Dartmouth Announces Test Scores Required Starting Next Year

[Anonymous]

Athletics is a more sure shot way to get admitted to an academic institution.

[Anonymous]

There has to be a limit to number of applications per student.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This will stop the madness. The kid with an overinflated GPA and a test of 1310 from UMC/affluent zip code is not going to apply anymore, whereas they likely did in these recent years because 'why not' I have a chance.

Yes.

That is what the person harping about TJ parents doesn't get.

[Anonymous]

I hope other schools T25 follow suit. It's the only way the insane application numbers will come down. We need to get this back to some sanity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There are plenty of disadvantaged URM kids at expensive private schools. What about them? They always get in anyway.

I know several current seniors that didn't (2 with 4.3 GPAs, bio and chain supply majors, rejected at VT, one rejected at UVA, and others at Yale, Northwestern, Notre Dame and UNC), but by all means, don't let facts get in the way of your racist mindset.

This is SC ruling. They are now getting rejected with those stats just like the whites and Asians always have.

This happened even before the SC ruling.

[Anonymous]

My kids only applied to about a dozen schools each. You just have to do a little research to know what you want and capable of and can afford.

[Anonymous]

Applying to more than 20 schools feeds to admission insanity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There has to be a limit to number of applications per student.

Under test optional, high stats kids have to apply to a ton of places. My kid applied to a bunch of safeties and some reaches with a high GPA and above 1500 SAT, very good essays and recommendations, with multiple state level accolades, great extracurriculars, sustained volunteering, eagle scout, leadership, activities, etc. Most of the results are not coming back as acceptances. Several classmates with much lower scores submitted test optional and were accepted.

Test optional has turned the safety schools for high stat kids into a coin toss.

I think out of close to 20 applications at schools where my kids stats fall into the upper 25% range, including state schools, my kid is going to end up with maybe 2 acceptances.

It wasn't like this pre test optional for a kid with my kid's stats.

Until test optional goes away, high stat kids are going to have to apply to a lot of schools to get a handful of acceptances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good. There may not be much difference between at 1500 and a 1600, but a 1200 does speak to the ability of a kid with a great GPA to succeed in a competitive college environment

It really doesn't. My kid -who has not tested yet- has a fantastic GPA. Going in cold to an SAT or ACT - who knows what score will be obtained? But one thing I know for sure, we don't have the money for a fancy prep (yes, we'll do Khan, etc. but that's not personalized like a one-on-one tutor is). And with the expected AP courseload, plus ECs/Sports, and working, there is not a lot of time left over in the day as it is. So those scores represent an "extra" and ability to prepare for the test, not ability.

I have sat for multiple standardized tests in my day: HS, grad school, professional license. And the ones I did best on were the ones where I took courses, had time to prepare, etc. There is a direct correlation between those things and outcomes. If you don't have the time/money for the former, you're not going to do as well on the latter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. There may not be much difference between at 1500 and a 1600, but a 1200 does speak to the ability of a kid with a great GPA to succeed in a competitive college environment

It really doesn't. My kid -who has not tested yet- has a fantastic GPA. Going in cold to an SAT or ACT - who knows what score will be obtained? But one thing I know for sure, we don't have the money for a fancy prep (yes, we'll do Khan, etc. but that's not personalized like a one-on-one tutor is). And with the expected AP courseload, plus ECs/Sports, and working, there is not a lot of time left over in the day as it is. So those scores represent an "extra" and ability to prepare for the test, not ability.

I have sat for multiple standardized tests in my day: HS, grad school, professional license. And the ones I did best on were the ones where I took courses, had time to prepare, etc. There is a direct correlation between those things and outcomes. If you don't have the time/money for the former, you're not going to do as well on the latter.

Oh BS. Your child's previous school-administered tests would give you an indicator of how your kid will perform. A kid who has scored in the 95-99th percentile their whole life isn't scoring a1250 on the SAT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. There may not be much difference between at 1500 and a 1600, but a 1200 does speak to the ability of a kid with a great GPA to succeed in a competitive college environment

There is no reason a college environment should be competitive.

Did you read the article? It's saying the opposite. Dartmouth wants to find people with SAT scores below 1400, and they were frustrated that their target audience wasn't taking the SAT.

The 1500 parents still don't get it and never will. The point isn't to find the highest test scorers and admit them all on a sliding scale. The test is another data point to show whether or not students can be successful. Frankly, a kid with a strong GPA at a decent school and a 1300 SAT will do just fine at Dartmouth, and Dartmouth wants to find them. This will really blow all your 1500+ parents' minds. My kid's highest SAT was a 1360, and he got into Georgetown--this was class of 2022. He's a sophomore. Doing very well. These schools don't want to reinstate test scores to find more high scores. They want a diverse class of students who will do well. Not a class of grinders. You all are celebrating way too soon. This doesn't make it any easier for your above average 1500+ kid to get into Dartmouth.

