Why is it so much harder to get into a top school now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) more kids applying to colleges in general
2) more international kids applying to US schools
3) grade inflation, which has been going on for years but was exacerbated by CovID
4) test opitonal - removes some sort of baseline understanding of how competititve kids are from "lesser" schools or school districts
5) for white kids, more emphasis on applicants of color and "first gen"

All of these combine to make it harder. It is what it is, and it will take some time for the schools to figure it out, so the key is to find a wide band of schools your kid likes and not focus on the same "T10" 'T25" or whatever. There shouldn't be people who want to apply to both Dartmouth and Columbia, wildly different schools and settings, same with Columbia and Brown, for example. Decide what you like about a school and then identify 10 others that have similar qualities but different variables to gain entry.

Very smart comment, and don't miss the bolded. A lot of people (especially on these boards) are stuck in this perspective on college admissions where all good students should want to go to the same 25 schools (and that the best students will all want to attend the same 5 schools). The truth is that there are a huge number of great schools out there and that the best first for your students will depend on their academic goals, social preferences, environmental preferences, etc.

Though part of this hangup is driven by parents who work in fields where that "T25" preference remains -- BigLaw, the top banks and consulting firms, politics. They work in fields where having certain academic credentials are, if not required, a huge advantage. And they don't understand that these same schools are not preferred for all fields. Your really have to understand your child's goals and think more expansively about what a "good school" is in that context.

Given that so many top students are going outside of these schools, I think these trends may change. They have already changed my colleagues' views on recruiting.

WAs with a recruiter from a major investment bank recently and they said that they are moving theirlist down from just Top 25 to more emphasis on Top 26-75. The same kids who a decade ago were always T25 are now 26 to 75.

All of this will have consequences in recruiting as you say. The whole shift will seem like it's happening in slomo but it's ver much happening.

Need to find the genuinely high brain power kids who used to exist mainly at top 25 but have been crammed down by DEI, FGIL, TO

Your view is so narrow. Kids with good test scores do not necessarily have “higher brain power” than kids with slightly lower that went TO. The TO kid may have chosen to spend their time doing other intellectual and interesting things rather than prepping and retesting for a 1600 super score. Also, people manifest intelligence in several ways, of which test taking is only one. Don’t be fooled by high test scores, especially with super scoring. IME, super intelligent kids are curious and studying for the SAT is very boring for them and they may not drill down to prep (which they probably need because many intelligent kids will overthink the questions and get them wrong).

A top Goldman Sachs guy once told a very prominent business school professor I know that the single best predictor of success there was Math SAT. Kinda makes sense huh? Ability to quickly solve relatively complicated math problems... A super bright kid who can't bring himself to prepare for the most important exam in his or her life that will position him for all kinds of great intellectual growth opportunities--that is not a kid who is especially likely to succeed in the real world.

Your limited and narrow view is funny to see!

My husband works at Goldman and there are plenty of Kenyon, Michigan, Emory, and even schools you haven’t heard of if you’re not from there. Your friend may be speaking about a tiny subset at Goldman, say the IBD freshman class, but certainly not everyone.

Are you saying Michigan, Emory, and Kenyon don't have high math scores? Because I'm not understanding the reference.

Most recent CDS data for 75th percentile math SAT
Michigan: 780
Emory: 790
Kenyon: 760

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This all suggests that top 30 SLACS are really on their way to having really strong student profiles. All the kids who would otherwise attend an Ivy like large research university or a state flagship but got rejected despite high test scores will have more interest in LACs so they can get a high quality education. Otherwise they are bound for mediocre universities or second tier state schools.

Most high stat kids I know, including my own, don’t want a small remote school. They prefer a large research institution with good sports.

Right but they will end up at Michigan state instead of Michigan. Or BU instead of Wash U.

And the problem with that is??????

Nothing per se. But it was in the context of kids getting squeezed down to less prestigious large schools. At some point you recognize the education you receive as an undergrad at these schools is inferior to what you could obtain at a LAC that might accept you. I know some might say ok but a LAC isn’t fun but to that I say… ok so just go to UNLV.

