Why is it so much harder to get into a top school now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test optional. Test optional allows kids with good grades but mediocre or bad test scores to apply to highly selective schools. Top schools want to take some of those kids because it fulfills their DEI and financial goals. At some better schools, test optional now accounts for 40% of applications and 25% of admits. If those applications didn’t exist, there would be more room for the kids that got admitted five years ago.

And this is a good thing, BTW. The test scores are discriminatory.

Getting rid of tests is discriminatory - against Asians in particular.

Just because many Asian parents prioritize standardized test performance doesn't mean getting rid of them is discriminatory. FWIW, I think optional is fine. They can be a factor, but students can also demonstrate intellectual capabilities in other ways.

That statement is racist against Asians. How do you know their success in testing is a function of the stereotype of parental pressure?

How come there are so many threads about testing? Which parents are starting them and participating in them? Any chance this breaks down demographic lines? -DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test optional. Test optional allows kids with good grades but mediocre or bad test scores to apply to highly selective schools. Top schools want to take some of those kids because it fulfills their DEI and financial goals. At some better schools, test optional now accounts for 40% of applications and 25% of admits. If those applications didn’t exist, there would be more room for the kids that got admitted five years ago.

And this is a good thing, BTW. The test scores are discriminatory.

Getting rid of tests is discriminatory - against Asians in particular.

Just because many Asian parents prioritize standardized test performance doesn't mean getting rid of them is discriminatory. FWIW, I think optional is fine. They can be a factor, but students can also demonstrate intellectual capabilities in other ways.

That statement is racist against Asians. How do you know their success in testing is a function of the stereotype of parental pressure?

I guess there is some special SAT gene that only asian kids possess. Is that it?

I don't know what to tell you. These are basic tests of intellectual ability. Asian kids do really well on them. They get more answers correct. I read that as, Asian kids are on average smarter. Are they born smarter? I don't know, it is possible. But by the time they sit for those exams, they are smarter. It is what it is. Are the tests perfect? No. But they clearly correlate with smartness.

I dont know what to tell you. Maybe they prepare more effectively.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What are you considering a top school? Because the top 25 have always been difficult to get into, except maybe USC/NYU.

USC/NYU wouldn't attract half the applicants if placed somewhere other than LA and NYC. Its an unfair advantage over peer schools located elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test optional. Test optional allows kids with good grades but mediocre or bad test scores to apply to highly selective schools. Top schools want to take some of those kids because it fulfills their DEI and financial goals. At some better schools, test optional now accounts for 40% of applications and 25% of admits. If those applications didn’t exist, there would be more room for the kids that got admitted five years ago.

And this is a good thing, BTW. The test scores are discriminatory.

Very true. The SAT discriminates against kids who are bad at math and reading. Unconscionable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test optional. Test optional allows kids with good grades but mediocre or bad test scores to apply to highly selective schools. Top schools want to take some of those kids because it fulfills their DEI and financial goals. At some better schools, test optional now accounts for 40% of applications and 25% of admits. If those applications didn’t exist, there would be more room for the kids that got admitted five years ago.

And this is a good thing, BTW. The test scores are discriminatory.

Getting rid of tests is discriminatory - against Asians in particular.

Just because many Asian parents prioritize standardized test performance doesn't mean getting rid of them is discriminatory. FWIW, I think optional is fine. They can be a factor, but students can also demonstrate intellectual capabilities in other ways.

NP. And so what if it’s discriminatory. We discriminate every day. If you choose a salad instead of fries as your side dish, you have discriminated. So what?

There was a time in America when people felt racial discrimination was a bad thing. Objecting to it was sort of the whole point of the 1960s. But I guess whatever! Discriminate away!

[Anonymous]

Priscilla Chan is clearly a very bright pediatrician. She is from a poor immigrant family. But at Harvard, she met Zuckerberg, who was from a UMC family (substantially wealthier than hers, though).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) more kids applying to colleges in general
2) more international kids applying to US schools
3) grade inflation, which has been going on for years but was exacerbated by CovID
4) test opitonal - removes some sort of baseline understanding of how competititve kids are from "lesser" schools or school districts
5) for white kids, more emphasis on applicants of color and "first gen"

All of these combine to make it harder. It is what it is, and it will take some time for the schools to figure it out, so the key is to find a wide band of schools your kid likes and not focus on the same "T10" 'T25" or whatever. There shouldn't be people who want to apply to both Dartmouth and Columbia, wildly different schools and settings, same with Columbia and Brown, for example. Decide what you like about a school and then identify 10 others that have similar qualities but different variables to gain entry.

Very smart comment, and don't miss the bolded. A lot of people (especially on these boards) are stuck in this perspective on college admissions where all good students should want to go to the same 25 schools (and that the best students will all want to attend the same 5 schools). The truth is that there are a huge number of great schools out there and that the best first for your students will depend on their academic goals, social preferences, environmental preferences, etc.

Though part of this hangup is driven by parents who work in fields where that "T25" preference remains -- BigLaw, the top banks and consulting firms, politics. They work in fields where having certain academic credentials are, if not required, a huge advantage. And they don't understand that these same schools are not preferred for all fields. Your really have to understand your child's goals and think more expansively about what a "good school" is in that context.

