College Admissions Doesn't Need to Be So Competitive: Super High Stat Kids are not "a dime a dozen."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1500 has been the marker for many, many years. I believe it still is. I doubt many, if any, admissions officers care about a 1550 vs a 1540. Or a 1530 vs a 1570. All within the same standard deviation to account for those test takers having a good day vs those having a bad day.

Anyone in the 1500+ bucket gets extra attention paid to their ECs and other achievements.

We have data on this and a 1590 has more than twice the admission rate at top 11 schools as a 1500. It might not be worth the extra effort to get the 1590 but AOs are not indifferent to SAT scores above 1500

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-55119-0

The journal Nature published an article about how college admissions is unfair to Asians ... in 2024? This was obvious in 1994

Oh BS. Asians prep like crazy. It’s the hook that favors their cultural approach. Their parents and grandparents were used to the cram schools and spending 6 hours a day after school cramming. Prepping and cheating for scores only matter admission is common in countries like Korea, India and China. Of course the author wants to get rid of athletic recruits, particularly for sports that aren’t dominated by Asians, legacy and donors as Asian alumni do not give or give far less than other demographics, first generation college and any other aspect that doesn’t favor them.

Getting over 1500 on the SAT is not challenging to a reasonably intelligent kid that has been forced to practice for years until they consistently nail a perfect score on practice tests. It’s not a sign of brilliance, it a sign of obedience to parents that demand a perfect score.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1500 has been the marker for many, many years. I believe it still is. I doubt many, if any, admissions officers care about a 1550 vs a 1540. Or a 1530 vs a 1570. All within the same standard deviation to account for those test takers having a good day vs those having a bad day.

Anyone in the 1500+ bucket gets extra attention paid to their ECs and other achievements.

We have data on this and a 1590 has more than twice the admission rate at top 11 schools as a 1500. It might not be worth the extra effort to get the 1590 but AOs are not indifferent to SAT scores above 1500

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-55119-0

The journal Nature published an article about how college admissions is unfair to Asians ... in 2024? This was obvious in 1994

Oh BS. Asians prep like crazy. It’s the hook that favors their cultural approach. Their parents and grandparents were used to the cram schools and spending 6 hours a day after school cramming. Prepping and cheating for scores only matter admission is common in countries like Korea, India and China. Of course the author wants to get rid of athletic recruits, particularly for sports that aren’t dominated by Asians, legacy and donors as Asian alumni do not give or give far less than other demographics, first generation college and any other aspect that doesn’t favor them.

Getting over 1500 on the SAT is not challenging to a reasonably intelligent kid that has been forced to practice for years until they consistently nail a perfect score on practice tests. It’s not a sign of brilliance, it a sign of obedience to parents that demand a perfect score.

you would have said the same about Jews a century ago when they were the ones getting the short stick

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't being good at basketball or volleyball less nebulous?

Athletics don’t count. Don’t you know all athletes are dumb dumbs? Being a CS superstar is what’ll get you into college. /s

People put down student athletes so much on this forum, but fail to recognize the team building and other soft skills one learns instead of doing math problems all day. One is not better than the other.

It depends on the context.

If you are selecting students for an academic institution then any academic superstar is "better" than an athletic superstar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The College board needs to release raw scores for the AP tests. That way MIT and Cornell can see whether your 5 on Physics EM was a 98% or a 61%.

We throw away a lot of information that could be useful for everyone in the process.

Sure, if the goal is to assemble a class of kids who test well.

Only dishonest or ignorant people say that standardized tests only measures the ability to take standardized tests

Standardized tests are the best measure we have of cognitive ability. It predicts pretty much everything you would want to predict.

Sure.

It's the best test money can buy.

Of course affluence helps. But it's more fair than having people get in because of some far more nebulous criteria.

Like fake testing accommodations?

Those mostly shouldn't exist. The entire point behind standardized testing is that it is standardized.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Holistic admissions may have been rooted in anti-semitism, but not Jews disproportionally benefit. Jewish students are 25-30% of Ivies

Harvard is about 10% Jewish

Are the other ivy much more Jewish than Harvard?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't being good at basketball or volleyball less nebulous?

Athletics don’t count. Don’t you know all athletes are dumb dumbs? Being a CS superstar is what’ll get you into college. /s

People put down student athletes so much on this forum, but fail to recognize the team building and other soft skills one learns instead of doing math problems all day. One is not better than the other.

It depends on the context.

If you are selecting students for an academic institution then any academic superstar is "better" than an athletic superstar.

Colleges aren’t just academic institutions though. They are a community as well, which offers clubs, religious services, dining, and athletic and artistic performances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The College board needs to release raw scores for the AP tests. That way MIT and Cornell can see whether your 5 on Physics EM was a 98% or a 61%.

