Dartmouth Announces Test Scores Required Starting Next Year

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A huge blow to the DEI crowd.

And with legacy beginning to be pulled as well at many colleges...hopefully, we can enter a 'merit-based' admissions era.

I feel like people aren’t reading the article.

Dartmouth is basically saying we will take lots of kids with SAT scores in the 1300s and 1400s coming from disadvantaged schools.

I don’t see how that will help the 1580 Asian kid from TJ. Those parents will be crying louder than ever.

That is not at all what the article said.

Ok, what did it say...here is a direct quote:

“We’re looking for the kids who are excelling in their environment. We know society is unequal,” Beilock said. “Kids that are excelling in their environment, we think, are a good bet to excel at Dartmouth and out in the world.” The admissions office will judge an applicant’s environment partly by comparing his or her test score with the score distribution at the applicant’s high schools, Coffin said. In some cases, even an SAT score well below 1,400 can help an application.

No,

You are misreading.

The article said that kids at those lower performing schools (such as a school where most kids graduate at a 3rd grade reading level or no one takes calculus) with scores in that range (1400+/-) are kids who have proven they can succeed at a school like Dartmouth. In contrast, a kid from a wealthy school with every resource at thier disposal who still only has a middling SAT score but high GPA will struggle.

That statement is talking about the potential to resources ratio. It is not a statement about a hard cut off of test scores.

You are completely misreading the entire article.

100%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A huge blow to the DEI crowd.

And with legacy beginning to be pulled as well at many colleges...hopefully, we can enter a 'merit-based' admissions era.

I feel like people aren’t reading the article.

Dartmouth is basically saying we will take lots of kids with SAT scores in the 1300s and 1400s coming from disadvantaged schools.

I don’t see how that will help the 1580 Asian kid from TJ. Those parents will be crying louder than ever.

That is not at all what the article said.

Ok, what did it say...here is a direct quote:

“We’re looking for the kids who are excelling in their environment. We know society is unequal,” Beilock said. “Kids that are excelling in their environment, we think, are a good bet to excel at Dartmouth and out in the world.” The admissions office will judge an applicant’s environment partly by comparing his or her test score with the score distribution at the applicant’s high schools, Coffin said. In some cases, even an SAT score well below 1,400 can help an application.

No,

You are misreading.

The article said that kids at those lower performing schools (such as a school where most kids graduate at a 3rd grade reading level or no one takes calculus) with scores in that range (1400+/-) are kids who have proven they can succeed at a school like Dartmouth. In contrast, a kid from a wealthy school with every resource at thier disposal who still only has a middling SAT score but high GPA will struggle.

That statement is talking about the potential to resources ratio. It is not a statement about a hard cut off of test scores.

You are completely misreading the entire article.

My comment was in response to someone claiming that now schools will admit purely on merit. Dartmouth's policy will now accept plenty of kids with a 1300 or 1400 from an under-resourced school vs. the TJ kid with a 1580. It's not even about a wealthy school vs. non-wealthy school (at least from the perspective of student-body wealth).

The TJ parents will continue to cry that the world is biased against them because their 1580 kid was rejected by Dartmouth while some 1300 kid from Harlem public schools was admitted.

Eliminating test optional means the 1580 TJ kid has a reasonable shot against all the other 1500+ applicants, instead of hetting shut out by a rich 4.0 kid with a 1200 SAT who went test optional.

This change benefits the brilliant 1500 kids from affluent or middle class backgrounds. It also benefits the poor white trailer park kid from the meth corridor of the midwest, or the Baltimore City Schools minority kid, who achieved a 1350 or 1400 SAT, in spite of attending a school district where 90% of the students are "graduated" functionally illiterate and unable to do more than 2nd grade math.

In all 3 of those cases, the 1580 TJ kid, the meth corridor poor white kid, and the minority Baltimore city schools kid, returning to test required means the system is returning to a merit based system.

The best and brightest will rise to the top in all 3 scenarios.

Test optional cuts those 3 brilliant kids from a fair shot, in favor of average kids with inflated grades and expensive extracurriculars, raised in wealth, stability and privilege.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A huge blow to the DEI crowd.

And with legacy beginning to be pulled as well at many colleges...hopefully, we can enter a 'merit-based' admissions era.

I feel like people aren’t reading the article.

Dartmouth is basically saying we will take lots of kids with SAT scores in the 1300s and 1400s coming from disadvantaged schools.

I don’t see how that will help the 1580 Asian kid from TJ. Those parents will be crying louder than ever.

That is not at all what the article said.

Ok, what did it say...here is a direct quote:

“We’re looking for the kids who are excelling in their environment. We know society is unequal,” Beilock said. “Kids that are excelling in their environment, we think, are a good bet to excel at Dartmouth and out in the world.” The admissions office will judge an applicant’s environment partly by comparing his or her test score with the score distribution at the applicant’s high schools, Coffin said. In some cases, even an SAT score well below 1,400 can help an application.