Such a false statement.

So second tier state schools are the pinnacle of teaching excellence?

I have friends who teach at what I would consider 5th tier. She truly loves teaching and loves her students. She does publish, but not at the rate as her peers at, say, Big10 schools. I would have any kid take her classes 10 times out of 10. Really, the differences between the schools as valued by parents in these threads is so small, mostly predicated on things like endowments and how much federal grants these schools take in, as opposed to the actual classroom experiences.

No. The peer group at the top colleges is, or at least historically has been, way stronger. We all do better when we are surrounded by smart people.
Good for your friend though. But if given the chance, most people will choose the higher ranked school.

"The peer group at the top colleges is, or at least historically has been, way stronger."

No. There are many smart people at all colleges in the top 100, both students and faculty, and the differences are miniscule. Here's the link I just posted above showing this to be true for students.

https://lesshighschoolstress.com/page/3/

And here's another from the same site that shows the percentage of professors who have a PhD in their field at various colleges. Dartmouth and Penn are the only two Ivies in the top 42 (that's all they show), and schools like Lafayette, Ohio State, Kenyon and the University of Georgia are on the list.

https://lesshighschoolstress.com/blog/4/

And what happens when the peer group is chosen primarily on the basis of their lack of educational opportunities growing up? When a huge part of the peer group is chosen to be with you but not vice versa?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) more kids applying to colleges in general
2) more international kids applying to US schools
3) grade inflation, which has been going on for years but was exacerbated by CovID
4) test opitonal - removes some sort of baseline understanding of how competititve kids are from "lesser" schools or school districts
5) for white kids, more emphasis on applicants of color and "first gen"

All of these combine to make it harder. It is what it is, and it will take some time for the schools to figure it out, so the key is to find a wide band of schools your kid likes and not focus on the same "T10" 'T25" or whatever. There shouldn't be people who want to apply to both Dartmouth and Columbia, wildly different schools and settings, same with Columbia and Brown, for example. Decide what you like about a school and then identify 10 others that have similar qualities but different variables to gain entry.

Very smart comment, and don't miss the bolded. A lot of people (especially on these boards) are stuck in this perspective on college admissions where all good students should want to go to the same 25 schools (and that the best students will all want to attend the same 5 schools). The truth is that there are a huge number of great schools out there and that the best first for your students will depend on their academic goals, social preferences, environmental preferences, etc.

Though part of this hangup is driven by parents who work in fields where that "T25" preference remains -- BigLaw, the top banks and consulting firms, politics. They work in fields where having certain academic credentials are, if not required, a huge advantage. And they don't understand that these same schools are not preferred for all fields. Your really have to understand your child's goals and think more expansively about what a "good school" is in that context.

Given that so many top students are going outside of these schools, I think these trends may change. They have already changed my colleagues' views on recruiting.

WAs with a recruiter from a major investment bank recently and they said that they are moving theirlist down from just Top 25 to more emphasis on Top 26-75. The same kids who a decade ago were always T25 are now 26 to 75.

All of this will have consequences in recruiting as you say. The whole shift will seem like it's happening in slomo but it's ver much happening.

Need to find the genuinely high brain power kids who used to exist mainly at top 25 but have been crammed down by DEI, FGIL, TO

Your view is so narrow. Kids with good test scores do not necessarily have “higher brain power” than kids with slightly lower that went TO. The TO kid may have chosen to spend their time doing other intellectual and interesting things rather than prepping and retesting for a 1600 super score. Also, people manifest intelligence in several ways, of which test taking is only one. Don’t be fooled by high test scores, especially with super scoring. IME, super intelligent kids are curious and studying for the SAT is very boring for them and they may not drill down to prep (which they probably need because many intelligent kids will overthink the questions and get them wrong).

A top Goldman Sachs guy once told a very prominent business school professor I know that the single best predictor of success there was Math SAT. Kinda makes sense huh? Ability to quickly solve relatively complicated math problems... A super bright kid who can't bring himself to prepare for the most important exam in his or her life that will position him for all kinds of great intellectual growth opportunities--that is not a kid who is especially likely to succeed in the real world.

