Stanford will be requiring test scores

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And there goes the low income students!

My guess is they will also be giving poor students a preference in admissions.
That is what MIT did and their pell grant students went from 20% to 24% of the entering class.

I don't really see why this is any more a fair system. I get that poor people aren't a protected class, but it is ridiculous that we attempt to correct education at the finish line.

The kids cannot help what families they are born into, and a bright poor kid who gets 1450 on the SAT with minimal prep deserves a space at a Stanford as much as the privileged, tutored, and enriched kid who gets a 1600.

Nothing bright about having a 1450. Many poor kids with 1600s and elite educations. Those with the credentials to get in should be the ones getting in, not charity projects that need a ton of resources just to be on level with everyone else. There is no reason to give poor students a boost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm tired of the BS claim that only rich kids have access to SAT prep. There are a bazillion free SAT prep resources out there.

The current admissions system is a mess of factors that have nothing to do with your ability to excel or even enhance the academics of the institution. Instead, it is all about your birthplace and a curated story, so you can convince the AO that you could be their friend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And there goes the low income students!

My guess is they will also be giving poor students a preference in admissions.
That is what MIT did and their pell grant students went from 20% to 24% of the entering class.

I don't really see why this is any more a fair system. I get that poor people aren't a protected class, but it is ridiculous that we attempt to correct education at the finish line.

The kids cannot help what families they are born into, and a bright poor kid who gets 1450 on the SAT with minimal prep deserves a space at a Stanford as much as the privileged, tutored, and enriched kid who gets a 1600.

Nothing bright about having a 1450. Many poor kids with 1600s and elite educations. Those with the credentials to get in should be the ones getting in, not charity projects that need a ton of resources just to be on level with everyone else. There is no reason to give poor students a boost.

That's crazy talk. 1450 is like 97 percentile. The kid is more than qualified at the highest tier of colleges. Above 1400 is an excellent score.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And there goes the low income students!

My guess is they will also be giving poor students a preference in admissions.
That is what MIT did and their pell grant students went from 20% to 24% of the entering class.

I don't really see why this is any more a fair system. I get that poor people aren't a protected class, but it is ridiculous that we attempt to correct education at the finish line.

The kids cannot help what families they are born into, and a bright poor kid who gets 1450 on the SAT with minimal prep deserves a space at a Stanford as much as the privileged, tutored, and enriched kid who gets a 1600.

Nothing bright about having a 1450. Many poor kids with 1600s and elite educations. Those with the credentials to get in should be the ones getting in, not charity projects that need a ton of resources just to be on level with everyone else. There is no reason to give poor students a boost.

That's crazy talk. 1450 is like 97 percentile. The kid is more than qualified at the highest tier of colleges. Above 1400 is an excellent score.

It's crazy talk if you believe people should come to college less prepared just because they were born in the right economic class and geographic area.

[Anonymous]

Not every 1450 is close to the same based on life circumstances.

My guess is no one who has posted on this thread thus far will have a kid admitted to Stanford in the next 5 years. So many people here worry about the policies at these schools for no reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not every 1450 is close to the same based on life circumstances.

My guess is no one who has posted on this thread thus far will have a kid admitted to Stanford in the next 5 years. So many people here worry about the policies at these schools for no reason.

They are objectively the same score. If you are missing gaps in your education, khan academy is a free resource and many SAT prep books are sitting in school libraries, dusting away. People with enough tenacity and intelligence to score in the 1550+ range should be rewarded over poor kids with subpar scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not every 1450 is close to the same based on life circumstances.

My guess is no one who has posted on this thread thus far will have a kid admitted to Stanford in the next 5 years. So many people here worry about the policies at these schools for no reason.

They are objectively the same score. If you are missing gaps in your education, khan academy is a free resource and many SAT prep books are sitting in school libraries, dusting away. People with enough tenacity and intelligence to score in the 1550+ range should be rewarded over poor kids with subpar scores.

Serious question. Why? A student who scores in the top 3 of every 100 students is somehow objectively has "gaps" in their education? But if they do some additional test prep to learn how to better game the test, they have closed this educational gap? What, because education (broad category, that) can be distilled down to two subject categories assessed in a single exam designed to help better predict gpa in Freshman year? 97% vs 99% - the arrogance of some people. Goodness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And there goes the low income students!

My guess is they will also be giving poor students a preference in admissions.
That is what MIT did and their pell grant students went from 20% to 24% of the entering class.

I don't really see why this is any more a fair system. I get that poor people aren't a protected class, but it is ridiculous that we attempt to correct education at the finish line.

It’s not about correcting education. It’s about giving bright but disadvantaged kids a shot at a first class education that will offer them social mobility.

The kids cannot help what families they are born into, and a bright poor kid who gets 1450 on the SAT with minimal prep deserves a space at a Stanford as much as the privileged, tutored, and enriched kid who gets a 1600.

