No, test optional isn’t the reason your kid didn’t get in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good kids are getting rejected from top schools, because top schools no longer care about academic excellence as much as they care about "Diversity"
There are very few students who meet ALL of the following criteria
1) Top 1-3% of graduating class
2) 1550 in SATor 35 ACT or higher in test scores
3) National AP scholar.
4) 750 or higher in 2 Subject Tests

These are truly gifted students. All of them could easily be accommodated in the top 15 schools, many times over, but most don't get in, because top schools are obsessed with diversity.

This is a tragedy for this country in the long run, because as any economist will tell you, we are grossly misallocating some of the best resources of our academic institutions on some very questionable talent, instead of focusing them on talent that can benefit the most from them and consequently turbocharge the US economy into the next generation.

But eh. Becoming fat, dumb and careless is probably necessary for the baton to pass from the US to some other nation. That's the way history has worked

What an uninformed and troll-y post. SAT/AP test performance is not an indication of giftedness. There are means to prepare for these. Also, lots of kids fulfill this criteria.

People who enrich outside of school and/or prep for tests want them to count for more and define merit or intellect when they don't. They can certainly add to a student's application, but they shouldn't be the defining metric.

You are right, there are means to prepare. For example, you can check out the prep book from the library, for free. You know how I know? Because that is exactly what I did. I was born poor in a third world country. I studied for the SATs for 2 years and aced a test in my non-native tongue. I received a full ride from a top college. Aced it entirely based on books borrowed from my public library, for free! So please tell me again how it's inequitable, because I am a living proof that if you are motivated, nothing is impossible.

If you are a motivated person who is willing to put in hard work, that is 100% merit. SATs and grades measure exactly that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rest shouldn’t be optional.

+1 people undervalue sleep so much

+2 especially for teens

LOL and +3

Since our DC hasn't really prepared much for this weekend's SAT, I said "If you're not going to study for it....at least sleep for it." And a deal was struck. DC has been in bed with lights out by 10pm every night this week. It's been amazing (for DC) to see how much better the next day was/went. Go figure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a ZERO SUM GAME.

If a lower score kid got lucky and got in with TO when otherwise wouldn't have even applied, there's another kid with higher score didn't get in.

Exactly.

Just because one kid had a higher test score doesn't mean they were overall a better applicant.

Higher score kids are usually overall a better applicant.

Where was this study researched?

MIT research and UC research but you can easily see.

Check out the test scores for competitive elites schools and mediocre schools.

Big difference in test scores. Why do you think it's that?

Plenty TO schools disagree with this claim.

+1. For the slow ones in the back, test scores are only one metric of student performance. It is not the most important metric.

And test scores are not indicative of workplace or life success. Universities are looking at the whole person. You can not like this approach and continue to argue on anonymous message boards, but your view on test scores is not shared by many universities. Get over it.

Stop the bullshit.
Go back about 3 years earlier when test scores were mandatory.
Compare test scores between competitive selective elite schools vs mediocre schools.
Big difference in scores. That's the view on test scores shared by almost all at least good universities
Hope you have a brain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a ZERO SUM GAME.

If a lower score kid got lucky and got in with TO when otherwise wouldn't have even applied, there's another kid with higher score didn't get in.

Exactly.

Just because one kid had a higher test score doesn't mean they were overall a better applicant.

Higher score kids are usually overall a better applicant.

Where was this study researched?

MIT research and UC research but you can easily see.

Check out the test scores for competitive elites schools and mediocre schools.

Big difference in test scores. Why do you think it's that?

Plenty TO schools disagree with this claim.

+1. For the slow ones in the back, test scores are only one metric of student performance. It is not the most important metric.

And test scores are not indicative of workplace or life success. Universities are looking at the whole person. You can not like this approach and continue to argue on anonymous message boards, but your view on test scores is not shared by many universities. Get over it.

Stop the bullshit.
Go back about 3 years earlier when test scores were mandatory.
Compare test scores between competitive selective elite schools vs mediocre schools.
Big difference in scores. That's the view on test scores shared by almost all at least good universities
Hope you have a brain.

👍👍👍

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a ZERO SUM GAME.

If a lower score kid got lucky and got in with TO when otherwise wouldn't have even applied, there's another kid with higher score didn't get in.

Exactly.

Just because one kid had a higher test score doesn't mean they were overall a better applicant.

Higher score kids are usually overall a better applicant.

Where was this study researched?

MIT research and UC research but you can easily see.

Check out the test scores for competitive elites schools and mediocre schools.

Big difference in test scores. Why do you think it's that?

