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: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

Was an interesting read but that isn’t really what the paper said. Also, check out the figure for hooked vs unhooked. Caucasian and Asian are basically the same for unhooked. What the paper really says is don’t apply from CA as their are way too many CA applicants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

+1. And there’s nothing stopping a non-Asian kid from prepping. In fact many of them do, despite the PP’s ignorant stereotype. Let the prizes go to the kids who work the hardest. Sorry you don’t believe in meritocracy-not everything is going to be given to your kid in life if they’re not performing.

[Anonymous]

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.

as opposed to a class of kids who need remedial math at harvard

Who cares? You’re not at Harvard. Your kid isn’t at Harvard. Why do you care?

NP. As someone who hires college graduates, I care because it is clear that acceptance to Harvard is no longer confers the status it once did. Harvard graduates *should* care, as they watch the value of their degree erode away.

[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.

Not if fielding competitive athletic teams is an institutional priority. Which is very much an institutional priority for the Ivies and NESCAC schools. They are private institutions, what matters is their priorities, not your opinion.

[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.

Why are you assuming that it's the rich kid who needs to take it 3+ times with private tutoring and the poor kid who took it in one sitting without any prep? Innately smart kids exist from both high and low income. I'd definitely be more impressed by the first-sitting high score with no prep, regardless of the background, but there is really no way for colleges to tell the difference on an application. I know plenty of motivated and hard working fgli kids who self-study diligently until they can get 1500+. Sure they didn't benefit from private tutors because their families couldn't afford it, but the mechanics of improving your score is the same. The resources, tips, strategies are all online for free these days for those who want to make use of it. There is no "magic secret formula" that only test prep companies know. Plus, no amount of tutoring or self-study is going to bring some kids up to a very high score. For those who are capable of a high score with preparation, it then mostly depends on motivation and focus.

”really no way”… because… there’s no such thing as a zip code or kid’s HS on their application?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He is wrong. the SAT and GPA are totally inflated from a couple of decades ago so just on the numbers, there are roughly 40,000 test takers scoring 34+/1500+ on the ACT/SAT.

Add to it that schools need enough students for the different majors and departments, so they aren't all going to just take top STEM kids or something. They need/want to round out clubs, theater, sports, etc and their admissions are geared accordingly to ensure their campuses are filled with enriching students of varying backgrounds and contributions to their communities.

1500 SAT is different than 1590. One is high, the other - tippity too. Not many get the latter.

[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.

"Might" is doing a lot of work in your argument. My UMC kid just got a 36 ACT. The only prep was a few hours with a $20 Amazon workbook. They are one and done with the test. They will also be a NMSF next year. Again, minimal prep with just a few hours and a workbook. It's inappropriate to assume that any UMC kid had extensive tutoring and multiple attempts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So the rich kid has a family that care and can support him vs the poor one? There are many free sat prep options for the poors so how do you know both didn't get prepped. The word prep is so stupid it's like complaining that kids studied before a test vs free balling it. By this logic no one should do homework or study for anything.

Because why yes---having 40 hours of individual one on one tutoring for the SAT is exactly the same as the kid who has to do Khan academy on their own time, might not have reliable internet, might not have had enough to eat that day, might be worrying about the safety of getting to/from school from their apartment, might have to work 15+ hours per week to help the family pay the bills, etc.
Those two situations are exactly the same (sarcasm font for anyone that impaired)

The difference between 40 hours of individual one on one tutoring vs khan academy on your own in the environment you mentioned is far smaller than the difference between having 40 hours of individual one on one tutoring for the SAT AND a college counselor from 8th grade onwards AND tons professional essay coaching/feedback AND the mentorship of a parent who understands holistic college admissions vs having to do everything on your own in such an environment.

The latter situation is far more unfair to smart, poor students than the former, while benefitting rich, mediocre kids much more than the former.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why are you assuming that it's the rich kid who needs to take it 3+ times with private tutoring and the poor kid who took it in one sitting without any prep? Innately smart kids exist from both high and low income. I'd definitely be more impressed by the first-sitting high score with no prep, regardless of the background, but there is really no way for colleges to tell the difference on an application. I know plenty of motivated and hard working fgli kids who self-study diligently until they can get 1500+. Sure they didn't benefit from private tutors because their families couldn't afford it, but the mechanics of improving your score is the same. The resources, tips, strategies are all online for free these days for those who want to make use of it. There is no "magic secret formula" that only test prep companies know. Plus, no amount of tutoring or self-study is going to bring some kids up to a very high score. For those who are capable of a high score with preparation, it then mostly depends on motivation and focus.