Given that so many top students are going outside of these schools, I think these trends may change. They have already changed my colleagues' views on recruiting.

WAs with a recruiter from a major investment bank recently and they said that they are moving theirlist down from just Top 25 to more emphasis on Top 26-75. The same kids who a decade ago were always T25 are now 26 to 75.

All of this will have consequences in recruiting as you say. The whole shift will seem like it's happening in slomo but it's ver much happening.

Need to find the genuinely high brain power kids who used to exist mainly at top 25 but have been crammed down by DEI, FGIL, TO

I think you mean the kids who have had enrichment opportunities, connections or other advantages. That is largely the group that "used to exist mainly at top 25." Good test scores don't necessarily equate to smarter or better student. They are one of many factors to consider

It's not just test scores although that is part of it. The top schools are increasingly picking kids based on ideological priorities not ability, whether ability is a result of "privilege" or not. A lot of ability now resides at lower ranked schools, whereas in the past, only kids with less ability would normally attend such schools. It's also grade inflation- between lack of test scores and fake grades, top 25 schools may not be doing as good a job as they used to identifying the best and the brightest.

PP here. Disagree. There are so many highly qualified kids, so it's not like top schools are passing on a greater asset to accept a lesser one. That essentially what you are hinting at, and that would be false. Top schools are picking students that are highly competitive academically but also may bring something else to the table. Mine brought professional acting experience and concert level music skills to her magnet math basis. But, I would agree that there are plenty of bright and capable students in all tiers of schools. I just think this argument that now mid tier schools have the "smartest" students is based on fallacy (SAT / intelligence correlation) with a dash of sour grapes. We have more qualified, motivated students applying to top schools, and we need to expand our notions of what top schools are and where excellent education happens. So much of it is what students put into it anyway.

I don't think the midtier schools have the smartest. The top schools still do, although they have a lot of not so smartest ones floating around now too. I am saying "the smartest" used to really only be in the top 20 schools and now they are all over the place. Kids with Ivy League stats didn't used to go to Wake Forest or Franklin and Marshall. Now they do.

In terms of these special abilities, which are the ultimate form of privilege as they require as massive financial and time commitment from an early age... my feeling is, who gives a crap? I think these schools fetishize this stuff way too much. But they have the luxury of beingn able to prioritize these unique talents.

The admissions committees give a crap. they are choosing one kid out of a dozen for admission. even when they discard the bottom 10, they still have to choose from the remaining two. One is concert pianist and one is not so they go with the concert pianist.

yes, they do. I'm just questioning why they do it. Every kid I know who got into a top school for special ability had tens of thousands of dollars thrown at him or her to develop that ability.

The music department wants the concert pianist. Every department wants to survive and thrive so they are looking for the best writers or researchers or artists or robot builders or whatever to come into their departments and distinguish the department.

It is the same as the athletes or the donors or anyone else. They want to win sports championships, get big donations, send graduates out to invent new technologies, etc. Can your kid help them win the football trophy? if yes, than he gets in. Can your kid cure cancer? If yes then she gets in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test optional. Test optional allows kids with good grades but mediocre or bad test scores to apply to highly selective schools. Top schools want to take some of those kids because it fulfills their DEI and financial goals. At some better schools, test optional now accounts for 40% of applications and 25% of admits. If those applications didn’t exist, there would be more room for the kids that got admitted five years ago.

And this is a good thing, BTW. The test scores are discriminatory.

Getting rid of tests is discriminatory - against Asians in particular.

Just because many Asian parents prioritize standardized test performance doesn't mean getting rid of them is discriminatory. FWIW, I think optional is fine. They can be a factor, but students can also demonstrate intellectual capabilities in other ways.

That statement is racist against Asians. How do you know their success in testing is a function of the stereotype of parental pressure?

I guess there is some special SAT gene that only asian kids possess. Is that it?

I don't know what to tell you. These are basic tests of intellectual ability. Asian kids do really well on them. They get more answers correct. I read that as, Asian kids are on average smarter. Are they born smarter? I don't know, it is possible. But by the time they sit for those exams, they are smarter. It is what it is. Are the tests perfect? No. But they clearly correlate with smartness.

DP. No, they are not basic tests of intellectual ability. You do not understand these tests and are shaping a narrative that suits you. By what criteria do yoi assert that one race is "smarter?" Sure, there were a lot if Asian kids in our magnet. The vast majority of them also had an incredible amount of outside enrichment in addition to test specific prep for every magnet entrance exam (es, ms, hs). The tests only correlate to the ability to do well on the test. Intelligence may be one potential factor, but preparedness is far more influential on standardized test performance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are you considering a top school? Because the top 25 have always been difficult to get into, except maybe USC/NYU.

USC/NYU wouldn't attract half the applicants if placed somewhere other than LA and NYC. Its an unfair advantage over peer schools located elsewhere.

Colgate, Williams, Bates and Hamilton don’t seem to be starving of applicants.