Your limited and narrow view is funny to see!

My husband works at Goldman and there are plenty of Kenyon, Michigan, Emory, and even schools you haven’t heard of if you’re not from there. Your friend may be speaking about a tiny subset at Goldman, say the IBD freshman class, but certainly not everyone.

Are you saying Michigan, Emory, and Kenyon don't have high math scores? Because I'm not understanding the reference.

Most recent CDS data for 75th percentile math SAT
Michigan: 780
Emory: 790
Kenyon: 760

I thought it was obvious. I’m saying they are not top schools in the same way HYP, Stanford, MIT, Williams, and Amherst are. Do you understand now? (I’m sure going TO has helped these scores significantly too).

[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:1) more kids applying to colleges in general
2) more international kids applying to US schools
3) grade inflation, which has been going on for years but was exacerbated by CovID
4) test opitonal - removes some sort of baseline understanding of how competititve kids are from "lesser" schools or school districts
5) for white kids, more emphasis on applicants of color and "first gen"

All of these combine to make it harder. It is what it is, and it will take some time for the schools to figure it out, so the key is to find a wide band of schools your kid likes and not focus on the same "T10" 'T25" or whatever. There shouldn't be people who want to apply to both Dartmouth and Columbia, wildly different schools and settings, same with Columbia and Brown, for example. Decide what you like about a school and then identify 10 others that have similar qualities but different variables to gain entry.

Very smart comment, and don't miss the bolded. A lot of people (especially on these boards) are stuck in this perspective on college admissions where all good students should want to go to the same 25 schools (and that the best students will all want to attend the same 5 schools). The truth is that there are a huge number of great schools out there and that the best first for your students will depend on their academic goals, social preferences, environmental preferences, etc.

Though part of this hangup is driven by parents who work in fields where that "T25" preference remains -- BigLaw, the top banks and consulting firms, politics. They work in fields where having certain academic credentials are, if not required, a huge advantage. And they don't understand that these same schools are not preferred for all fields. Your really have to understand your child's goals and think more expansively about what a "good school" is in that context.

Given that so many top students are going outside of these schools, I think these trends may change. They have already changed my colleagues' views on recruiting.

WAs with a recruiter from a major investment bank recently and they said that they are moving theirlist down from just Top 25 to more emphasis on Top 26-75. The same kids who a decade ago were always T25 are now 26 to 75.

All of this will have consequences in recruiting as you say. The whole shift will seem like it's happening in slomo but it's ver much happening.

Need to find the genuinely high brain power kids who used to exist mainly at top 25 but have been crammed down by DEI, FGIL, TO

Your view is so narrow. Kids with good test scores do not necessarily have “higher brain power” than kids with slightly lower that went TO. The TO kid may have chosen to spend their time doing other intellectual and interesting things rather than prepping and retesting for a 1600 super score. Also, people manifest intelligence in several ways, of which test taking is only one. Don’t be fooled by high test scores, especially with super scoring. IME, super intelligent kids are curious and studying for the SAT is very boring for them and they may not drill down to prep (which they probably need because many intelligent kids will overthink the questions and get them wrong).

A top Goldman Sachs guy once told a very prominent business school professor I know that the single best predictor of success there was Math SAT. Kinda makes sense huh? Ability to quickly solve relatively complicated math problems... A super bright kid who can't bring himself to prepare for the most important exam in his or her life that will position him for all kinds of great intellectual growth opportunities--that is not a kid who is especially likely to succeed in the real world.

Your limited and narrow view is funny to see!

My husband works at Goldman and there are plenty of Kenyon, Michigan, Emory, and even schools you haven’t heard of if you’re not from there. Your friend may be speaking about a tiny subset at Goldman, say the IBD freshman class, but certainly not everyone.

Are you saying Michigan, Emory, and Kenyon don't have high math scores? Because I'm not understanding the reference.

