SAT/ACT single most predictive factor at Yale

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting podcast out this week by Dartmouth’s Dean of Admission. While interviewing Yale’s Dean of Admission, Yale shares that SAT/ACT is actually more predictive of academic success than transcript at Yale (despite general surveys nationally showing the reverse). Dartmouth has found same as Yale. These findings are institution-specific and could be limited to these sorts of hyper competitive places. Yale found the math score to be particularly predictive for persistence as a science major. Dartmouth had indicated the same. Clark Univ. said transcript is more predictive for them.

My impression is that Yale and Dartmouth really want scores, especially students coming from underresourced backgrounds, from which, as discussed in podcast, an ACT score of 30, while low for the college, would show ability in context. They are concerned these students aren’t submitting because score is below 25th percentile for college. My prediction is that at least Yale and Dartmouth return to test required or at least more strongly encouraged (Dartmouth has already put out test preferred statement).
Not surprisingly, it sounded like although the scores are very important as a threshold matter for determining if student can succeed academically, it sounded like they aren’t that important once that threshold is crossed. This makes sense as they have too many able applicants.
Discussion starts at minute 6:10 with Yale’s statement at 9:12.

Data Dive, Part 2
https://admissions.dartmouth.edu/follow/admissions-beat-podcast

The UC colleges did a deep dive on the millions of students that have gone through their system and also found that standardized test scores were the single best predictor of college success. It also didn’t vary by household income; a 1300 predicted just as well when it came from a student from an affluent family as it did from a student from a poorer family. The push to eliminate standardized testing has nothing to do with their effectiveness in predicting college success.

Link to that study? I only find studies finding the opposite - that GPA is best predictor.

Come on. In all logic, you know that's crap. GPA is wildly inflated in most public schools (I know, my kids are in public!). Obviously GPA can't predict anything.

Best study I’ve seen was the one the Iowa regents did when they went test optional, which showed that while ACT score is generally predictive, kids whose GPAs are low relative to their ACT scores (slackers) don’t do as well and those whose GPAs are much higher than their ACT would predict (grinders) do really well.

But, we keep being told that grinders aren't what colleges want.

There’s a lot of “colleges.” It’s totally plausible that Ivy Plus schools don’t want grinders but schools like Iowa and Iowa State love them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1. Why is that Dean Coffin so profoundly unlikable?

2. Our NYC private is now advising submit if it's over 25% cut off

3. I'd submit a 1500 to any school in America.

Chicago private. CC also advising to submit if over 25%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Why is that Dean Coffin so profoundly unlikable?

2. Our NYC private is now advising submit if it's over 25% cut off

3. I'd submit a 1500 to any school in America.

Chicago private. CC also advising to submit if over 25%

NP. Makes sense to me. Felt like I was saying this all last year when the professionals were saying 50%. Essentially, if the score shows the kid is in the ballpark of the enrolled class before test optional (CDS 2020-21), it helps them show they can handle the academics.

Does anyone suppose that high test score kids (1500+) might do better in admissions this year than the crapshoot results of the last three years? Asking for a friend...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Why is that Dean Coffin so profoundly unlikable?

2. Our NYC private is now advising submit if it's over 25% cut off

3. I'd submit a 1500 to any school in America.

Chicago private. CC also advising to submit if over 25%

NP. Makes sense to me. Felt like I was saying this all last year when the professionals were saying 50%. Essentially, if the score shows the kid is in the ballpark of the enrolled class before test optional (CDS 2020-21), it helps them show they can handle the academics.

Does anyone suppose that high test score kids (1500+) might do better in admissions this year than the crapshoot results of the last three years? Asking for a friend...

Probably not, schools are still going to be trying to maintain diversity, now will be going on first Gen, pell eligible and whatever can be gleaned from essays/clubs/awards (eg hispanic recognition).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Why is that Dean Coffin so profoundly unlikable?

2. Our NYC private is now advising submit if it's over 25% cut off

3. I'd submit a 1500 to any school in America.

Chicago private. CC also advising to submit if over 25%

NP. Makes sense to me. Felt like I was saying this all last year when the professionals were saying 50%. Essentially, if the score shows the kid is in the ballpark of the enrolled class before test optional (CDS 2020-21), it helps them show they can handle the academics.

Does anyone suppose that high test score kids (1500+) might do better in admissions this year than the crapshoot results of the last three years? Asking for a friend...

I don't know about better, but I do feel like the days of unhooked kids in middle class or wealthier zip codes going TO is over. Submit it or forget it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Why is that Dean Coffin so profoundly unlikable?

2. Our NYC private is now advising submit if it's over 25% cut off

3. I'd submit a 1500 to any school in America.

Chicago private. CC also advising to submit if over 25%

NP. Makes sense to me. Felt like I was saying this all last year when the professionals were saying 50%. Essentially, if the score shows the kid is in the ballpark of the enrolled class before test optional (CDS 2020-21), it helps them show they can handle the academics.

Does anyone suppose that high test score kids (1500+) might do better in admissions this year than the crapshoot results of the last three years? Asking for a friend...

Probably not, schools are still going to be trying to maintain diversity, now will be going on first Gen, pell eligible and whatever can be gleaned from essays/clubs/awards (eg hispanic recognition).

And if the 1500+ kid also has National Hispanic Recognition Program in the award section, even if not mentioned in the essays?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Why is that Dean Coffin so profoundly unlikable?