Universities want bright minds above all, and they know that kids who come from underprivileged backgrounds are a source of untapped human capital.

Why should normal middle class kids be punished.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And there goes the low income students!

My guess is they will also be giving poor students a preference in admissions.
That is what MIT did and their pell grant students went from 20% to 24% of the entering class.

I don't really see why this is any more a fair system. I get that poor people aren't a protected class, but it is ridiculous that we attempt to correct education at the finish line.

This! All resources must be applied at the primary/secondary education levels. Admission to college should be on the same standard for everyone with minor exceptions for culturally ingrained BS like sports and legacy. Subsidize those that can't pay tuition but that shouldn't be a factor in admissions.

I'm a big proponent of required AP/IB and SAT scores. Every time I bring this up, someone responds with "But not all underfunded schools provide AP coursework" 1) Okay and? How many poor students are going to elite colleges in the first place and 2) this is not a good defense as to why we should allow underprepared students into elite schools. They will be surrounded and trampled by students who all do well in standardized exams.

LOL. Tell it to my spouse.

Grew up dirt poor, got good (but not elite) scores on standardized tests, accepted to HYPS.

First in family to attend college. While the spoiled rich kids (like me) were partying, they worked 3 jobs to pay for school and have $$$ to eat/live.

Def did NOT get "trampled by" students who did well on standardized exams.

In fact, they graduated at top of class, went on to top 5 grad school, became a nationally known expert in their field, and was eventually appointed to prominent national leadership position by BO.

I know multiple others from similar backgrounds with similar stories.

Bottom line: a lot of the poor kids are a whole lot smarter and hungrier than the wealthy kids who get it all handed to them on a silver platter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not every 1450 is close to the same based on life circumstances.

My guess is no one who has posted on this thread thus far will have a kid admitted to Stanford in the next 5 years. So many people here worry about the policies at these schools for no reason.

They are objectively the same score. If you are missing gaps in your education, khan academy is a free resource and many SAT prep books are sitting in school libraries, dusting away. People with enough tenacity and intelligence to score in the 1550+ range should be rewarded over poor kids with subpar scores.

Serious question. Why? A student who scores in the top 3 of every 100 students is somehow objectively has "gaps" in their education? But if they do some additional test prep to learn how to better game the test, they have closed this educational gap? What, because education (broad category, that) can be distilled down to two subject categories assessed in a single exam designed to help better predict gpa in Freshman year? 97% vs 99% - the arrogance of some people. Goodness.

It should be a factor, stop trying to make the process opaque and unfair for everyone. If a student can demonstrate quality test scores-plural AP/IB and SAT-along with a great gpa with rigorous course work let them in. I have the same belief about rich prep schools that refuse standardized coursework and rest off their prestige to convince AOs they have a quality education-that's not good, and they should be punished by not having any admission to elite schools at all until they move to more standardized metrics. Data is good and can give us concrete solutions to improve low income students' education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And there goes the low income students!

My guess is they will also be giving poor students a preference in admissions.
That is what MIT did and their pell grant students went from 20% to 24% of the entering class.

I don't really see why this is any more a fair system. I get that poor people aren't a protected class, but it is ridiculous that we attempt to correct education at the finish line.

This! All resources must be applied at the primary/secondary education levels. Admission to college should be on the same standard for everyone with minor exceptions for culturally ingrained BS like sports and legacy. Subsidize those that can't pay tuition but that shouldn't be a factor in admissions.

I'm a big proponent of required AP/IB and SAT scores. Every time I bring this up, someone responds with "But not all underfunded schools provide AP coursework" 1) Okay and? How many poor students are going to elite colleges in the first place and 2) this is not a good defense as to why we should allow underprepared students into elite schools. They will be surrounded and trampled by students who all do well in standardized exams.

LOL. Tell it to my spouse.

Grew up dirt poor, got good (but not elite) scores on standardized tests, accepted to HYPS.

First in family to attend college. While the spoiled rich kids (like me) were partying, they worked 3 jobs to pay for school and have $$$ to eat/live.

Def did NOT get "trampled by" students who did well on standardized exams.

In fact, they graduated at top of class, went on to top 5 grad school, became a nationally known expert in their field, and was eventually appointed to prominent national leadership position by BO.

I know multiple others from similar backgrounds with similar stories.

Bottom line: a lot of the poor kids are a whole lot smarter and hungrier than the wealthy kids who get it all handed to them on a silver platter.

So he stole a spot from a student who could've gone further with their education. This doesn't impress me like you think it should. Getting into a top 5 grad school from an elite college is a given.

[Anonymous]

Any kid scoring a 1350 out of Anacostia or Ballou is going to be a far more impressive kid than someone scoring 1530 out of Sidwell or GDS. That's just facts. And the good universities recognize that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Any kid scoring a 1350 out of Anacostia or Ballou is going to be a far more impressive kid than someone scoring 1530 out of Sidwell or GDS. That's just facts. And the good universities recognize that.