No,

You are misreading.

The article said that kids at those lower performing schools (such as a school where most kids graduate at a 3rd grade reading level or no one takes calculus) with scores in that range (1400+/-) are kids who have proven they can succeed at a school like Dartmouth. In contrast, a kid from a wealthy school with every resource at thier disposal who still only has a middling SAT score but high GPA will struggle.

That statement is talking about the potential to resources ratio. It is not a statement about a hard cut off of test scores.

You are completely misreading the entire article.

My comment was in response to someone claiming that now schools will admit purely on merit. Dartmouth's policy will now accept plenty of kids with a 1300 or 1400 from an under-resourced school vs. the TJ kid with a 1580. It's not even about a wealthy school vs. non-wealthy school (at least from the perspective of student-body wealth).

The TJ parents will continue to cry that the world is biased against them because their 1580 kid was rejected by Dartmouth while some 1300 kid from Harlem public schools was admitted.

They won’t just cry. Someone will sue. Watch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A huge blow to the DEI crowd.

And with legacy beginning to be pulled as well at many colleges...hopefully, we can enter a 'merit-based' admissions era.

I feel like people aren’t reading the article.

Dartmouth is basically saying we will take lots of kids with SAT scores in the 1300s and 1400s coming from disadvantaged schools.

I don’t see how that will help the 1580 Asian kid from TJ. Those parents will be crying louder than ever.

That is not at all what the article said.

Ok, what did it say...here is a direct quote:

“We’re looking for the kids who are excelling in their environment. We know society is unequal,” Beilock said. “Kids that are excelling in their environment, we think, are a good bet to excel at Dartmouth and out in the world.” The admissions office will judge an applicant’s environment partly by comparing his or her test score with the score distribution at the applicant’s high schools, Coffin said. In some cases, even an SAT score well below 1,400 can help an application.

No,

You are misreading.

The article said that kids at those lower performing schools (such as a school where most kids graduate at a 3rd grade reading level or no one takes calculus) with scores in that range (1400+/-) are kids who have proven they can succeed at a school like Dartmouth. In contrast, a kid from a wealthy school with every resource at thier disposal who still only has a middling SAT score but high GPA will struggle.

That statement is talking about the potential to resources ratio. It is not a statement about a hard cut off of test scores.

You are completely misreading the entire article.

My comment was in response to someone claiming that now schools will admit purely on merit. Dartmouth's policy will now accept plenty of kids with a 1300 or 1400 from an under-resourced school vs. the TJ kid with a 1580. It's not even about a wealthy school vs. non-wealthy school (at least from the perspective of student-body wealth).

The TJ parents will continue to cry that the world is biased against them because their 1580 kid was rejected by Dartmouth while some 1300 kid from Harlem public schools was admitted.

Eliminating test optional means the 1580 TJ kid has a reasonable shot against all the other 1500+ applicants, instead of hetting shut out by a rich 4.0 kid with a 1200 SAT who went test optional.

This change benefits the brilliant 1500 kids from affluent or middle class backgrounds. It also benefits the poor white trailer park kid from the meth corridor of the midwest, or the Baltimore City Schools minority kid, who achieved a 1350 or 1400 SAT, in spite of attending a school district where 90% of the students are "graduated" functionally illiterate and unable to do more than 2nd grade math.

In all 3 of those cases, the 1580 TJ kid, the meth corridor poor white kid, and the minority Baltimore city schools kid, returning to test required means the system is returning to a merit based system.

The best and brightest will rise to the top in all 3 scenarios.

Test optional cuts those 3 brilliant kids from a fair shot, in favor of average kids with inflated grades and expensive extracurriculars, raised in wealth, stability and privilege.

Bingo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the decision, but I think it is a bit late in the cycle to make this announcement. Kids who were planning to go TO will now have to scramble in just a few months.

Literally, They have 10 months?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There will be no test optional selective schools by 2028-ish. Read the article; the data are totally convincing. Tests both better predict success and better find disadvantaged kids who can do the work. The idea that standardized tests were "racist" was always foolish; test optional helped dumb rich kids, not smart poor kids. Sanity prevailing, finally.

2028 feels a long time away... that's the current 8th graders application cycle?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There will be no test optional selective schools by 2028-ish. Read the article; the data are totally convincing. Tests both better predict success and better find disadvantaged kids who can do the work. The idea that standardized tests were "racist" was always foolish; test optional helped dumb rich kids, not smart poor kids. Sanity prevailing, finally.

Most of the DEI stuff is designed to hurt high achieving minorities and to help concentrate power with the elites.

[Anonymous]

Early decision applications are due in less than nine months, it takes about six weeks to get a score, and you want to know your score before you apply, so kids really have just six months to decide on a test, prepare, and take it. There will be a rush for tutors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A huge blow to the DEI crowd.

And with legacy beginning to be pulled as well at many colleges...hopefully, we can enter a 'merit-based' admissions era.

