s/o this brutal admissions year

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this the thread where everyone thinks college admissions officers are imbeciles who can't build a class without a data point from a commercial entity they don't control or have influence over? That without that score they just pick applicants out of a hat and sit around drooling the rest of the time?

To be clear: most colleges appreciate the value of the score data point, but it is not essential for them to build their class and never has been. Only the undue influence of the USN rankings has over-inflated its impact.

The SAT hasn’t been required for the past half century or so because of US News.

There is obvious value to a standardized test that everyone takes given extreme differentials between school rigor and grading policies. Arguing it isn’t helpful is intellectually lazy and not at all compelling.

Being unaware of the extensive research showing that SATs are far more predictive of a kids economic background than future college success is intellectually lazy and not at all compelling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SAT hasn’t been required for the past half century or so because of US News.

There is obvious value to a standardized test that everyone takes given extreme differentials between school rigor and grading policies. Arguing it isn’t helpful is intellectually lazy and not at all compelling.

This is misinformation. Those scores are substantive contributors to the rankings, which is why colleges are so concerned about their 75-25 percentiles.

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/how-us-news-calculated-the-rankings#

My point was that the SAT existed long before USNews and was developed to provided a standardized data point. Much as magnet schools use entrance exams and private schools use the isee or similar.

You could argue persuasively that other data points also have compelling reasons to be given weight, but trying to argue that standardized tests provide no useful data is a losing argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this the thread where everyone thinks college admissions officers are imbeciles who can't build a class without a data point from a commercial entity they don't control or have influence over? That without that score they just pick applicants out of a hat and sit around drooling the rest of the time?

To be clear: most colleges appreciate the value of the score data point, but it is not essential for them to build their class and never has been. Only the undue influence of the USN rankings has over-inflated its impact.

The SAT hasn’t been required for the past half century or so because of US News.

There is obvious value to a standardized test that everyone takes given extreme differentials between school rigor and grading policies. Arguing it isn’t helpful is intellectually lazy and not at all compelling.

Being unaware of the extensive research showing that SATs are far more predictive of a kids economic background than future college success is intellectually lazy and not at all compelling.

A kid’s economic background is probably also the most predictive factor of success in college. We are now considering other factors because we want a more diverse student mix of students at top schools, not because we think they will perform better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this the thread where everyone thinks college admissions officers are imbeciles who can't build a class without a data point from a commercial entity they don't control or have influence over? That without that score they just pick applicants out of a hat and sit around drooling the rest of the time?

To be clear: most colleges appreciate the value of the score data point, but it is not essential for them to build their class and never has been. Only the undue influence of the USN rankings has over-inflated its impact.

The SAT hasn’t been required for the past half century or so because of US News.

There is obvious value to a standardized test that everyone takes given extreme differentials between school rigor and grading policies. Arguing it isn’t helpful is intellectually lazy and not at all compelling.

Being unaware of the extensive research showing that SATs are far more predictive of a kids economic background than future college success is intellectually lazy and not at all compelling.

As is assuming that, just because it may track economic background it is not predictive of college success.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this the thread where everyone thinks college admissions officers are imbeciles who can't build a class without a data point from a commercial entity they don't control or have influence over? That without that score they just pick applicants out of a hat and sit around drooling the rest of the time?

To be clear: most colleges appreciate the value of the score data point, but it is not essential for them to build their class and never has been. Only the undue influence of the USN rankings has over-inflated its impact.

The SAT hasn’t been required for the past half century or so because of US News.

There is obvious value to a standardized test that everyone takes given extreme differentials between school rigor and grading policies. Arguing it isn’t helpful is intellectually lazy and not at all compelling.

Being unaware of the extensive research showing that SATs are far more predictive of a kids economic background than future college success is intellectually lazy and not at all compelling.

A kid’s economic background is probably also the most predictive factor of success in college. We are now considering other factors because we want a more diverse student mix of students at top schools, not because we think they will perform better.