2. Our NYC private is now advising submit if it's over 25% cut off

3. I'd submit a 1500 to any school in America.

Chicago private. CC also advising to submit if over 25%

New York private. Same on 25% guidance for top schools here.

[Anonymous]

25% makes total sense. It's insane to be 1550 or bust.

25% is what our top DC private is recommending as well (Actually they are even recommending sending some scores below the 25%)

[Anonymous]

the 25% or above from private school is making me wonder two things:

A. They are getting better intel from colleges than the people still saying median or above.

B. Is it something about private school kids? I would have thought that kids in expensive private schools would be held to a higher standard than the riff raff. Like into the 50% range or higher. But maybe colleges are saying, we're accepting kids at this test level and up so relax .. it's not that deep. Your transcript from a school well known to us tells us a lot more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Why is that Dean Coffin so profoundly unlikable?

2. Our NYC private is now advising submit if it's over 25% cut off

3. I'd submit a 1500 to any school in America.

Chicago private. CC also advising to submit if over 25%

NP. Makes sense to me. Felt like I was saying this all last year when the professionals were saying 50%. Essentially, if the score shows the kid is in the ballpark of the enrolled class before test optional (CDS 2020-21), it helps them show they can handle the academics.

Does anyone suppose that high test score kids (1500+) might do better in admissions this year than the crapshoot results of the last three years? Asking for a friend...

I don't know about better, but I do feel like the days of unhooked kids in middle class or wealthier zip codes going TO is over. Submit it or forget it.

There are so many kids who score 1500+ (or the ACT equivalent) that there just aren't enough spaces for them at the top schools.

Someone on here once posted that according to the Common App 2022 report, 76,000+ applicants applied to universities/colleges with an SAT score >1500 or ACT equivalent. There are an additional 98,000 in the 1400-1490 range. That's a lot of smart kids to place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:25% makes total sense. It's insane to be 1550 or bust.

25% is what our top DC private is recommending as well (Actually they are even recommending sending some scores below the 25%)

In what scenarios are they recommending submitting below 25th? E.g., when math score is high for Stem applicant? When just 10-20 points below percentile?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:the 25% or above from private school is making me wonder two things:

A. They are getting better intel from colleges than the people still saying median or above.

B. Is it something about private school kids? I would have thought that kids in expensive private schools would be held to a higher standard than the riff raff. Like into the 50% range or higher. But maybe colleges are saying, we're accepting kids at this test level and up so relax .. it's not that deep. Your transcript from a school well known to us tells us a lot more.

Most imp part of your statement I think nails it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting podcast out this week by Dartmouth’s Dean of Admission. While interviewing Yale’s Dean of Admission, Yale shares that SAT/ACT is actually more predictive of academic success than transcript at Yale (despite general surveys nationally showing the reverse). Dartmouth has found same as Yale. These findings are institution-specific and could be limited to these sorts of hyper competitive places. Yale found the math score to be particularly predictive for persistence as a science major. Dartmouth had indicated the same. Clark Univ. said transcript is more predictive for them.

My impression is that Yale and Dartmouth really want scores, especially students coming from underresourced backgrounds, from which, as discussed in podcast, an ACT score of 30, while low for the college, would show ability in context. They are concerned these students aren’t submitting because score is below 25th percentile for college. My prediction is that at least Yale and Dartmouth return to test required or at least more strongly encouraged (Dartmouth has already put out test preferred statement).
Not surprisingly, it sounded like although the scores are very important as a threshold matter for determining if student can succeed academically, it sounded like they aren’t that important once that threshold is crossed. This makes sense as they have too many able applicants.
Discussion starts at minute 6:10 with Yale’s statement at 9:12.

Data Dive, Part 2
https://admissions.dartmouth.edu/follow/admissions-beat-podcast

The UC colleges did a deep dive on the millions of students that have gone through their system and also found that standardized test scores were the single best predictor of college success. It also didn’t vary by household income; a 1300 predicted just as well when it came from a student from an affluent family as it did from a student from a poorer family. The push to eliminate standardized testing has nothing to do with their effectiveness in predicting college success.

Link to that study? I only find studies finding the opposite - that GPA is best predictor.

Come on. In all logic, you know that's crap. GPA is wildly inflated in most public schools (I know, my kids are in public!). Obviously GPA can't predict anything.

Best study I’ve seen was the one the Iowa regents did when they went test optional, which showed that while ACT score is generally predictive, kids whose GPAs are low relative to their ACT scores (slackers) don’t do as well and those whose GPAs are much higher than their ACT would predict (grinders) do really well.

But, we keep being told that grinders aren't what colleges want.

There’s a lot of “colleges.” It’s totally plausible that Ivy Plus schools don’t want grinders but schools like Iowa and Iowa State love them.

But, I've been told that the elite colleges don't want grinders

[Anonymous]

On this 25% thing, are there maybe two sets of rules at play? Just like pre-COVID?

Are the 25% markers essentially the pre-COVID mid 50%? If so that’s prob the most imp takeaway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:On this 25% thing, are there maybe two sets of rules at play? Just like pre-COVID?

Are the 25% markers essentially the pre-COVID mid 50%? If so that’s prob the most imp takeaway.

25% now is often higher than 50% pre covid. That’s why the “submit if over median” is not sustainable