I feel like people aren’t reading the article.

Dartmouth is basically saying we will take lots of kids with SAT scores in the 1300s and 1400s coming from disadvantaged schools.

I don’t see how that will help the 1580 Asian kid from TJ. Those parents will be crying louder than ever.

That is not at all what the article said.

Ok, what did it say...here is a direct quote:

“We’re looking for the kids who are excelling in their environment. We know society is unequal,” Beilock said. “Kids that are excelling in their environment, we think, are a good bet to excel at Dartmouth and out in the world.” The admissions office will judge an applicant’s environment partly by comparing his or her test score with the score distribution at the applicant’s high schools, Coffin said. In some cases, even an SAT score well below 1,400 can help an application.

No,

You are misreading.

The article said that kids at those lower performing schools (such as a school where most kids graduate at a 3rd grade reading level or no one takes calculus) with scores in that range (1400+/-) are kids who have proven they can succeed at a school like Dartmouth. In contrast, a kid from a wealthy school with every resource at thier disposal who still only has a middling SAT score but high GPA will struggle.

That statement is talking about the potential to resources ratio. It is not a statement about a hard cut off of test scores.

You are completely misreading the entire article.

My comment was in response to someone claiming that now schools will admit purely on merit. Dartmouth's policy will now accept plenty of kids with a 1300 or 1400 from an under-resourced school vs. the TJ kid with a 1580. It's not even about a wealthy school vs. non-wealthy school (at least from the perspective of student-body wealth).

The TJ parents will continue to cry that the world is biased against them because their 1580 kid was rejected by Dartmouth while some 1300 kid from Harlem public schools was admitted.

Eliminating test optional means the 1580 TJ kid has a reasonable shot against all the other 1500+ applicants, instead of hetting shut out by a rich 4.0 kid with a 1200 SAT who went test optional.

This change benefits the brilliant 1500 kids from affluent or middle class backgrounds. It also benefits the poor white trailer park kid from the meth corridor of the midwest, or the Baltimore City Schools minority kid, who achieved a 1350 or 1400 SAT, in spite of attending a school district where 90% of the students are "graduated" functionally illiterate and unable to do more than 2nd grade math.

In all 3 of those cases, the 1580 TJ kid, the meth corridor poor white kid, and the minority Baltimore city schools kid, returning to test required means the system is returning to a merit based system.

The best and brightest will rise to the top in all 3 scenarios.

Test optional cuts those 3 brilliant kids from a fair shot, in favor of average kids with inflated grades and expensive extracurriculars, raised in wealth, stability and privilege.

I am sorry...you are giving those parents way too much credit. That's not how they define merit. They define merit fairly simplistically...1580 > 1350 period. They don't care about circumstances or potential. To them, the kid that showed more merit was rejected over a kid that showed far less merit.

Sure, they also are happy the rich TO kid is no longer a factor...but literally the way they would run college acceptances is send SAT scores and just go down the list from highest to lowest and that is the first cut of applicants (because there will be thousands with the same scores). So, basically only kids with probably a 1550+ would remain, and now you look at their application.

They don't care about potential.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There will be no test optional selective schools by 2028-ish. Read the article; the data are totally convincing. Tests both better predict success and better find disadvantaged kids who can do the work. The idea that standardized tests were "racist" was always foolish; test optional helped dumb rich kids, not smart poor kids. Sanity prevailing, finally.

2028 feels a long time away... that's the current 8th graders application cycle?

2028 refers to their college graduation year. That is the year's group of seniors (i.e., 2024 HS graduates).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you really think other schools follow?

No.

I think some s hooks will follow:
Yale. Princeton. Penn. Northwestern. JHU. Rice.

[Anonymous]

University stats aside, no way the companies they put out the tests and those that make $ by offering study prep were going to close their doors and say, know we made lots of $ on this but now that schools are doing test optional, we’ll close down our multi-$$$ business. By that $$$ alone the odds always in favor of tests being part of all this in some way. Schools could even take advantage of that as sure the testing companies would be happy to fund consultant studies to look at stats of test v no test.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the decision, but I think it is a bit late in the cycle to make this announcement. Kids who were planning to go TO will now have to scramble in just a few months.

Literally, They have 10 months?!

All of them were taking it once anyways. Let’s be real.

My a senior did a short 3 week prep and was one and done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you really think other schools follow?

No.

I think some s hooks will follow:
Yale. Princeton. Penn. Northwestern. JHU. Rice.

Hopkins has a yield issue. The Ivies will, not sure about Hopkins especially with it’s discriminatory policies against non-DEI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Early decision applications are due in less than nine months, it takes about six weeks to get a score, and you want to know your score before you apply, so kids really have just six months to decide on a test, prepare, and take it. There will be a rush for tutors.

No. Everyone plans to take it once in the DMV. I don’t know a single kid that didn’t take a test once. The ones that score low or don’t want to put in work to try and pull it up stop there.