child from money. It gave the less privileged a chance. I really doubt George W Bush was helped by SATs to get into Yale, but thousands of hard working bright kids from less privileged backgrounds have been. The world is now turned on its head as standardized testing is deemed oppressive if it isn't perfect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People in privileged positions defend reliance on standardized tests because it lets them believe there is a controllable, objectivity to things. That is true at most colleges, but only somewhat the case at our most selective schools. I remember well the episode oh The Sopranos where Meadow's mom acknowledged the reality that Tribal status would confer a key admissions edge.

Well, when these measured things have significant and consistent correlations to outcomes in the real world it's hard not to. Let's do an experiment; let in a bunch of kids with good grades (3.9+) and low SAT scores (< 1000) to MIT, treat them like the rest of the students and see how they do. I'll bet SAT at that point becomes HIGHLY predictive of success.

The experiments (sort of) have already been done. The College Board has long touted statistics correlating high SAT performance with college success. of course, it does not mean some students who do not test well can't outperform at college, but the test is very predictive generally.

More importantly, the comment about people who are "privileged" favoring standardized testing is quite naive. Indeed, people with true privilege - the wealthy in America for generations - had nothing to gain by such testing and much to loose. The SAT was originally seen as an equalizer letting the smart hard working public school kid prove he was as deserving as the child from money. It gave the less privileged a chance. I really doubt George W Bush was helped by SATs to get into Yale, but thousands of hard working bright kids from less privileged backgrounds have been. The world is now turned on its head as standardized testing is deemed oppressive if it isn't perfect.

SAT have little correlation with success in college or beyond. High school grades are a better indicator of college success and college grades are an indicator of work success for only three years after graduation. People make too big of a deal about URM students. They make up a very small % of the students. If you did away with these preferences, your kid is still not getting in. There is a big stack applications of kids with 4.2 to 4.5 gpa, prefect sat/act scores from top private high schools who do not get in. Also the kids who get in with the lower score have somes pretty incredible backround stories. The competition for every slot is fierce...even for the hooked wealthy people, URM, athletes etc. Don't kid yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People in privileged positions defend reliance on standardized tests because it lets them believe there is a controllable, objectivity to things. That is true at most colleges, but only somewhat the case at our most selective schools. I remember well the episode oh The Sopranos where Meadow's mom acknowledged the reality that Tribal status would confer a key admissions edge.

Well, when these measured things have significant and consistent correlations to outcomes in the real world it's hard not to. Let's do an experiment; let in a bunch of kids with good grades (3.9+) and low SAT scores (< 1000) to MIT, treat them like the rest of the students and see how they do. I'll bet SAT at that point becomes HIGHLY predictive of success.

The experiments (sort of) have already been done. The College Board has long touted statistics correlating high SAT performance with college success. of course, it does not mean some students who do not test well can't outperform at college, but the test is very predictive generally.

More importantly, the comment about people who are "privileged" favoring standardized testing is quite naive. Indeed, people with true privilege - the wealthy in America for generations - had nothing to gain by such testing and much to loose. The SAT was originally seen as an equalizer letting the smart hard working public school kid prove he was as deserving as the child from money. It gave the less privileged a chance. I really doubt George W Bush was helped by SATs to get into Yale, but thousands of hard working bright kids from less privileged backgrounds have been. The world is now turned on its head as standardized testing is deemed oppressive if it isn't perfect.

SAT have little correlation with success in college or beyond. High school grades are a better indicator of college success and college grades are an indicator of work success for only three years after graduation. People make too big of a deal about URM students. They make up a very small % of the students. If you did away with these preferences, your kid is still not getting in. There is a big stack applications of kids with 4.2 to 4.5 gpa, prefect sat/act scores from top private high schools who do not get in. Also the kids who get in with the lower score have somes pretty incredible backround stories. The competition for every slot is fierce...even for the hooked wealthy people, URM, athletes etc. Don't kid yourself.

Nobody's kidding anyone here. And yes, GPA is more important overall. However, SAT's/ACTs are critical to helping schools objectively compare students with similar SATs from different schools and are predictive of that freshman year of college - which is what they are designed to be -- but especially read together with a GPA. Very few of the most selective schools have gone test optional, and even some of those that have do so indicate that the option is more for students for whom taking the test/paying the fees, etc. would be a hardship. If the SAT/ACT are not important predictive tools, why do most colleges still require them?

[Anonymous]

No, the most important thing is skin color. Look at those stats. URMS, internationals, asians, fisrst generation etc. etc. etc. The only kid in DD's school to get into an ivy was a URM. It's meaningless to apply from this area as a white female.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, the most important thing is skin color. Look at those stats. URMS, internationals, asians, fisrst generation etc. etc. etc. The only kid in DD's school to get into an ivy was a URM. It's meaningless to apply from this area as a white female.