Plenty TO schools disagree with this claim.

+1. For the slow ones in the back, test scores are only one metric of student performance. It is not the most important metric.

And test scores are not indicative of workplace or life success. Universities are looking at the whole person. You can not like this approach and continue to argue on anonymous message boards, but your view on test scores is not shared by many universities. Get over it.

Stop the bullshit.
Go back about 3 years earlier when test scores were mandatory.
Compare test scores between competitive selective elite schools vs mediocre schools.
Big difference in scores. That's the view on test scores shared by almost all at least good universities
Hope you have a brain.

Or maybe the test did not measure much all those years

[Anonymous]

There's a basic rule in admissions, now and in the past: "If your grades are the most interesting thing about you, you're not that interesting". People want to keep denying this and talk about merit and objective measures and such, but that's how admissions people think when they look at applications. Scores are a baseline, what did you do with all those smarts? After years of looking at applications, 80% of students look like the same parent-programmed, "I checked these boxes to get into college but I don't really care about any of these things" people. Sorry, but the A minus or B student --or even just the OTHER A plus student - who did something more compelling or at least unique, is going to get the nod every time.

[Anonymous]

For all this hand-wringing about diversity, look at a sports roster, especially in a women’s sport, at an Ivy/NESCAC/Centennial/UAA/Patriotic League school. Zero diversity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's a basic rule in admissions, now and in the past: "If your grades are the most interesting thing about you, you're not that interesting". People want to keep denying this and talk about merit and objective measures and such, but that's how admissions people think when they look at applications. Scores are a baseline, what did you do with all those smarts? After years of looking at applications, 80% of students look like the same parent-programmed, "I checked these boxes to get into college but I don't really care about any of these things" people. Sorry, but the A minus or B student --or even just the OTHER A plus student - who did something more compelling or at least unique, is going to get the nod every time.

In the past: "If your grades are not interesting, you're not interesting at all"

Now with The Supreme Court ruling, they need more room to admit ALDC and URM.

Some kids will get lucky in this messed up system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For all this hand-wringing about diversity, look at a sports roster, especially in a women’s sport, at an Ivy/NESCAC/Centennial/UAA/Patriotic League school. Zero diversity.

This is true, but I think people are missing the real purpose of DEI/holistic admissions which is to defend white seats at these institutions from Asians. It’s a deflection. Sure, a few extra percentage points of the student body may go to black students. But the real goal is to make sure 50-75 percent of all seats don’t go to Asian students, which could be the case if SAT and GPA were the only or the dominant criteria. DEI paradigms shift the focus to black and Hispanic access while preserving systems that advantage whites over Asians (sports and legacy). However, increasingly, Asians are doing well in sports, at least ones that don’t require being physically large.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all this hand-wringing about diversity, look at a sports roster, especially in a women’s sport, at an Ivy/NESCAC/Centennial/UAA/Patriotic League school. Zero diversity.

This is true, but I think people are missing the real purpose of DEI/holistic admissions which is to defend white seats at these institutions from Asians. It’s a deflection. Sure, a few extra percentage points of the student body may go to black students. But the real goal is to make sure 50-75 percent of all seats don’t go to Asian students, which could be the case if SAT and GPA were the only or the dominant criteria. DEI paradigms shift the focus to black and Hispanic access while preserving systems that advantage whites over Asians (sports and legacy). However, increasingly, Asians are doing well in sports, at least ones that don’t require being physically large.

You are pretty behind on this.
Asians have higher scores on ECs, Leadership, Interview, everything on top of SAT & GPA except the courage likeability bullshit

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all this hand-wringing about diversity, look at a sports roster, especially in a women’s sport, at an Ivy/NESCAC/Centennial/UAA/Patriotic League school. Zero diversity.

This is true, but I think people are missing the real purpose of DEI/holistic admissions which is to defend white seats at these institutions from Asians. It’s a deflection. Sure, a few extra percentage points of the student body may go to black students. But the real goal is to make sure 50-75 percent of all seats don’t go to Asian students, which could be the case if SAT and GPA were the only or the dominant criteria. DEI paradigms shift the focus to black and Hispanic access while preserving systems that advantage whites over Asians (sports and legacy). However, increasingly, Asians are doing well in sports, at least ones that don’t require being physically large.

How would anyone know how every college defines "the real purpose" of holistic admission

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's a basic rule in admissions, now and in the past: "If your grades are the most interesting thing about you, you're not that interesting". People want to keep denying this and talk about merit and objective measures and such, but that's how admissions people think when they look at applications. Scores are a baseline, what did you do with all those smarts? After years of looking at applications, 80% of students look like the same parent-programmed, "I checked these boxes to get into college but I don't really care about any of these things" people. Sorry, but the A minus or B student --or even just the OTHER A plus student - who did something more compelling or at least unique, is going to get the nod every time.

