s/o this brutal admissions year

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one has yet to explain how prepping for a test is different than studying for a test. Lots of free resources available for test prep. Ok

No one wants to acknowledge this. The "anti-SAT" crowd wants any semblance of standardized measurement of ability removed so we can no longer call the admitted crowd "not qualified". See what's happening at a lot of colleges this year. Most admissions offices are filled with left-leaning, SLAC-bred AOs. They are having a field day capitalizing on the "test optional" situation to bring on kids who fit their model of "preferred ability" over kids with actual ability over without impacting their US News rankings game. If all those admits were to take the SAT, we will know where they will land.

Will these admits survive the "rigors" of college. Of course they will.. dumba** athletes and legacy admits have been doing that for years.

The "my privilege gave my kids a high SAT score so they must be smart" crowd doesn't want to acknowledge the ONLY thing an SAT can tell you on an aggregate basis is how wealthy a kid's family is.

I get that you love the notion of being born on third base and claiming that you reached home plate by pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, but your failure to acknowledge or understand mountains of academic research makes you seem not to have much "actual ability" -- at least as far as evidence based policymaking goes.

You seem to be selectively ignoring that this thread has been about kids who also have excellent grades and have taking rigorous courses . So by your logic, neither grades nor test scores matter, and admissions staffs just have incredible prognosticating abilities.

What an odd, nonsensical take. I'm the PP you are responding to. I've made the point several times in this thread that high school GPA is a better predictor of college success than SAT scores and is far less correlated to SES. So, colleges -- who are familiar with this research -- are rightly ditching SAT scores and focusing on grades.

With that in mind, do you want to try again?

[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.

Yes, college GPA is strongly correlated to a kid's SES. But -- high school GPA is a good predictor of college GPA and is much less strongly correlated to SES than SAT scores .

In other words, there are a significant number of low income students who do worse on SATs, have high GPAs and go on to do well in college. Also, high school students who have low GPAs but high SATs tend to have low college GPAs.

So, when

1. you have two measures, one strongly correlated to SES (SAT) and one less so (GPA),
2. both are predictive of college GPA
3. the one that's less correlated to SES (GPA) is also (according to some research) a slightly better predictor of college success, and
4. you nevertheless choose to use the measure more highly correlated to SES (SAT),

that's systemic racism/classism.

No one is arguing that schools only look at SAT.

So... using the racist/classist measure is cool because a non-classist/racist measure is also used. That's your argument?

[Anonymous]

I don’t know why people are accepting at face value that sat scores are inextricably tied to ses not predictive of college gpa (as compared to Gpa.) the fact is both some variance in sat scores can be explained by ses differences but colleges are well aware of the (limited) extent to which that’s true . It’s not lIke some 1:1 relationship or remotely close. Furthermore sat scores ARE reasonably good predictors of college gpa, particularly when paired with hs gpa (as they are in applications.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know why people are accepting at face value that sat scores are inextricably tied to ses not predictive of college gpa (as compared to Gpa.) the fact is both some variance in sat scores can be explained by ses differences but colleges are well aware of the (limited) extent to which that’s true . It’s not lIke some 1:1 relationship or remotely close. Furthermore sat scores ARE reasonably good predictors of college gpa, particularly when paired with hs gpa (as they are in applications.)

I’m not accepting anything and am aware of similar research concerning a high correlation between high isee scores and high school grades. However, the poster arguing against the SAT is impervious to logic and incredibly condescending and snide, and I’ve no desire to engage further with them.

[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.

Yes, college GPA is strongly correlated to a kid's SES. But -- high school GPA is a good predictor of college GPA and is much less strongly correlated to SES than SAT scores .

In other words, there are a significant number of low income students who do worse on SATs, have high GPAs and go on to do well in college. Also, high school students who have low GPAs but high SATs tend to have low college GPAs.

So, when

1. you have two measures, one strongly correlated to SES (SAT) and one less so (GPA),
2. both are predictive of college GPA
3. the one that's less correlated to SES (GPA) is also (according to some research) a slightly better predictor of college success, and
4. you nevertheless choose to use the measure more highly correlated to SES (SAT),

that's systemic racism/classism.

No one is arguing that schools only look at SAT.

So... using the racist/classist measure is cool because a non-classist/racist measure is also used. That's your argument?