Who are the "we"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don’t actually believe that having gone to two top ten colleges. Plenty of kids who struggled academically once admitted.

Your anecdote is actually misinformation. Graduation rates:

Yale University (97.5%)
Princeton University (97.3%)
Harvard University (96.4%)
Dartmouth College (95.9%)
Harvey Mudd College (95.9%)
University of Pennsylvania (95.7%)
Duke University (95.4%)
Bowdoin College (95.2%)
University of Notre (95.2%)
Amherst College (95.2%)

A breakdown of just the ivies:

https://www.univstats.com/comparison/ivy-league/graduation-rate/#

Nearly all graduate. So the adcoms must be doing something right.

Anonymous wrote:I also believe in a meritocracy, you don’t.

Now this is funny. And untrue.

The difference is what defines "merit". I don't define what "merit" is for Harvard or Yale. I think they get to do that. You think you do. That is the ONLY difference between our philosophies.

I see the value in giving a wider range of kids access to the top schools, but that makes it less of a meritocracy, as legacies as sports admits make it less of a meritocracy. See how that works?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this the thread where everyone thinks college admissions officers are imbeciles who can't build a class without a data point from a commercial entity they don't control or have influence over? That without that score they just pick applicants out of a hat and sit around drooling the rest of the time?

To be clear: most colleges appreciate the value of the score data point, but it is not essential for them to build their class and never has been. Only the undue influence of the USN rankings has over-inflated its impact.

The SAT hasn’t been required for the past half century or so because of US News.

There is obvious value to a standardized test that everyone takes given extreme differentials between school rigor and grading policies. Arguing it isn’t helpful is intellectually lazy and not at all compelling.

Being unaware of the extensive research showing that SATs are far more predictive of a kids economic background than future college success is intellectually lazy and not at all compelling.

A kid’s economic background is probably also the most predictive factor of success in college. We are now considering other factors because we want a more diverse student mix of students at top schools, not because we think they will perform better.

Who are the "we"?

Society as a whole

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this the thread where everyone thinks college admissions officers are imbeciles who can't build a class without a data point from a commercial entity they don't control or have influence over? That without that score they just pick applicants out of a hat and sit around drooling the rest of the time?

To be clear: most colleges appreciate the value of the score data point, but it is not essential for them to build their class and never has been. Only the undue influence of the USN rankings has over-inflated its impact.

The SAT hasn’t been required for the past half century or so because of US News.

There is obvious value to a standardized test that everyone takes given extreme differentials between school rigor and grading policies. Arguing it isn’t helpful is intellectually lazy and not at all compelling.

Being unaware of the extensive research showing that SATs are far more predictive of a kids economic background than future college success is intellectually lazy and not at all compelling.

A kid’s economic background is probably also the most predictive factor of success in college. We are now considering other factors because we want a more diverse student mix of students at top schools, not because we think they will perform better.

Who are the "we"?

Society as a whole

No, you do not represent me

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this the thread where everyone thinks college admissions officers are imbeciles who can't build a class without a data point from a commercial entity they don't control or have influence over? That without that score they just pick applicants out of a hat and sit around drooling the rest of the time?

To be clear: most colleges appreciate the value of the score data point, but it is not essential for them to build their class and never has been. Only the undue influence of the USN rankings has over-inflated its impact.

The SAT hasn’t been required for the past half century or so because of US News.

There is obvious value to a standardized test that everyone takes given extreme differentials between school rigor and grading policies. Arguing it isn’t helpful is intellectually lazy and not at all compelling.

Being unaware of the extensive research showing that SATs are far more predictive of a kids economic background than future college success is intellectually lazy and not at all compelling.

A kid’s economic background is probably also the most predictive factor of success in college. We are now considering other factors because we want a more diverse student mix of students at top schools, not because we think they will perform better.

Who are the "we"?