We throw away a lot of information that could be useful for everyone in the process.

Sure, if the goal is to assemble a class of kids who test well.

Only dishonest or ignorant people say that standardized tests only measures the ability to take standardized tests

Standardized tests are the best measure we have of cognitive ability. It predicts pretty much everything you would want to predict.

Sure.

It's the best test money can buy.

Of course affluence helps. But it's more fair than having people get in because of some far more nebulous criteria.

Like fake testing accommodations?

Those mostly shouldn't exist. The entire point behind standardized testing is that it is standardized.

The accomodations are exactly what make it standardized - you are isolating the problem solving capability without the variable of, for example, the cognitive function delay of ADHD or the visual impairment of a blind person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't being good at basketball or volleyball less nebulous?

Athletics don’t count. Don’t you know all athletes are dumb dumbs? Being a CS superstar is what’ll get you into college. /s

People put down student athletes so much on this forum, but fail to recognize the team building and other soft skills one learns instead of doing math problems all day. One is not better than the other.

It depends on the context.

If you are selecting students for an academic institution then any academic superstar is "better" than an athletic superstar.

Colleges aren’t just academic institutions though. They are a community as well, which offers clubs, religious services, dining, and athletic and artistic performances.

so then it's a hook for someone to have a Michelin star?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work in higher ed, have lived in Asia, and visit universities and high schools in China, Japan, and Vietnam annually. My opinion is that holistic admissions are imperfect, but they are a hell of a lot better than purely grade- and test-centric admissions, which corrupt not only the colleges that rely on them but also the high schools that teach to them.

the EC centered holistic admissions are more likely to confer advantages on the wealthy

The wealthy have an advantage in nearly everything, including testing and grades. We may never have a complete meritocracy, but most AOs are trained to recognize such disparities. So the kid who does a month of volunteering in Palau on his parent's dime may not have an advantage over the kid who spends 20 hours a week at a parttime job or looking after younger siblings.

a students income does not change the correlation between test scores and college performance. A 1550 rich kids in average does as well as a1550 poor kid.

Does it take into account that the 1550 poor kid might be their first and only sitting without any prep, and the 1550 rich kid might have taken it 3+ times with private tutoring?

Yeah. thats what I thought.

I'll try to use smaller words.

A rich kid with a1550 SAT on average does almost exactly as well as a poor kid with a 1550 SAT. If SAT scores were inflated by wealth and suppressed by poverty, you would expect the poor kid to over perform their about and for rich kids to under perform their score.

But that's not what happens, their performance is virtually identical. It's that what you thought?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't being good at basketball or volleyball less nebulous?

Athletics don’t count. Don’t you know all athletes are dumb dumbs? Being a CS superstar is what’ll get you into college. /s

People put down student athletes so much on this forum, but fail to recognize the team building and other soft skills one learns instead of doing math problems all day. One is not better than the other.

It depends on the context.

If you are selecting students for an academic institution then any academic superstar is "better" than an athletic superstar.

Colleges aren’t just academic institutions though. They are a community as well, which offers clubs, religious services, dining, and athletic and artistic performances.

so then it's a hook for someone to have a Michelin star?

Like, he has his own restaurant and earned it? Absolutely!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work in higher ed, have lived in Asia, and visit universities and high schools in China, Japan, and Vietnam annually. My opinion is that holistic admissions are imperfect, but they are a hell of a lot better than purely grade- and test-centric admissions, which corrupt not only the colleges that rely on them but also the high schools that teach to them.

the EC centered holistic admissions are more likely to confer advantages on the wealthy

The wealthy have an advantage in nearly everything, including testing and grades. We may never have a complete meritocracy, but most AOs are trained to recognize such disparities. So the kid who does a month of volunteering in Palau on his parent's dime may not have an advantage over the kid who spends 20 hours a week at a parttime job or looking after younger siblings.

a students income does not change the correlation between test scores and college performance. A 1550 rich kids in average does as well as a1550 poor kid.

Does it take into account that the 1550 poor kid might be their first and only sitting without any prep, and the 1550 rich kid might have taken it 3+ times with private tutoring?

Yeah. thats what I thought.

I'll try to use smaller words.

A rich kid with a1550 SAT on average does almost exactly as well as a poor kid with a 1550 SAT. If SAT scores were inflated by wealth and suppressed by poverty, you would expect the poor kid to over perform their about and for rich kids to under perform their score.

But that's not what happens, their performance is virtually identical. It's that what you thought?

