Harvard will require Test Scores starting next year

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If you genuinely believe Bias Victim deserves a spot at Selective U., what is Victim's game plan once admitted? To major in dance? How will Selective U. be any different that Biased Public Schools with respect to offering teaching "styles" AND evaluation of material that is not "biased"?

The game plan is to receive affirmative action in perpertuity for life. This actually happens. The underqualified URM who gets into a selective college, gets another bump in medical school affirmative action for bombing the MCAT and having a low science GPA, and then another bump for residency and another bump during hiring. It never ends.

Dude. You people really live in fantasy land. And are so hateful I can't understand. And uninformed. I won't say unintelligent because even smart people can be raging bigots.

Not the PP, but my company leadership explicitly told us to lower the bar for black candidates when hiring. Explicitly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this is for current Juniors? my kid has no interest in Harvard, but this seems really really late to make this call for this class

Tend to agree. I think it’s a reflection of how ill prepared TO kids were.

There is zero evidence of this or else schools would be releasing the hard data

Dartmouth had the highest rate of students on academic probation ever. They admissions director attributed this directly to the TO policy and the data was consistent with this claim.

Do you just make stuff up? The Dean of Admissions attributed academic preparedness directly to covid learning loss, not to TO. And their reasons for ending TO were more complex than "hey, we are getting morons."
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/admissions/traditional-age/2024/02/07/dartmouth-admissions-dean-reinstating-test-requirements

Stated reasons are partly marketing, by definition. One amongst many unstated reasons: Dartmouth’s (expanding) use of AI in admissions. AI really, really likes test scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If you genuinely believe Bias Victim deserves a spot at Selective U., what is Victim's game plan once admitted? To major in dance? How will Selective U. be any different that Biased Public Schools with respect to offering teaching "styles" AND evaluation of material that is not "biased"?

The game plan is to receive affirmative action in perpertuity for life. This actually happens. The underqualified URM who gets into a selective college, gets another bump in medical school affirmative action for bombing the MCAT and having a low science GPA, and then another bump for residency and another bump during hiring. It never ends.

Dude. You people really live in fantasy land. And are so hateful I can't understand. And uninformed. I won't say unintelligent because even smart people can be raging bigots.

Not the PP, but my company leadership explicitly told us to lower the bar for black candidates when hiring. Explicitly.

Sure they did. And even if that did happen, I'm sure that you're talking about being a pilot or a doctor. Cuz of course you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If you genuinely believe Bias Victim deserves a spot at Selective U., what is Victim's game plan once admitted? To major in dance? How will Selective U. be any different that Biased Public Schools with respect to offering teaching "styles" AND evaluation of material that is not "biased"?

The game plan is to receive affirmative action in perpertuity for life. This actually happens. The underqualified URM who gets into a selective college, gets another bump in medical school affirmative action for bombing the MCAT and having a low science GPA, and then another bump for residency and another bump during hiring. It never ends.

Dude. You people really live in fantasy land. And are so hateful I can't understand. And uninformed. I won't say unintelligent because even smart people can be raging bigots.

Not the PP, but my company leadership explicitly told us to lower the bar for black candidates when hiring. Explicitly.

Well, that's racist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this is for current Juniors? my kid has no interest in Harvard, but this seems really really late to make this call for this class

Tend to agree. I think it’s a reflection of how ill prepared TO kids were.

There is zero evidence of this or else schools would be releasing the hard data

Dartmouth had the highest rate of students on academic probation ever. They admissions director attributed this directly to the TO policy and the data was consistent with this claim.

Citation. This is not true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If you genuinely believe Bias Victim deserves a spot at Selective U., what is Victim's game plan once admitted? To major in dance? How will Selective U. be any different that Biased Public Schools with respect to offering teaching "styles" AND evaluation of material that is not "biased"?

The game plan is to receive affirmative action in perpertuity for life. This actually happens. The underqualified URM who gets into a selective college, gets another bump in medical school affirmative action for bombing the MCAT and having a low science GPA, and then another bump for residency and another bump during hiring. It never ends.

Dude. You people really live in fantasy land. And are so hateful I can't understand. And uninformed. I won't say unintelligent because even smart people can be raging bigots.

Not the PP, but my company leadership explicitly told us to lower the bar for black candidates when hiring. Explicitly.

They did not. What bar?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this is for current Juniors? my kid has no interest in Harvard, but this seems really really late to make this call for this class

Tend to agree. I think it’s a reflection of how ill prepared TO kids were.

There is zero evidence of this or else schools would be releasing the hard data

Huh? Just the opposite. Schools are embarrassed by this failed TO experiment, which they were so proud of instituting for equity purposes. Only UT released the hard data - TO kids were on average a full GPA point lower once enrolled.

Oh my god, you are going to be so sad when you find out that kids with underperforming GPAs are now going to get in because their test scores are so high, instead of high GPAs and no or lower test scores. And ermagherd, A LOT of those kids are going to be minorities. Gasp!
A lot of you live in this bizarro world, looking for justifications and excuses and rationalizations for why your poor kid wasn't admitted.