Society as a whole

No, you do not represent me

Regardless of your personal opinion, the prevailing point of view is that the opportunity provided by elite universities should be given to a more economically and racially diverse group than in decades past. Hence the move to a holistic approach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this the thread where everyone thinks college admissions officers are imbeciles who can't build a class without a data point from a commercial entity they don't control or have influence over? That without that score they just pick applicants out of a hat and sit around drooling the rest of the time?

To be clear: most colleges appreciate the value of the score data point, but it is not essential for them to build their class and never has been. Only the undue influence of the USN rankings has over-inflated its impact.

The SAT hasn’t been required for the past half century or so because of US News.

There is obvious value to a standardized test that everyone takes given extreme differentials between school rigor and grading policies. Arguing it isn’t helpful is intellectually lazy and not at all compelling.

Being unaware of the extensive research showing that SATs are far more predictive of a kids economic background than future college success is intellectually lazy and not at all compelling.

A kid’s economic background is probably also the most predictive factor of success in college. We are now considering other factors because we want a more diverse student mix of students at top schools, not because we think they will perform better.

Who are the "we"?

Society as a whole

No, you do not represent me

Regardless of your personal opinion, the prevailing point of view is that the opportunity provided by elite universities should be given to a more economically and racially diverse group than in decades past. Hence the move to a holistic approach.

OK, it is from liberal universities. But do not say it is the society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don’t actually believe that having gone to two top ten colleges. Plenty of kids who struggled academically once admitted.

Your anecdote is actually misinformation. Graduation rates:

Yale University (97.5%)
Princeton University (97.3%)
Harvard University (96.4%)
Dartmouth College (95.9%)
Harvey Mudd College (95.9%)
University of Pennsylvania (95.7%)
Duke University (95.4%)
Bowdoin College (95.2%)
University of Notre (95.2%)
Amherst College (95.2%)

A breakdown of just the ivies:

https://www.univstats.com/comparison/ivy-league/graduation-rate/#

Nearly all graduate. So the adcoms must be doing something right.

Anonymous wrote:I also believe in a meritocracy, you don’t.

Now this is funny. And untrue.

The difference is what defines "merit". I don't define what "merit" is for Harvard or Yale. I think they get to do that. You think you do. That is the ONLY difference between our philosophies.

I see the value in giving a wider range of kids access to the top schools, but that makes it less of a meritocracy, as legacies as sports admits make it less of a meritocracy. See how that works?

No, I really don't.

Because the school gets to decide what is meritorious, and if they include athletic ability in their metric, that is their decision.

Just like hiring. You don't ask for transcripts of recent college grads and then hire them by GPA. You look at that and then decide who fits best and has the most to offer your organization.

[Anonymous]

Just like hiring. You don't ask for transcripts of recent college grads and then hire them by GPA. You look at that and then decide who fits best and has the most to offer your organization.

Yup, exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Just like hiring. You don't ask for transcripts of recent college grads and then hire them by GPA. You look at that and then decide who fits best and has the most to offer your organization.

Yup, exactly.

Well, if your a lawyer or a doctor, you do have to pass the bar or boards first.


Anyhow, this argument has gotten turned on its head. I suspect that colleges will still use SAT scores to distinguish among groups of students who don’t fall into certain in demand categories (i.e. first Gen, compelling life story, urm).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know three students who got into major reaches this year for what one would expect for them--test optional really helped some kids and I guess hurt the high performing students.

+1

You should have seen the acceptance lists from 2020! Many kids were accepted to colleges to which they would have never been accepted, in a million years - due solely to deferrals.

I’m wondering how on earth you could possibly know this. Sour grapes, perhaps?
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know three students who got into major reaches this year for what one would expect for them--test optional really helped some kids and I guess hurt the high performing students.

+1

You should have seen the acceptance lists from 2020! Many kids were accepted to colleges to which they would have never been accepted, in a million years - due solely to deferrals.

I’m wondering how on earth you could possibly know this. Sour grapes, perhaps?
DP

They don't know this, and yes probably sour grapes.