And luckily for your argument, almost none of the low income students entering these colleges are from Anacostia. Many more coming from Sidwell, GDS, or Exeter. The privileged poor is a real thing, and it is time to clamp down on giving preferences to students who are tangentially elite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And there goes the low income students!

My guess is they will also be giving poor students a preference in admissions.
That is what MIT did and their pell grant students went from 20% to 24% of the entering class.

I don't really see why this is any more a fair system. I get that poor people aren't a protected class, but it is ridiculous that we attempt to correct education at the finish line.

This! All resources must be applied at the primary/secondary education levels. Admission to college should be on the same standard for everyone with minor exceptions for culturally ingrained BS like sports and legacy. Subsidize those that can't pay tuition but that shouldn't be a factor in admissions.

I'm a big proponent of required AP/IB and SAT scores. Every time I bring this up, someone responds with "But not all underfunded schools provide AP coursework" 1) Okay and? How many poor students are going to elite colleges in the first place and 2) this is not a good defense as to why we should allow underprepared students into elite schools. They will be surrounded and trampled by students who all do well in standardized exams.

LOL. Tell it to my spouse.

Grew up dirt poor, got good (but not elite) scores on standardized tests, accepted to HYPS.

First in family to attend college. While the spoiled rich kids (like me) were partying, they worked 3 jobs to pay for school and have $$$ to eat/live.

Def did NOT get "trampled by" students who did well on standardized exams.

In fact, they graduated at top of class, went on to top 5 grad school, became a nationally known expert in their field, and was eventually appointed to prominent national leadership position by BO.

I know multiple others from similar backgrounds with similar stories.

Bottom line: a lot of the poor kids are a whole lot smarter and hungrier than the wealthy kids who get it all handed to them on a silver platter.

So he stole a spot from a student who could've gone further with their education. This doesn't impress me like you think it should. Getting into a top 5 grad school from an elite college is a given.

DP. No, he did not “steal” a spot. The school recognized a brilliant mind behind disadvantaged circumstances.

All of you talking about how a poor kid getting 1450 is no big deal because Khan Academy exists are so full of sh*t. Why would you assume a poor kid has regular access to a do,outer or for that matter electricity?

What if the kid is working a full-time job also supporting younger siblings because their parents are drug addicts or alcoholics?

Can’t believe how f#$&ng smug and clueless you entitled people are.

Disadvantaged kids being 4% of a class at MIT is a threat to you? BTW, these kids often do much better than many middle class kids once at elite institutions..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And there goes the low income students!

My guess is they will also be giving poor students a preference in admissions.
That is what MIT did and their pell grant students went from 20% to 24% of the entering class.

I don't really see why this is any more a fair system. I get that poor people aren't a protected class, but it is ridiculous that we attempt to correct education at the finish line.

This! All resources must be applied at the primary/secondary education levels. Admission to college should be on the same standard for everyone with minor exceptions for culturally ingrained BS like sports and legacy. Subsidize those that can't pay tuition but that shouldn't be a factor in admissions.

I'm a big proponent of required AP/IB and SAT scores. Every time I bring this up, someone responds with "But not all underfunded schools provide AP coursework" 1) Okay and? How many poor students are going to elite colleges in the first place and 2) this is not a good defense as to why we should allow underprepared students into elite schools. They will be surrounded and trampled by students who all do well in standardized exams.

LOL. Tell it to my spouse.

Grew up dirt poor, got good (but not elite) scores on standardized tests, accepted to HYPS.

First in family to attend college. While the spoiled rich kids (like me) were partying, they worked 3 jobs to pay for school and have $$$ to eat/live.

Def did NOT get "trampled by" students who did well on standardized exams.

In fact, they graduated at top of class, went on to top 5 grad school, became a nationally known expert in their field, and was eventually appointed to prominent national leadership position by BO.

I know multiple others from similar backgrounds with similar stories.

Bottom line: a lot of the poor kids are a whole lot smarter and hungrier than the wealthy kids who get it all handed to them on a silver platter.

So he stole a spot from a student who could've gone further with their education. This doesn't impress me like you think it should. Getting into a top 5 grad school from an elite college is a given.

DP. No, he did not “steal” a spot. The school recognized a brilliant mind behind disadvantaged circumstances.

All of you talking about how a poor kid getting 1450 is no big deal because Khan Academy exists are so full of sh*t. Why would you assume a poor kid has regular access to a do,outer or for that matter electricity?

What if the kid is working a full-time job also supporting younger siblings because their parents are drug addicts or alcoholics?

Can’t believe how f#$&ng smug and clueless you entitled people are.

Disadvantaged kids being 4% of a class at MIT is a threat to you? BTW, these kids often do much better than many middle class kids once at elite institutions..

Maybe because those poor kids at the elite institutions came from elite prep schools...
It really is that simple. These kids have advantages in life more than anything.