No it's not, my niece got in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. DD had perfect SAT scores, perfect GPA with all AP classes senior year, 4 APs sophomore and junior year, 5 college classes, internships in the science labs at a local university, captain of varsity sport, leadership positions in 2 clubs, and extensive volunteer efforts (years, major projects). Rejected.

Makes you wonder what the 60% white kids admitted had thath your DD didn't?

Whatever it was, they must be tired.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People in privileged positions defend reliance on standardized tests because it lets them believe there is a controllable, objectivity to things. That is true at most colleges, but only somewhat the case at our most selective schools. I remember well the episode oh The Sopranos where Meadow's mom acknowledged the reality that Tribal status would confer a key admissions edge.

Well, when these measured things have significant and consistent correlations to outcomes in the real world it's hard not to. Let's do an experiment; let in a bunch of kids with good grades (3.9+) and low SAT scores (< 1000) to MIT, treat them like the rest of the students and see how they do. I'll bet SAT at that point becomes HIGHLY predictive of success.

The experiments (sort of) have already been done. The College Board has long touted statistics correlating high SAT performance with college success. of course, it does not mean some students who do not test well can't outperform at college, but the test is very predictive generally.

More importantly, the comment about people who are "privileged" favoring standardized testing is quite naive. Indeed, people with true privilege - the wealthy in America for generations - had nothing to gain by such testing and much to loose. The SAT was originally seen as an equalizer letting the smart hard working public school kid prove he was as deserving as the child from money. It gave the less privileged a chance. I really doubt George W Bush was helped by SATs to get into Yale, but thousands of hard working bright kids from less privileged backgrounds have been. The world is now turned on its head as standardized testing is deemed oppressive if it isn't perfect.

SAT have little correlation with success in college or beyond. High school grades are a better indicator of college success and college grades are an indicator of work success for only three years after graduation. People make too big of a deal about URM students. They make up a very small % of the students. If you did away with these preferences, your kid is still not getting in. There is a big stack applications of kids with 4.2 to 4.5 gpa, prefect sat/act scores from top private high schools who do not get in. Also the kids who get in with the lower score have somes pretty incredible backround stories. The competition for every slot is fierce...even for the hooked wealthy people, URM, athletes etc. Don't kid yourself.

Nobody's kidding anyone here. And yes, GPA is more important overall. However, SAT's/ACTs are critical to helping schools objectively compare students with similar SATs from different schools and are predictive of that freshman year of college - which is what they are designed to be -- but especially read together with a GPA. Very few of the most selective schools have gone test optional, and even some of those that have do so indicate that the option is more for students for whom taking the test/paying the fees, etc. would be a hardship. If the SAT/ACT are not important predictive tools, why do most colleges still require them?

Two U of Minnesota researchers were given access to over a million student records along with all the courses they took and the grades they received. Using this data they showed that:

- Tests predict academic performance quite well
- They do so regardless of race, SES or gender.
- They predict a broad array of academic outcomes other than grades.

Studies that show that SATs don't predict performance are generally very limited in size (in the orders of hundreds); this study used 1.2 million students.

Watch it here: http://www.isironline.org/isir-2015-invited-address-paul-sackett-nathan-kuncel/

People who believe that SATs don't predict academic performance are in deep denial.

[Anonymous]

Stands to reason. IQ is a pretty good predictor of success, SAT is a pretty good proxy for IQ, so...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. DD had perfect SAT scores, perfect GPA with all AP classes senior year, 4 APs sophomore and junior year, 5 college classes, internships in the science labs at a local university, captain of varsity sport, leadership positions in 2 clubs, and extensive volunteer efforts (years, major projects). Rejected.

Outstanding candidate! Rejected from H, but was your DC accepted to YPSM? Top 10 USNWR Unis or Slacs?

Nephew had same scores but higher gpa and was rejected also.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Stands to reason. IQ is a pretty good predictor of success, SAT is a pretty good proxy for IQ, so...

No it not in either case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stands to reason. IQ is a pretty good predictor of success, SAT is a pretty good proxy for IQ, so...

No it not in either case.

Yes, SAT scores correlate closely with IQ scores; about as closely as IQ tests correlate with other IQ tests.

If you use income as a proxy of "success" then IQ predicts success.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. DD had perfect SAT scores, perfect GPA with all AP classes senior year, 4 APs sophomore and junior year, 5 college classes, internships in the science labs at a local university, captain of varsity sport, leadership positions in 2 clubs, and extensive volunteer efforts (years, major projects). Rejected.

Outstanding candidate! Rejected from H, but was your DC accepted to YPSM? Top 10 USNWR Unis or Slacs?

Nephew had same scores but higher gpa and was rejected also.

He had a higher GPA than "perfect"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Stands to reason. IQ is a pretty good predictor of success, SAT is a pretty good proxy for IQ, so...

Not with all the prepping that's done nowadays. That ship has sailed!