Exactly, what matters for admissions purposes is how well that test is measuring success in college. Unfortunately a lot of variables PP is talking about, whether family/food/financial insecurity etc, is likely to persist in their lives. It’s not like that all disadvantage magically goes away when the student enters the campus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1500 has been the marker for many, many years. I believe it still is. I doubt many, if any, admissions officers care about a 1550 vs a 1540. Or a 1530 vs a 1570. All within the same standard deviation to account for those test takers having a good day vs those having a bad day.

Anyone in the 1500+ bucket gets extra attention paid to their ECs and other achievements.

We have data on this and a 1590 has more than twice the admission rate at top 11 schools as a 1500. It might not be worth the extra effort to get the 1590 but AOs are not indifferent to SAT scores above 1500

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-55119-0

The journal Nature published an article about how college admissions is unfair to Asians ... in 2024? This was obvious in 1994

In doing the study they also presented information on the admission chances by SAT score. The anti Asian discrimination got worse between 1994 and 2014. Then the lawsuit happened and it eased up a bit at some schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1500 has been the marker for many, many years. I believe it still is. I doubt many, if any, admissions officers care about a 1550 vs a 1540. Or a 1530 vs a 1570. All within the same standard deviation to account for those test takers having a good day vs those having a bad day.

Anyone in the 1500+ bucket gets extra attention paid to their ECs and other achievements.

We have data on this and a 1590 has more than twice the admission rate at top 11 schools as a 1500. It might not be worth the extra effort to get the 1590 but AOs are not indifferent to SAT scores above 1500

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-55119-0

The journal Nature published an article about how college admissions is unfair to Asians ... in 2024? This was obvious in 1994

Oh BS. Asians prep like crazy. It’s the hook that favors their cultural approach. Their parents and grandparents were used to the cram schools and spending 6 hours a day after school cramming. Prepping and cheating for scores only matter admission is common in countries like Korea, India and China. Of course the author wants to get rid of athletic recruits, particularly for sports that aren’t dominated by Asians, legacy and donors as Asian alumni do not give or give far less than other demographics, first generation college and any other aspect that doesn’t favor them.

Getting over 1500 on the SAT is not challenging to a reasonably intelligent kid that has been forced to practice for years until they consistently nail a perfect score on practice tests. It’s not a sign of brilliance, it a sign of obedience to parents that demand a perfect score.

A 1500+ is achieved by about 1% of students. Almost 10% of Asians get a 1500+.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The College board needs to release raw scores for the AP tests. That way MIT and Cornell can see whether your 5 on Physics EM was a 98% or a 61%.

We throw away a lot of information that could be useful for everyone in the process.

Sure, if the goal is to assemble a class of kids who test well.

Only dishonest or ignorant people say that standardized tests only measures the ability to take standardized tests

Standardized tests are the best measure we have of cognitive ability. It predicts pretty much everything you would want to predict.

Most AO would rather see smart kids, who rather than spending $$$$$$ and 50+ hours prepping to take the SAT/ACT multiple times, have something they are passionate about and focus their efforts on, something that enriches their lives beyond just "studying for the test".
My own kid raised their score from 1320 to 1520 with 4 hours of individualized test prep (going over a baseline test). Easy to do in a short time period, especially if you can afford the tutor. If not, it might take you 20 hours to do that individually. So yes, my kid is privileged to not need to spend much time getting to their optimum score (and yes, had they spent another 10 hours focused on Verbal they could have gotten even higher)

So nope, SAT is not a predator of cognitive ability. IQ tests are but not SAT/ACT

You have your anecdote.

I have data and studies.

These two things do not compare.

Here is a study that showed that income does not distort the predictive value of SATs on college grades

https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/SAT_ACT_on_Grades.pdf

Show me data points from a study produced by someone other than the wolf guarding the henhouse. This is done by Harvard.

How is Harvard the wild in this case? Anyways it's Harvard and Brown.

Do Harvard and Brown have some vested interest in promoting the notion that testing is the best predictor of college performance?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The College board needs to release raw scores for the AP tests. That way MIT and Cornell can see whether your 5 on Physics EM was a 98% or a 61%.

We throw away a lot of information that could be useful for everyone in the process.

Sure, if the goal is to assemble a class of kids who test well.

Only dishonest or ignorant people say that standardized tests only measures the ability to take standardized tests

Standardized tests are the best measure we have of cognitive ability. It predicts pretty much everything you would want to predict.

Sure.

It's the best test money can buy.

Of course affluence helps. But it's more fair than having people get in because of some far more nebulous criteria.

Like fake testing accommodations?

Those mostly shouldn't exist. The entire point behind standardized testing is that it is standardized.

The accomodations are exactly what make it standardized - you are isolating the problem solving capability without the variable of, for example, the cognitive function delay of ADHD or the visual impairment of a blind person.

The blind person, sure. ADHD? ROFLMAO. You WANT to capture that differential.