Kids job in high school is academics first. They should have other outlets. But, come on? What did a 15-year old do with his smarts? Answer: he studied hard and got good grades and test scores. Volunteering and being kind doesn't require smarts. Having mom and dad set-up a non-profit to look good on your apps doesn't require smarts. Having paid experiences at universities in the summer is not smarts.

This 'uniqueness' crap is ridiculous. This is not an audition for an improv class or a talk show host spot---this is admission to elite universities with rigorous academics.

There is a reason the US is ranked so low in the world when it comes to education:

The top 10 countries with the best education are:

1. Germany – 0.94
2. Finland – 0.93
3. Iceland – 0.93
4. New Zealand – 0.93
5. Norway – 0.93
6. United Kingdom – 0.93
7. Australia – 0.92
8. Denmark – 0.92
9. Ireland – 0.92
10. Singapore – 0.92

https://wisevoter.com/country-rankings/education-rankings-by-country/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all this hand-wringing about diversity, look at a sports roster, especially in a women’s sport, at an Ivy/NESCAC/Centennial/UAA/Patriotic League school. Zero diversity.

This is true, but I think people are missing the real purpose of DEI/holistic admissions which is to defend white seats at these institutions from Asians. It’s a deflection. Sure, a few extra percentage points of the student body may go to black students. But the real goal is to make sure 50-75 percent of all seats don’t go to Asian students, which could be the case if SAT and GPA were the only or the dominant criteria. DEI paradigms shift the focus to black and Hispanic access while preserving systems that advantage whites over Asians (sports and legacy). However, increasingly, Asians are doing well in sports, at least ones that don’t require being physically large.

You are pretty behind on this.
Asians have higher scores on ECs, Leadership, Interview, everything on top of SAT & GPA except the courage likeability bullshit

Fair enough, this is true. Asians have been able to adapt to the changing rules of the game. But elite college sports in particular seems to still be dominated by rich white kids. In any event, DEI/holistic gives schools cover to engineer the racial mix they want. Saying we have too many Asians so we need to give preference to white kids doesn’t sound good, so instead they say we need appropriate diversity and some kind of proportionality in order to give blacks and Hispanics a leg up (while in the background capping Asians)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's a basic rule in admissions, now and in the past: "If your grades are the most interesting thing about you, you're not that interesting". People want to keep denying this and talk about merit and objective measures and such, but that's how admissions people think when they look at applications. Scores are a baseline, what did you do with all those smarts? After years of looking at applications, 80% of students look like the same parent-programmed, "I checked these boxes to get into college but I don't really care about any of these things" people. Sorry, but the A minus or B student --or even just the OTHER A plus student - who did something more compelling or at least unique, is going to get the nod every time.

Kids job in high school is academics first. They should have other outlets. But, come on? What did a 15-year old do with his smarts? Answer: he studied hard and got good grades and test scores. Volunteering and being kind doesn't require smarts. Having mom and dad set-up a non-profit to look good on your apps doesn't require smarts. Having paid experiences at universities in the summer is not smarts.

This 'uniqueness' crap is ridiculous. This is not an audition for an improv class or a talk show host spot---this is admission to elite universities with rigorous academics.

There is a reason the US is ranked so low in the world when it comes to education:

The top 10 countries with the best education are:

1. Germany – 0.94
2. Finland – 0.93
3. Iceland – 0.93
4. New Zealand – 0.93
5. Norway – 0.93
6. United Kingdom – 0.93
7. Australia – 0.92
8. Denmark – 0.92
9. Ireland – 0.92
10. Singapore – 0.92

https://wisevoter.com/country-rankings/education-rankings-by-country/

Colleges get to decide what they value

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's a basic rule in admissions, now and in the past: "If your grades are the most interesting thing about you, you're not that interesting". People want to keep denying this and talk about merit and objective measures and such, but that's how admissions people think when they look at applications. Scores are a baseline, what did you do with all those smarts? After years of looking at applications, 80% of students look like the same parent-programmed, "I checked these boxes to get into college but I don't really care about any of these things" people. Sorry, but the A minus or B student --or even just the OTHER A plus student - who did something more compelling or at least unique, is going to get the nod every time.

LOL yea right WTF
Expect 15 years to do something compelling.
Getting mostly As and 1550 SAT seems very compelling.