Talk about victim mentality.

While I would maybe believe that you can be smart and not "test well," it doesn't work the other way -- you cannot be dumb and get a high score. It's not possible. Kids with low GPAs and high scores are usually very smart rebels who refuse to do busywork in subjects that they hate. These people then go to college and do very well, because they can choose their classes.

[Anonymous]

What’s really frustrating is my black kid has top stats and AA is gone and people will STILL assume there’s some URM hook that got him in to a top college. Nothing is enough for you people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:test optional was a failed experiment

it wasn't an experiment it was due to testing centers closing during the pandemic

My 2023 and 2024 kids had plenty of opportunities to take and retake the SAT over most of their high school years.

The only graduating years that should have been test optional was class of 2021.

Instead, they doubled down on test optional, and ended up with a bunch of kids from the "you get an A if you login to most of your classes and do this quizlet" generation with school shut-down inflated grades, lack of skills needed for rigorous classes, and no impartial SAT to show whether or not they possessed the intellect to overcome the significant deficiencies of their pandemic "school" years.

Yup, this makes me sad for my dd who was 2023 and had very good SAT scores. Fortunately, she loves where she wound up.

So you believe some stupid kid who had a lower score but didn't have to show it took her spot? Seriously?

I can guarantee that happened.

DD22 at Ivy and her TO roommate already has 2 C’s. She heard another boy bragging abt his 19 ACT who got in TO.

2 girls from the middle of the pack at our private school made it to HYP TO.

Some URM but some aren’t. Some are celeb kids. Her roommate is Asian.

I mean there are countless kids that bonused in the TO era (‘21 - ‘23 grad classes). It was so unfair.

Help me understand why it's "unfair." You truly think that only students who can get a score above the, let's say, 96th percentile, and can prove that they will get a 3.5 GPA or better once they get there, should be allowed the opportunity to go to a top university? What if the student who has a lower score worked harder than your top scorer? They overcame learning disabilities and a massive wealth gap to earn top GPAs despite their low standardized test score? You think they just don't deserve it because they can't earn a score over 1500? Why do you think that? What makes it "fair" for the first kid to get the opportunity and the second one not to? Because that second kid will graduate with a 3.0 or maybe even a 2.8, instead of a 3.5? So what? As an aside, your horror at a kid having "2 Cs already" would be funny if it weren't so absurd. Cs get degrees, and I would be willing to bet her TO roommate is a heck of a lot more likeable than your DD. Why does she know, much less care, about her TO roommate's grades? I am going to guess they will not room together next year. I sure as heck would my counsel my DD to move on if your DD was her roommate and there was any chance she would encounter a rascist like you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this is for current Juniors? my kid has no interest in Harvard, but this seems really really late to make this call for this class

Tend to agree. I think it’s a reflection of how ill prepared TO kids were.

There is zero evidence of this or else schools would be releasing the hard data

Huh? Just the opposite. Schools are embarrassed by this failed TO experiment, which they were so proud of instituting for equity purposes. Only UT released the hard data - TO kids were on average a full GPA point lower once enrolled.

Oh my god, you are going to be so sad when you find out that kids with underperforming GPAs are now going to get in because their test scores are so high, instead of high GPAs and no or lower test scores. And ermagherd, A LOT of those kids are going to be minorities. Gasp!
A lot of you live in this bizarro world, looking for justifications and excuses and rationalizations for why your poor kid wasn't admitted.

Talk about victim mentality.

While I would maybe believe that you can be smart and not "test well," it doesn't work the other way -- you cannot be dumb and get a high score. It's not possible. Kids with low GPAs and high scores are usually very smart rebels who refuse to do busywork in subjects that they hate. These people then go to college and do very well, because they can choose their classes.

Not necessarily. You can be smart and lazy, unmotivated, or lack direction. Those kids do not perform in college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this is for current Juniors? my kid has no interest in Harvard, but this seems really really late to make this call for this class

Tend to agree. I think it’s a reflection of how ill prepared TO kids were.

There is zero evidence of this or else schools would be releasing the hard data

Dartmouth had the highest rate of students on academic probation ever. They admissions director attributed this directly to the TO policy and the data was consistent with this claim.

Do you just make stuff up? The Dean of Admissions attributed academic preparedness directly to covid learning loss, not to TO. And their reasons for ending TO were more complex than "hey, we are getting morons."
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/admissions/traditional-age/2024/02/07/dartmouth-admissions-dean-reinstating-test-requirements

Stated reasons are partly marketing, by definition. One amongst many unstated reasons: Dartmouth’s (expanding) use of AI in admissions. AI really, really likes test scores.

Oh please, the lies that the racists and bigots on here will bend over backward to make excuses for why their little snowflakes weren't admitted are absolutely pathetic. This society will never change. Thank goodness they're not the ones running our elite universities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What’s really frustrating is my black kid has top stats and AA is gone and people will STILL assume there’s some URM hook that got him in to a top college. Nothing is enough for you people.

And here is where people will come in and say, "We can't control our own assumptions and biases because AA once did exist and as you know, every black kid in college is inferior and only got in because of AA."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Indeed.

