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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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/

Maybe in the countries you listed where kids aren’t distracting by having to save for their own college tuition, at risk of eviction, in violent neighborhoods, etc.

No, but education works differently in those countries. For example, Germany tracks all students starting around age 10. You can move between the tracks but it’s not that common. They also force all immigrants to pass a German language test before joining schools in Germany.

Finland has no racial diversity and the kids all come to school reading and writing at age 7 by the time they start school. Schools don’t need to do any parenting because the actual parents do that.

Finland actually doesn't teach reading and writing until age 7...which they learn at school. Not understanding the comment that they come to school reading and writing at age 7. Maybe that is when formal elementary school starts, and preschool runs through age 7.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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/

Maybe in the countries you listed where kids aren’t distracting by having to save for their own college tuition, at risk of eviction, in violent neighborhoods, etc.

No, but education works differently in those countries. For example, Germany tracks all students starting around age 10. You can move between the tracks but it’s not that common. They also force all immigrants to pass a German language test before joining schools in Germany.

Finland has no racial diversity and the kids all come to school reading and writing at age 7 by the time they start school. Schools don’t need to do any parenting because the actual parents do that.

The “actual parents” are healthy & employed with easy access to healthcare, nutrition meals, housing and childcare. Shockingly, that makes a difference!

[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.

No, someone who can credibly simulate having done something unique well enough to survive the cursory review colleges engage in will get the nod. This vibes-based approach is even more amenable to gaming by the wealthy, sophisticated, or well-connected. We all know who is really running the non-profits “founded” by 10th graders, and it’s way easier for the wealthy to write a check to create a “unique” experience for their child than anyone else. The less legible the admissions criteria, the more it favors high SES and the connected. DEI helps URMs, so this really comes out of the hides of lower-class whites and Asian students with 1540s as opposed to 1580s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

That's what they thought, and we are facing a Supreme Court case

They get to decide things like activities vs test scores and what is more interesting for the college.

[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.

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

Not more compelling than a kid with mostly As and a 1500. It’s really not much different and it that 1500 kid is “more compelling” in their essays or recommendations they get the spot. When 95 kids get rejected for every 5 who get a spot, 90 of those 95 are nearly equally compelling but there just isn’t space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Hard to do that if your family life requires you to work a job 20-30 hours per week to help the family pay the bills or have you take care of siblings or an ailing grandparent, etc. glad you were able to do that—not every poor kid has the time or ability to do so

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The workplace is figuring out that school brands are kind of meaningless -and testing at all levels is on the rise. My daughter is a recruiter in finance and top employers now require a LOT of testing just to get in the door, including personality, math, logic and writing assessments. You can't prep for these tests or take them over again - and there are no accommodations. Candidates (of all races and backgrounds), including the sort of "elite" credentials many DCUMers salivate over here, often bomb or don't get by the tests. Top employers want proof that the candidate is as good as they look on paper, because degrees don't prove much of anything these days.

Interesting. I hire inside counsel and we give an assignment (small legal/analytical written piece). We want to see how people think and reason and make sure they can write coherently.

And my workplace is getting rid of cover letters and sending interview questions in advance in order to accomodate poor writers and the less able to think on their feet.

Good luck - you realize you will be getting the candidates' moms, or a job coach or Googles answers a lot of the time .....your faith in humanity is laudable.

I agree with you, it's not ideal. Our HR will keep tweaking the hiring process until they "get the results they want", they have stated this. Sending the interview questions in advance is another try at this.

[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.

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

It wasn't enough.

[Anonymous]

Why is 1550 your cutoff? Why not 1500? Why not 1450?

[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.

No, someone who can credibly simulate having done something unique well enough to survive the cursory review colleges engage in will get the nod. This vibes-based approach is even more amenable to gaming by the wealthy, sophisticated, or well-connected. We all know who is really running the non-profits “founded” by 10th graders, and it’s way easier for the wealthy to write a check to create a “unique” experience for their child than anyone else. The less legible the admissions criteria, the more it favors high SES and the connected. DEI helps URMs, so this really comes out of the hides of lower-class whites and Asian students with 1540s as opposed to 1580s.