Most recent CDS data for 75th percentile math SAT
Michigan: 780
Emory: 790
Kenyon: 760

I thought it was obvious. I’m saying they are not top schools in the same way HYP, Stanford, MIT, Williams, and Amherst are. Do you understand now? (I’m sure going TO has helped these scores significantly too).

But were you saying IBD department still only had kids from those historically top schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Like if a kid went into a Time Machine and went back five years, it seems with the exact same profile he or she would likely get into a more selective college. I understand kids are applying to more schools but that also means yield has to decline. But it seems there is a much larger pool of highly qualified applicants to top colleges or at least it is incrementally more difficult for a high stat kid to get accepted into his or her preferred school. Why is this?

The thing is every year, scores and grades seem to get more and more inflated. For example, when I was in HS we did not get bonus points for APs or honors classes. Less than 5% of my graduating class even had an A average. Back in the late 70s, an SAT score in the 1400s easily put you in the top 1% even. Today something like 30% of my kid's class has a 4.0 and 1500+ is fairly common. I would argue that it isn't harder to get in jut harder to distinguish among the pool of applicants.

[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:1) more kids applying to colleges in general
2) more international kids applying to US schools
3) grade inflation, which has been going on for years but was exacerbated by CovID
4) test opitonal - removes some sort of baseline understanding of how competititve kids are from "lesser" schools or school districts
5) for white kids, more emphasis on applicants of color and "first gen"

All of these combine to make it harder. It is what it is, and it will take some time for the schools to figure it out, so the key is to find a wide band of schools your kid likes and not focus on the same "T10" 'T25" or whatever. There shouldn't be people who want to apply to both Dartmouth and Columbia, wildly different schools and settings, same with Columbia and Brown, for example. Decide what you like about a school and then identify 10 others that have similar qualities but different variables to gain entry.

Very smart comment, and don't miss the bolded. A lot of people (especially on these boards) are stuck in this perspective on college admissions where all good students should want to go to the same 25 schools (and that the best students will all want to attend the same 5 schools). The truth is that there are a huge number of great schools out there and that the best first for your students will depend on their academic goals, social preferences, environmental preferences, etc.

Though part of this hangup is driven by parents who work in fields where that "T25" preference remains -- BigLaw, the top banks and consulting firms, politics. They work in fields where having certain academic credentials are, if not required, a huge advantage. And they don't understand that these same schools are not preferred for all fields. Your really have to understand your child's goals and think more expansively about what a "good school" is in that context.

Given that so many top students are going outside of these schools, I think these trends may change. They have already changed my colleagues' views on recruiting.

WAs with a recruiter from a major investment bank recently and they said that they are moving theirlist down from just Top 25 to more emphasis on Top 26-75. The same kids who a decade ago were always T25 are now 26 to 75.

All of this will have consequences in recruiting as you say. The whole shift will seem like it's happening in slomo but it's ver much happening.

Need to find the genuinely high brain power kids who used to exist mainly at top 25 but have been crammed down by DEI, FGIL, TO

Your view is so narrow. Kids with good test scores do not necessarily have “higher brain power” than kids with slightly lower that went TO. The TO kid may have chosen to spend their time doing other intellectual and interesting things rather than prepping and retesting for a 1600 super score. Also, people manifest intelligence in several ways, of which test taking is only one. Don’t be fooled by high test scores, especially with super scoring. IME, super intelligent kids are curious and studying for the SAT is very boring for them and they may not drill down to prep (which they probably need because many intelligent kids will overthink the questions and get them wrong).

A top Goldman Sachs guy once told a very prominent business school professor I know that the single best predictor of success there was Math SAT. Kinda makes sense huh? Ability to quickly solve relatively complicated math problems... A super bright kid who can't bring himself to prepare for the most important exam in his or her life that will position him for all kinds of great intellectual growth opportunities--that is not a kid who is especially likely to succeed in the real world.

Your limited and narrow view is funny to see!

