Dartmouth Announces Test Scores Required Starting Next Year

[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.

So maybe top 20. Not happening at top 25-50 schools anytime soon?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

BS.

I am one of those parents of above 1500 kids, and I totally understand merit, as I described above.

It sounds as if you are struggling with the concept, but really, it is quite clear that this is a far more meritorious process than test optional, which favors wealthy kids of average intelligence

[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.

Most of the smart kids take it, then decide which ones they submit and which ones they go TO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So maybe top 20. Not happening at top 25-50 schools anytime soon?

I think they'll also eventually follow if they want to be regarded as selective and at least as semi-elite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Most of the smart kids take it, then decide which ones they submit and which ones they go TO.

Most kids in the senior class of 2025 have already taken at least one SAT. It is what college bound kids do to establish a baseline.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you really think other schools follow?

No.

Coffin wouldn’t have done this if he didn’t believe other schools would follow. And odds are he’s better connected in the world of elite college admissions than anyone posting here.

100%

[Anonymous]

I approve. A return from this absurd environment we’re in.

[Anonymous]

My UMC kid said this means she needs to get her 1530 up to 1550. I don't think so .. do you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So maybe top 20. Not happening at top 25-50 schools anytime soon?

Which schools have the smallest TO 1st year classes?

Those schools will jump on sooner rather than later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

BS.

I am one of those parents of above 1500 kids, and I totally understand merit, as I described above.

It sounds as if you are struggling with the concept, but really, it is quite clear that this is a far more meritorious process than test optional, which favors wealthy kids of average intelligence

No disagreement there...but you are delusional if you think the majority feel as you do. I am not struggling, but you simply fail to believe that there is a very large segment of the population that sees things pretty straightforward.

Sure, they applaud the poor kid who received their 1350...but they still don't feel like that kid deserves a spot over their 1580 kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My UMC kid said this means she needs to get her 1530 up to 1550. I don't think so .. do you?

The opposite, I’d think

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most of the DEI kids we know at TJ and in our public are not disadvantaged kids. They live in the same neighborhoods with professional parents.

There are plenty of disadvantaged URM kids at expensive private schools. What about them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So maybe top 20. Not happening at top 25-50 schools anytime soon?

Which schools have the smallest TO 1st year classes?

Those schools will jump on sooner rather than later.

This data is in CDS. Can someone dig it up and post?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of the DEI kids we know at TJ and in our public are not disadvantaged kids. They live in the same neighborhoods with professional parents.

There are plenty of disadvantaged URM kids at expensive private schools. What about them?

They always get in anyway

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think this post shows that the ones freaking out about test optional going away are the rich dc moms demographic parents whose kids are average intelligence (roughly 65 to 85 stanines) with inflated grades.

The parents of kids with very high test scores are thrilled because they understand that this levels the playing field and makes admissions more fair, including for very smart kids from underserved communities.