The chart in the article supports this notion.



If you have a 1500 SAT, only about 11% of kids from "advantaged" backgrounds are getting in. The number rise to around 14% for "disadvantaged" kids. Even at 1600, you only have approximately 25% chance of getting in. It's still a lottery.

And then look at the bump of "disadvantaged" kids in the 1350-1390 range who didn't submit test scores and still got rejected. Dartmouth rejected them, even though they would have accepted some of them.

Good on Dartmouth for figuring this out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

No.

It means her 1530 has returned to having value like it did pre-test optional.

Also means that the score will be evaluated in context. The "value" will be based on zip code and HS resources.

A low income kid with a 1400 has just a good a chance at Dartmouth as a UMC kid with a 1530.

Are you OK with that?

Absolutely


A kid from a Baltimore City school where most of their classmates are illiterate who can score a 1400 SAT is clearly wicked brilliant, perhaps even a genius, and probably incredibly focused and driven.

Agree. It makes a lot of sense to do it this way. Much to the chagrin of the wealthy entitled “but we spent 5K on prep to get the 1510 my kid DESERVES the spot!” crowd.

You really aren't getting it.

The parents of kids in the above 1500 range are perfectly fine with the hypothetical scenario above.

It is those of you with lower scoring rich kids who are emotionally attached to the idea of test optional.

You keep posting as if you want those of us with high scoring kids to get upset along with you.

Psst.

We are not joining your team.

We are thrilled about the schools ditching test optional, even if it means some genuis kid from a poor failing school with a 1400 SAT gets in, and out kid gets overlooked for some other 1510 SAT kid at our upper middle class NoVa school.

That is a far better situation and much easier to accept, than our 1500 kid getting rejected while.the classmate with a 1240 who applied test optional gets accepted.

I’m the PP, and I’m not sure what you’re misunderstanding, but we’re on the same team. I’m thrilled test scores are coming back.

[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:

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.

It will be two groups...the group you mention above and the groups that believe that a high SAT score/high stats = guaranteed admission to a top school (which is also a large group).

You clearly do not have a kid in the top SAT tier.

I have 2, and one below in the mid 80s stanine.

Parents of kids in that range are perfectly understanding of their kids losing slots to kids also in that range.

They understand slots going to a kid from a school such as a Baltimore public high school, who demonstrated their brilliance with a 1400 score range, in spite of goi g to such a horrible incompetent school system.

They are not okay with their rich classmate who cheats in class to get a high GPA, but submitted test optional because of their 1200 SAT, getting spots over the 2 brilliant kids described above.

My kid is currently at a Top 5 school and had a 1580 test score (white, not Asian). I am in that group and I also don't care why or how some kids got accepted TO. I also, don't care if the Baltimore public high school kid with a 1300 gets accepted.

However, our circle for the most part doesn't believe this (mainly Asian and white). So, quit making outlandish statements that represent only your perspective.

There is a significant number of parents that believe college should be a completely stats-driven process. They don't care why that Baltimore public school kid only scored 1300...they still don't believe that kid deserves acceptance over anyone with a higher score.

So based on your circle, you are assuming that while you are meritorious and magnanimous, most of the other parents are not.

Based on my circle and experiences, I assume the opposite. I think that most parents of 1500 plus kids will be very happy with test optional going away, not because they think their kid is now a shoo in, but because their kid is not going compare their rejection against the classmate with a 1200 unsubmitted SAT and an acceptance.

They are not going to get spun in circles over the 1400 kid from Baltimore City, because clearly that kid is a lot smarter than most of their rich classmates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kids only applied to about a dozen schools each. You just have to do a little research to know what you want and capable of and can afford.

So can better understand this thread when read students applying to lots of schools— billion years ago it was $50-$100 fee to apply to a school— so b/c of cost and each school had separate essays, many kids at that time (again, now effectively the dark ages given how long ago) only applied to 3 schools. With the common app where think students can now use same essays for multiple schools, is it also now 1 cost no matter how many schools? Or is there still a per school payment? If one cost, guessing maybe why so many schools now have 50,000+ students applying when 10 years about was way less than 1/2 that. And then if TO and no extra cost, does make sense application # through roof. Or is something else going on?

[Anonymous]

My two high stats kids graduated HS in 21 and 23. One got in their ED (aimed low based on what they saw sibling go thru), other is at a safety. Didn't get in at 2 targets (not reach schools, where they were WL and never got in), and I 100% believe it was due to TO. Kid is fine: happy, well adjusted, etc., but the network won't be the same.

But had all students had to submit test scores, that kid would be in school elsewhere. I hope all schools go back to requiring test scores