My husband works at Goldman and there are plenty of Kenyon, Michigan, Emory, and even schools you haven’t heard of if you’re not from there. Your friend may be speaking about a tiny subset at Goldman, say the IBD freshman class, but certainly not everyone.

Are you saying Michigan, Emory, and Kenyon don't have high math scores? Because I'm not understanding the reference.

Most recent CDS data for 75th percentile math SAT
Michigan: 780
Emory: 790
Kenyon: 760

I thought it was obvious. I’m saying they are not top schools in the same way HYP, Stanford, MIT, Williams, and Amherst are. Do you understand now? (I’m sure going TO has helped these scores significantly too).

But were you saying IBD department still only had kids from those historically top schools?

Only, no. Are you more likely to be in the IBD freshman class coming from a school like that (+ Penn and a few others) than a school like Kenyon? A decade ago the answer was yes and I assume it probably still holds.

My point was that there are plenty of people at Goldman who didn’t do well on their Math SAT (if you go by undergrad alma mater 50 percentile) who ended up at Goldman. I know that the last few years with TO and super scoring every college has amazing stats, but if you got into college in the last 2-3 years you aren’t working at Goldman Sachs. You are still in college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Student quality isn't actually better and they seem to do more that is geared toward admission rather than passion or impact.

It is so easy to apply to so many places now too. Why not try for those 10 reach schools if they give fee waivers or you can afford it?

What a crock. Students today are 10x smarter than they were in the 80s. Classes are more advanced and more challenging in high school than ever.

[Anonymous]

If you have to shell out 80 grand a year to go to Princeton or to go to somewhere else, it is fine to want to choose Princeton if they will have you. The top colleges are also so rich that they can be very generous with aid. Some students would find Princeton more affordable than other places and will choose it for the money if they can get in.

[Anonymous]

I think perhaps the biggest thing is the rise of Asian Americans in American society. This is an ethnic group that has gained tremendously in affluence and sophistication past 20 years. Asian families are producing top students and we see it in the class profiles of top colleges. They have raised the bar for everyone. Makes it harder to get into Stanford now but this is a good thing for our country. There are more top students than the historical list of “elite”’schools can handle. So it overflows to top 50/75.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you have to shell out 80 grand a year to go to Princeton or to go to somewhere else, it is fine to want to choose Princeton if they will have you. The top colleges are also so rich that they can be very generous with aid. Some students would find Princeton more affordable than other places and will choose it for the money if they can get in.

Huge endowments and generous aid also makes it more feasible for top students from families who need some help to attend. So it enlarges the pool of qualified students that way

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test optional. Test optional allows kids with good grades but mediocre or bad test scores to apply to highly selective schools. Top schools want to take some of those kids because it fulfills their DEI and financial goals. At some better schools, test optional now accounts for 40% of applications and 25% of admits. If those applications didn’t exist, there would be more room for the kids that got admitted five years ago.

This. Schools know they need to drop their academic standards to maintain enrollment because of the demographic cliff. The trick was always going to be dropping standards without being called out on it or losing ground on the USNWR rankings. Along came COVID and an excuse to go test optional and they all ran with it. The bridge classes (after COVID and before the 2008 babies) are getting squeezed.

My first was born in 2009. Everything seemed easy. There were daycare openings all over the place her private school class had fewer students than before and after. I wonder if college apps will be similar in four years?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) more kids applying to colleges in general
2) more international kids applying to US schools
3) grade inflation, which has been going on for years but was exacerbated by CovID
4) test opitonal - removes some sort of baseline understanding of how competititve kids are from "lesser" schools or school districts
5) for white kids, more emphasis on applicants of color and "first gen"

All of these combine to make it harder. It is what it is, and it will take some time for the schools to figure it out, so the key is to find a wide band of schools your kid likes and not focus on the same "T10" 'T25" or whatever. There shouldn't be people who want to apply to both Dartmouth and Columbia, wildly different schools and settings, same with Columbia and Brown, for example. Decide what you like about a school and then identify 10 others that have similar qualities but different variables to gain entry.

