Academic Index still used?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most schools are reverting back to testing requirements, so there will likely be some form of academic index used. I think this is used for non-athletes too, so not sure I understand why folks are saying it is only used for athletic recruitment.

It's against the holistic review principle. The mere use of test score in the academic index creates inequality.

It's okay for Athlete use. The bar is set lower for athletes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most schools are reverting back to testing requirements, so there will likely be some form of academic index used. I think this is used for non-athletes too, so not sure I understand why folks are saying it is only used for athletic recruitment.

It's against the holistic review principle. The mere use of test score in the academic index creates inequality.

It's okay for Athlete use. The bar is set lower for athletes.

Please call bs where it should be called bs. With 60k+ applicants, AOs are spending at max 5-7 mins per applicant so they for sure aren't sussing out what makes for a holistic review.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this measure still being used by highly selective colleges?

For athletics, yes it is.

For the class of ‘28 I know a kid at Brown who was asked to retest and one with an offer from Yale who couldn’t score high enough and was dropped.

What would have been high enough for Yale?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone on this forum is just guessing.

My DC's coach at her Ivy recently explained to her how they use.

Upper class athletes are involved in the recruiting process, and she was asking how he picks and chooses certain students with stellar grades and scores who aren't necessarily the best athletic choices.

Can you share what the coach said?

[Anonymous]

I know someone being recruited for softball—Harvard wanted a 1400, which they couldn’t reach, but Columbia did not care (got something in 1200s, so they are going to Columbia instead. I guess Columbia is still test optional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know someone being recruited for softball—Harvard wanted a 1400, which they couldn’t reach, but Columbia did not care (got something in 1200s, so they are going to Columbia instead. I guess Columbia is still test optional.

And softball is not even a prestige sport!
No one is donating $2M for a softball championship.

[Anonymous]

Harvard used it back in 2022. I think they probably still do,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know someone being recruited for softball—Harvard wanted a 1400, which they couldn’t reach, but Columbia did not care (got something in 1200s, so they are going to Columbia instead. I guess Columbia is still test optional.

And softball is not even a prestige sport!
No one is donating $2M for a softball championship.

How is that relevant? They still recruit for softball.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this measure still being used by highly selective colleges?

For athletics, yes it is.

For the class of ‘28 I know a kid at Brown who was asked to retest and one with an offer from Yale who couldn’t score high enough and was dropped.

What would have been high enough for Yale?

It really depends on the sport and how how highly they are valued as a recruit. In this case they were looking for above 1360. They were a top recruit and ended up at a power 4 program so that number is likely about as low as they go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most schools are reverting back to testing requirements, so there will likely be some form of academic index used. I think this is used for non-athletes too, so not sure I understand why folks are saying it is only used for athletic recruitment.

It's against the holistic review principle. The mere use of test score in the academic index creates inequality.

It's okay for Athlete use. The bar is set lower for athletes.

Please call bs where it should be called bs. With 60k+ applicants, AOs are spending at max 5-7 mins per applicant so they for sure aren't sussing out what makes for a holistic review.

Roughly 75% are weeded out in the first scan with near automated process. So AO's are really spending their time on 15k applications. But even then it is only 10-12 minutes per app on average.