[Anonymous]

https://thediplomat.com/2016/12/the-hidden-costs-of-asias-high-test-scores/

South Korean children are studying 14 to 16 hours a day to compete, ultimately, in a make-or-break university entrance exam

Don't hate the player, hate the game. If someone is just working harder than you then don't be mad.

On the flip side don't act like you are "genetically superior" when the reality is that your work effort is what brings the great results

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are you considering a top school? Because the top 25 have always been difficult to get into, except maybe USC/NYU.

USC/NYU wouldn't attract half the applicants if placed somewhere other than LA and NYC. Its an unfair advantage over peer schools located elsewhere.

Colgate, Williams, Bates and Hamilton don’t seem to be starving of applicants.

For a outdoorsy pond hockey girl would rather be at bates than in NYC. The city kid has no interest in throwing on a pair of skates. so what.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are more top schools now

USC, Boston College, Northeastern & most state flagships used to be total jokes

Agree, and not just in terms of perception. The group of excellent academic universities has expanded due to better students, faculty, and resources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test optional. Test optional allows kids with good grades but mediocre or bad test scores to apply to highly selective schools. Top schools want to take some of those kids because it fulfills their DEI and financial goals. At some better schools, test optional now accounts for 40% of applications and 25% of admits. If those applications didn’t exist, there would be more room for the kids that got admitted five years ago.

And this is a good thing, BTW. The test scores are discriminatory.

Getting rid of tests is discriminatory - against Asians in particular.

Just because many Asian parents prioritize standardized test performance doesn't mean getting rid of them is discriminatory. FWIW, I think optional is fine. They can be a factor, but students can also demonstrate intellectual capabilities in other ways.

That statement is racist against Asians. How do you know their success in testing is a function of the stereotype of parental pressure?

I guess there is some special SAT gene that only asian kids possess. Is that it?

I don't know what to tell you. These are basic tests of intellectual ability. Asian kids do really well on them. They get more answers correct. I read that as, Asian kids are on average smarter. Are they born smarter? I don't know, it is possible. But by the time they sit for those exams, they are smarter. It is what it is. Are the tests perfect? No. But they clearly correlate with smartness.

I dont know what to tell you. Maybe they prepare more effectively.

Or maybe by the time they sit for the test at age 16, they are "smarter." They know more, they have been better educated, their minds work faster, they think more clearly. Isn't this why we say education is important? It's like taking two kids, one goes to the gym everyday, works out, the other plays video games, and then you have a physical fitness test, and the first kid outperforms the second kid. What is the appropriate reaction to that? The test is biased? Or the first kid was able to beat the system somehow?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test optional. Test optional allows kids with good grades but mediocre or bad test scores to apply to highly selective schools. Top schools want to take some of those kids because it fulfills their DEI and financial goals. At some better schools, test optional now accounts for 40% of applications and 25% of admits. If those applications didn’t exist, there would be more room for the kids that got admitted five years ago.

And this is a good thing, BTW. The test scores are discriminatory.

Getting rid of tests is discriminatory - against Asians in particular.

Just because many Asian parents prioritize standardized test performance doesn't mean getting rid of them is discriminatory. FWIW, I think optional is fine. They can be a factor, but students can also demonstrate intellectual capabilities in other ways.

That statement is racist against Asians. How do you know their success in testing is a function of the stereotype of parental pressure?

No it's not. Just speaking from experience in the school community. I didn't say all or most, I said many. In my experience in 4 magnet programs, this is what I observed. Also, this board. Many parents obsessed with testing as a measure also decry holistic admissions as anti-Asian racism. So, concluding that most of those commenters have a personal stake there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test optional. Test optional allows kids with good grades but mediocre or bad test scores to apply to highly selective schools. Top schools want to take some of those kids because it fulfills their DEI and financial goals. At some better schools, test optional now accounts for 40% of applications and 25% of admits. If those applications didn’t exist, there would be more room for the kids that got admitted five years ago.

And this is a good thing, BTW. The test scores are discriminatory.

Getting rid of tests is discriminatory - against Asians in particular.

Just because many Asian parents prioritize standardized test performance doesn't mean getting rid of them is discriminatory. FWIW, I think optional is fine. They can be a factor, but students can also demonstrate intellectual capabilities in other ways.

That statement is racist against Asians. How do you know their success in testing is a function of the stereotype of parental pressure?

I guess there is some special SAT gene that only asian kids possess. Is that it?

I don't know what to tell you. These are basic tests of intellectual ability. Asian kids do really well on them. They get more answers correct. I read that as, Asian kids are on average smarter. Are they born smarter? I don't know, it is possible. But by the time they sit for those exams, they are smarter. It is what it is. Are the tests perfect? No. But they clearly correlate with smartness.

I dont know what to tell you. Maybe they prepare more effectively.

Or maybe by the time they sit for the test at age 16, they are "smarter." They know more, they have been better educated, their minds work faster, they think more clearly. Isn't this why we say education is important? It's like taking two kids, one goes to the gym everyday, works out, the other plays video games, and then you have a physical fitness test, and the first kid outperforms the second kid. What is the appropriate reaction to that? The test is biased? Or the first kid was able to beat the system somehow?

no kidding. and the gym rat gets her butt kicked at the video game.