Very smart comment, and don't miss the bolded. A lot of people (especially on these boards) are stuck in this perspective on college admissions where all good students should want to go to the same 25 schools (and that the best students will all want to attend the same 5 schools). The truth is that there are a huge number of great schools out there and that the best first for your students will depend on their academic goals, social preferences, environmental preferences, etc.

Though part of this hangup is driven by parents who work in fields where that "T25" preference remains -- BigLaw, the top banks and consulting firms, politics. They work in fields where having certain academic credentials are, if not required, a huge advantage. And they don't understand that these same schools are not preferred for all fields. Your really have to understand your child's goals and think more expansively about what a "good school" is in that context.

Given that so many top students are going outside of these schools, I think these trends may change. They have already changed my colleagues' views on recruiting.

WAs with a recruiter from a major investment bank recently and they said that they are moving theirlist down from just Top 25 to more emphasis on Top 26-75. The same kids who a decade ago were always T25 are now 26 to 75.

All of this will have consequences in recruiting as you say. The whole shift will seem like it's happening in slomo but it's ver much happening.

Need to find the genuinely high brain power kids who used to exist mainly at top 25 but have been crammed down by DEI, FGIL, TO

Your view is so narrow. Kids with good test scores do not necessarily have “higher brain power” than kids with slightly lower that went TO. The TO kid may have chosen to spend their time doing other intellectual and interesting things rather than prepping and retesting for a 1600 super score. Also, people manifest intelligence in several ways, of which test taking is only one. Don’t be fooled by high test scores, especially with super scoring. IME, super intelligent kids are curious and studying for the SAT is very boring for them and they may not drill down to prep (which they probably need because many intelligent kids will overthink the questions and get them wrong).

A top Goldman Sachs guy once told a very prominent business school professor I know that the single best predictor of success there was Math SAT. Kinda makes sense huh? Ability to quickly solve relatively complicated math problems... A super bright kid who can't bring himself to prepare for the most important exam in his or her life that will position him for all kinds of great intellectual growth opportunities--that is not a kid who is especially likely to succeed in the real world.

So all up need to know to succeed at Goldman is algebra 2. Got it.

That and no soul.

There is really one thing that is needed to succeed in any field, be it a creative career or a business one or any. Hard work. That’s really it. It helps if your IQ is above average too, but nothing can make up for the lack of hard work. You can go to Harvard with your test optional application, but trust me, if you don’t put in the work, you will amount to nothing.

This exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Like if a kid went into a Time Machine and went back five years, it seems with the exact same profile he or she would likely get into a more selective college. I understand kids are applying to more schools but that also means yield has to decline. But it seems there is a much larger pool of highly qualified applicants to top colleges or at least it is incrementally more difficult for a high stat kid to get accepted into his or her preferred school. Why is this?

The thing is every year, scores and grades seem to get more and more inflated. For example, when I was in HS we did not get bonus points for APs or honors classes. Less than 5% of my graduating class even had an A average. Back in the late 70s, an SAT score in the 1400s easily put you in the top 1% even. Today something like 30% of my kid's class has a 4.0 and 1500+ is fairly common. I would argue that it isn't harder to get in jut harder to distinguish among the pool of applicants.

Back in the 70s we didn't even bother with preparing for the SAT. It is now a major part of child rearing for a lot of families. Doing math "for fun" after school is just part of an ordinary day just like playing ball used to be.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test optional. Test optional allows kids with good grades but mediocre or bad test scores to apply to highly selective schools. Top schools want to take some of those kids because it fulfills their DEI and financial goals. At some better schools, test optional now accounts for 40% of applications and 25% of admits. If those applications didn’t exist, there would be more room for the kids that got admitted five years ago.

And this is a good thing, BTW. The test scores are discriminatory.

Getting rid of tests is discriminatory - against Asians in particular.

Just because many Asian parents prioritize standardized test performance doesn't mean getting rid of them is discriminatory. FWIW, I think optional is fine. They can be a factor, but students can also demonstrate intellectual capabilities in other ways.