But if you are poor, you often don't have the time to do all of that. Or if you do, it's at the expense of not doing something else. Versus the rich kid who gets the private tutor and bam, they are done with SAT prep in 4-6 hours. And now can focus on other activities, academics, etc. Do you really not see the advantages?

The time required to maximize your SAT score, even as a poor student relying on self study, is an order of magnitude less than the time required to maximize ECs, essays, etc.

A system that prioritizes the former over the latter will benefit poor students without much free time over students with lots of free time for ECs. As a poor student with limited free time, I would much rather spend 100 hours on SAT prep than 500-2000 hours on extracurriculars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why are you assuming that it's the rich kid who needs to take it 3+ times with private tutoring and the poor kid who took it in one sitting without any prep? Innately smart kids exist from both high and low income. I'd definitely be more impressed by the first-sitting high score with no prep, regardless of the background, but there is really no way for colleges to tell the difference on an application. I know plenty of motivated and hard working fgli kids who self-study diligently until they can get 1500+. Sure they didn't benefit from private tutors because their families couldn't afford it, but the mechanics of improving your score is the same. The resources, tips, strategies are all online for free these days for those who want to make use of it. There is no "magic secret formula" that only test prep companies know. Plus, no amount of tutoring or self-study is going to bring some kids up to a very high score. For those who are capable of a high score with preparation, it then mostly depends on motivation and focus.

But if you are poor, you often don't have the time to do all of that. Or if you do, it's at the expense of not doing something else. Versus the rich kid who gets the private tutor and bam, they are done with SAT prep in 4-6 hours. And now can focus on other activities, academics, etc. Do you really not see the advantages?

The time required to maximize your SAT score, even as a poor student relying on self study, is an order of magnitude less than the time required to maximize ECs, essays, etc.

A system that prioritizes the former over the latter will benefit poor students without much free time over students with lots of free time for ECs. As a poor student with limited free time, I would much rather spend 100 hours on SAT prep than 500-2000 hours on extracurriculars.

You need far more than an extra 100 hours if the past 10 years of your education has been substandard.

[Anonymous]

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.

as opposed to a class of kids who need remedial math at harvard

Who cares? You’re not at Harvard. Your kid isn’t at Harvard. Why do you care?

NP. As someone who hires college graduates, I care because it is clear that acceptance to Harvard is no longer confers the status it once did. Harvard graduates *should* care, as they watch the value of their degree erode away.

As someone who hires a lot of college graduates in the most elite areas of tech I can tell you that Harvards status will not erode despite your wishes. Others are rising but the elites aren’t falling at all. That is just a MAGA fever dream. And the top SLACs open doors just as well as anyone, even in the valley.

[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.

as opposed to a class of kids who need remedial math at harvard

Who cares? You’re not at Harvard. Your kid isn’t at Harvard. Why do you care?

NP. As someone who hires college graduates, I care because it is clear that acceptance to Harvard is no longer confers the status it once did. Harvard graduates *should* care, as they watch the value of their degree erode away.

As someone who hires a lot of college graduates in the most elite areas of tech I can tell you that Harvards status will not erode despite your wishes. Others are rising but the elites aren’t falling at all. That is just a MAGA fever dream. And the top SLACs open doors just as well as anyone, even in the valley.

+1. The talent signalling conferred by a Harvard admission remains as bright as ever. Like it or not, the crazy low admission rates is psychologically compelling.

What we are really screening for is patience and the willingness to grind. Some (in my view, a minority but non zero) of these kids have been in the ultra elite spotlight for so much of their life, they expect an expedited career path. Fortunately, these kids are more the exception than rule and our overall hiring track record of alums has been very good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, you have no idea what you are talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I went to read the article thinking I would disagree with it, but I actually agree with it. I definitely prefer holistic admissions to stats only admissions. However, holistic admissions should also take stats into account, and right now the stats system is inflated and dysfunctional, leading to an EC arms race that is even more stressful than a test-prep arms race.

I agree that the stats are sometimes the least reliable part of the package. When the stats are backed up by success outside of the classroom, you can trust the results a bit more.

[Anonymous]

To be fair, graduates with combo of high GPA, 5's on dozen plus AP exams, 1550+ SAT scores aren't that many. Its a shame they have to face same pressures as an average student.