Some posters on here were very confident that Yale and Brown and Dartmouth resuming testing requirements were the exceptions.

Pretty clear by now that test optional admits had not very good outcomes.

😅😅😅😆 painfully clear

Yeahm but again, not for the reasons you want to believe. Take Dartmouth for example: "Yes. For the Classes of 2025, ’26 and ’27, we were optional, and the language for everybody was “Access to testing remains uneven, so include testing or not as your situation allows.” And what started to happen in the third year is we started hearing from [high] school counselors that most of the students in their class had access to testing again, but now the question had shifted to, “Should I or should I not include my scores?” Which for us was never really the point of the pause. That was a public health stance, not a critique of testing."

Oh and newsflash...a huge reason is that they weren't getting a diverse application pool and class:

" The finding [in the Dartmouth study] that I found most provocative when I first read it was the point that testing expands access.[...]
But as an admission officer for the last 30 years, it’s been striking to see the differences between different high schools and the way education in the United States is not equal as you move from town to town, never mind state to state. So we’re looking at testing as a reflection of that K-12 disequilibrium. We’re not saying it’s not capturing it, but contextually we’re able to say, “What does this score tell us about the place where it was generated, the neighborhood where the student is?” How do we use them to meet you where you are? As you move across this country, this heterogeneous landscape, it starts to mitigate some of the critique that testing favors the wealthy. It does, but only if you define high and low scores in a strict spectrum. In some places, a 1700 is not high; in some places, it’s lower than the norm. And in other places, it’s remarkably high. And that’s also true for 1200: there are places where that 1200 is unheard-of and others where that 1200 would be at the end of the data distribution."

So sorry...your 1600 DC kid may likely still get beat out by a 1300 kid in bumplepoop nowhere.
Them's the breaks, my friend.

A kid with a 1200 should not be going to an IVY at all. That’s an embarrassingly low test score for these institutions. They are frankly not smart enough to attend unless they study an easy major.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Indeed.

Some posters on here were very confident that Yale and Brown and Dartmouth resuming testing requirements were the exceptions.

Pretty clear by now that test optional admits had not very good outcomes.

😅😅😅😆 painfully clear

Yeahm but again, not for the reasons you want to believe. Take Dartmouth for example: "Yes. For the Classes of 2025, ’26 and ’27, we were optional, and the language for everybody was “Access to testing remains uneven, so include testing or not as your situation allows.” And what started to happen in the third year is we started hearing from [high] school counselors that most of the students in their class had access to testing again, but now the question had shifted to, “Should I or should I not include my scores?” Which for us was never really the point of the pause. That was a public health stance, not a critique of testing."

Oh and newsflash...a huge reason is that they weren't getting a diverse application pool and class:

" The finding [in the Dartmouth study] that I found most provocative when I first read it was the point that testing expands access.[...]
But as an admission officer for the last 30 years, it’s been striking to see the differences between different high schools and the way education in the United States is not equal as you move from town to town, never mind state to state. So we’re looking at testing as a reflection of that K-12 disequilibrium. We’re not saying it’s not capturing it, but contextually we’re able to say, “What does this score tell us about the place where it was generated, the neighborhood where the student is?” How do we use them to meet you where you are? As you move across this country, this heterogeneous landscape, it starts to mitigate some of the critique that testing favors the wealthy. It does, but only if you define high and low scores in a strict spectrum. In some places, a 1700 is not high; in some places, it’s lower than the norm. And in other places, it’s remarkably high. And that’s also true for 1200: there are places where that 1200 is unheard-of and others where that 1200 would be at the end of the data distribution."

So sorry...your 1600 DC kid may likely still get beat out by a 1300 kid in bumplepoop nowhere.
Them's the breaks, my friend.

A kid with a 1200 should not be going to an IVY at all. That’s an embarrassingly low test score for these institutions. They are frankly not smart enough to attend unless they study an easy major.

Did you read anything inthe post? Are you incapable of understanding why students from different areas, different backgrounds, different oppotunities score wildly differently on these tests? If you yourself went to an Ivy, then would say they are sorely in need of changing. Honestly, you are obtuse and not intelligent. No intelligent, Ivy educated person would make such a stupid post in response to the PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What’s really frustrating is my black kid has top stats and AA is gone and people will STILL assume there’s some URM hook that got him in to a top college. Nothing is enough for you people.

AA is not gone entirely, personal diversity statements are still a thing. It has definitely been diminished, but colleges can still give diversity a boost in the admissions process using methods that don’t involve check the box AA. Some people are just prejudiced. There were so many racist people that said Ketanji Brown was a DEI hire, which is just ridiculous. She was in the top 25% of her class for undergrad and top half of her class in law school (at Harvard). So she is qualified, it’s not like she barely finished law school. I think Biden to some extent is diminishing her accomplishments by saying he was going to pick a Black Women for SCOTUS. She is highly qualified for this job and he could have picked her without explicitly stating that this was a selection criteria. Unfortunately, some people have a hard time accepting that someone else might be smarter than them, especially if they look different.