That statement is racist against Asians. How do you know their success in testing is a function of the stereotype of parental pressure?

I guess there is some special SAT gene that only asian kids possess. Is that it?

I don't know what to tell you. These are basic tests of intellectual ability. Asian kids do really well on them. They get more answers correct. I read that as, Asian kids are on average smarter. Are they born smarter? I don't know, it is possible. But by the time they sit for those exams, they are smarter. It is what it is. Are the tests perfect? No. But they clearly correlate with smartness.

I dont know what to tell you. Maybe they prepare more effectively.

Or maybe by the time they sit for the test at age 16, they are "smarter." They know more, they have been better educated, their minds work faster, they think more clearly. Isn't this why we say education is important? It's like taking two kids, one goes to the gym everyday, works out, the other plays video games, and then you have a physical fitness test, and the first kid outperforms the second kid. What is the appropriate reaction to that? The test is biased? Or the first kid was able to beat the system somehow?

Poor analogy.
The athletic winner is better trained, but the gamer may have the same or better athletic potential, just not the opportunity to train.

Colleges aren't here to admit students based on their theoretical genetic intellectual potential at conception. They are here to admit students based on the intellectual development they have achieved by age 17. Yes, resources and preparation can exaggerate the signal the tests provide. But they nonetheless provide a strong signal. We don't have to discount the test just because Asians do so well on them versus other groups.

I almost thought you were sensible... but good grief!

Let's use the marathon analogy. You want to reward the competitor that started running hours before everyone else even woke up

If we are going to negate 17 years of intellectual development, and just focus on some abstract idea of how smart a kid could have become if properly resourced, why don’t we do the same with sports and music? Why don’t we recruit athletes based on how good they might have been or pianists based on how well they might have played if only they received lessons? It’s absurd. You are evaluating the 16 or 17 year old person, what are they capable of now?, not the DNA sequence

Get off the "DNA sequence" foolishness don't you? Every time you say something sensible (even if I disagree) you throw in this race science BS.

has nothing to do with race science. I will stipulate that there are no variations in intelligence across races. I am simply arguing that SATs are a reliable measure of intellectual ability (not perfect and yes prep can improve one's score). If there are differences from a racial perspective on outcomes, some of this could be related to prep but it is also related to the intellectual development of 16 year old kids across races. Culture, financial resources, family structure-- these all play into how "smart" a kid is by the time he or she is 16. The SAT catches how "smart" a kid is in ways that grades (which vary wildly by school, teacher etc) do not. It is a good tool. Not perfect but good. yes, a kid from a disadvantaged background should be given some leeway for weak SATs to adjust for the prep aspect of it.

DP. And, for the millionth time, your argument is incorrect. They are not a "reliable measure of intellect." That is a fallacy. The A in SAT used to stand for aptitude, but they had to change it to assessment because ot did not measure aptitude.

You are spending a lot of time here posting the same nonsense again and again. About to report a troll. This is getting silly.

I like how seeing validity in the SAT/ACT which until a few years ago was almost universally required, and remains a major admissions factor almost everywhere, and is still required by many top schools, is reportable hate speech. We have a disagreement about a somewhat complicated subject. It’s okay. This is what people do in free countries. They share different perspectives on important issues. When someone disagrees with your beliefs, they are not “incorrect”- they hold a different opinion.

I use “intellect” in a general sense - but obviously these tests are measuring intellectual capacity in one form or another. This is why they give them- to determine how “smart” a kid is for lack of a better word, which may indicate how much they will benefit from a college education.

The SAT and ACT used to correlate with IQ tests as much as different IQ tests did with each other. The changes to the SAT has removed some of the more G loaded questions and made the test more amenable to prep, but it still measures intelligence to some degree.

The name of the Scholastic Aptitude Test (derived from IQ test used by US Army) was changed relatively recently to 'Scholastic Achievement Test' to help boost URM admissions to colleges and universities.

[Anonymous]

Bigger US population. More international students. Poor kids, women, and people of color aren’t being automatically excluded. The average kid is smarter now than decades ago.