Not even close to true. Nothing you mentioned comes off as interesting, particularly because every rich kid is playing from the same helicopter parent playbook and you can smell it a mile away, playbook. it's the full story. A 1st gen white kid from Appalachia has a story to tell. The fake non-profit, the service trip to Costa Rica -- yeah, not so much.

[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.

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

Keep telling yourself that. Colleges and admissions people keep saying what works, and y'all keep denying it because it doesn't fit what you believe, and we get the same comments on this board every year.

[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.

No, someone who can credibly simulate having done something unique well enough to survive the cursory review colleges engage in will get the nod. This vibes-based approach is even more amenable to gaming by the wealthy, sophisticated, or well-connected. We all know who is really running the non-profits “founded” by 10th graders, and it’s way easier for the wealthy to write a check to create a “unique” experience for their child than anyone else. The less legible the admissions criteria, the more it favors high SES and the connected. DEI helps URMs, so this really comes out of the hides of lower-class whites and Asian students with 1540s as opposed to 1580s.

You identify the kids losing by race but not the kids taking with the embellished nonprofits. At our school, the embellished nonprofits that I knew of (about 6) were all founded by kids who happened to be east or south Asian. Several started their own that did a little and fizzled or did nothing. One had a website and big plans with volunteer requests. My D volunteered and followed up. Nothing happened (except
the website). One made some contribution, made sure to get press on it, then kind of went silent. Another student was a coke scholar with big embellishments. One had a mom-run nonprofit, but I don't know if the kid used this to the extent her mom wanted. Mom kept pushing the "student-run" org (sometimes signing emails as her daughter), but the local running joke is that the mom did everything. Kid was nice and never really spun that narrative, so hopefully she didn't on apps either. But, to your point, if you ID the kids losing as Asian, you should also admit that the kids taking may also be Asian (and white too of course). It's not oppression of Asian/white kids by "others." BTW, I don't think any of these kids were wealthy, but they were ambitious. That could be any kid. And, every kid loses out when kids falsify or embellish, not just white/Asian kids.

[Anonymous]

No, they cannot easily "add more seats". At most ivy's kids live on campus all 4 years. Add 500 students per year and you have a huge housing issue. Not to mention classes will be larger, less advising, classes more difficult to get into, etc... an entire list of issues if the infrastructure is not in place. So it won't solve the problem (500 at each is still a dent and most will still get rejected) and doing so with out infratsturce would degrade the experience just look at non T25 schools who have done it recently (Northeastern is one example---grown 3-4K students in last few years without any infrastructure in place---many parents and students are not happy. Many kids cannot land coops, because more students looking coupled with the bad economy is not a good thing, kids cannot get into classes because so many students and they are all registering for classes in case they don't get a coop---which many wont' so they wont be dropping out of the classes to make more space...it's not a good situation when you add students without an infrastructure plan put in place first).


This +1000 and it is not just Ivies. why would any school invest in the infrastructure when the college age population starts declining pretty significantly beginning in birth year 2010 and onward. They are going to EXPANDING admission rates to stay afloat. And then they will have to let in the riff raff. Gasp!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Test-optional adds to the uncertainty and STRESS.

This is the end result. People are not as confident they will get in, and therefore second-guess themselves, agonize and apply to more schools, which creates more work and more stress for everyone.

And as a poster said above, there aren't more seats in college. It is a zero sum game. Admissions officers taking a chance on a test-optional student WILL have to reject an academically qualified high stats student for that option!

So I disagree with the dismissive posters above regarding test-optional. Test-optional is actually the reason some students are not accepted. Literally.

Now yield protection is different: you can bypass that by demonstrating interest, and customizing your essay to make sure the college knows it isn't just a last recourse. All colleges want is a little courtesy in that regard, even though looking at stats, they are well aware they won't be the first choice. But again, customizing essays, visits and interviews are adding STRESS to the process.

So all this atmosphere leads to more stress than previously. This is not healthy or acceptable. No other country does college admissions this way, and the USA should not either!!!

I hear you, but students who are excellent students but don't test well are burdened with far more stress if tests aren't optional. Why can't they be allowed to put their best foot forward with awards, achievements, APs and other indices? As someone who teaches SAT test prep, I am bothered that people place too much emphasis on SAT in relation to merit.

We need to expand our definitions of top schools rather than hoard spaces for kids who are able to perform well on SAT.