If something doesn't fit your narrative, it's racist/classist. Gotcha! Great way to shut people down in public. Not here though..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one has yet to explain how prepping for a test is different than studying for a test. Lots of free resources available for test prep. Ok

No one wants to acknowledge this. The "anti-SAT" crowd wants any semblance of standardized measurement of ability removed so we can no longer call the admitted crowd "not qualified". See what's happening at a lot of colleges this year. Most admissions offices are filled with left-leaning, SLAC-bred AOs. They are having a field day capitalizing on the "test optional" situation to bring on kids who fit their model of "preferred ability" over kids with actual ability over without impacting their US News rankings game. If all those admits were to take the SAT, we will know where they will land.

Will these admits survive the "rigors" of college. Of course they will.. dumba** athletes and legacy admits have been doing that for years.

The "my privilege gave my kids a high SAT score so they must be smart" crowd doesn't want to acknowledge the ONLY thing an SAT can tell you on an aggregate basis is how wealthy a kid's family is.

I get that you love the notion of being born on third base and claiming that you reached home plate by pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, but your failure to acknowledge or understand mountains of academic research makes you seem not to have much "actual ability" -- at least as far as evidence based policymaking goes.

Keep saying that.. See the other PP that pointed out the high GPAs as well.

Try this.. teach your kids how to crack a book open and how to read. There's a whole new world out there once you figure that out. Not everyone with high SAT/high GPA was "born on third base".

Hmm... clearly data and evidence are not your stong suit. The point is not that "everyone with a high GPA was born on third base." The point is that "way more people with a high GPA were born on third base."

When talking about how to best make policy for the most people, you have to look at agregate data and at research, not "what the other PP pointed out" or your personal biases. If you crack a book open and learn how to read research, you find a whole new world beyond annecdotes and your self-interested biases.

Where should I sign up for "Statistical research from anonymous woke DCUM loser" ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a kid at Columbia. Incredibly driven and hardworking + intense kid, was born that way. My other kids are more laid back. He got in on his own merit + luck. No legacy, sports or first gen\minority status. I sometimes wonder if Ivys are worth it. Workload at Columbia is so overwhelming. He is doing fine and likes it but also seems incredibly stressed out. I wish he could have more fun. Life is short. There is a psychological cost to attending top schools that people seem to overlook. HS was incredibly stressful for him too because he had such self-imposed high standards for himself. I keep reminding him that we don’t care about his grades, just that he is happy and healthy.

Hello : I went to Columbia years ago. Your kid sounds like me from decades back driven, intellectually curious, optimistic and seizing every opportunity with both hands to develop myself and to share with others. Even though I graduated from the College years ago, hardly a day goes by when I am not immensely grateful to my education and teachers at Columbia, to the core courses, the ability to take apart books and articles with analytical thinking and then to reconstruct these texts; and the exceptional opportunities NYC offered to supplement my college education. Going to Columbia was one of the greatest blessings in my life and furthered my skills to think through things carefully in my own head while enjoying the process. When one breaks down the cost against 40 plus years of benefits from the training applied in the workforce and maybe 60 plus years for personal derived satisfaction from the training, the financial costs start to look like a bargain. Even at today's tuition costs, given the opportunity, i would have fought tooth and nail to try to study there, and console myself that the tuition when divided by 60 years into the future is not so high.

May your child squeeze every wonderful opportunity during his/her college years campus, in Morningside heights and with friends when visiting special places in NYC, all the more reason because once graduation happens, college is gone and you just have the training, friendships and memories to mine for the rest of one's life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has it made anyone else reconsider how their teen is approaching high school and academics?

If busting your ass studying to get a 4.0 and > 1500 SAT isn't enough to get you into T30 (T50??) schools anymore, are you going to encourage your child to relax more, take it easy, and enjoy the social aspects of high school more? Still take it seriously but not AS seriously as maybe kids in the past did. Are you going to do what you can to take the pressure off, I guess I am asking.

I've been reading all the threads on here about disappointed kids and I get it. I remember what that was like but, twenty years ago, we were rewarded for that hard work by getting into top colleges. That seems to not be happening anymore. And from my experience in the workforce, I see that you can go to a lot of different schools and still end up in the same desirable place. I work with a guy who went to Harvard and a guy who went to a tiny no name school in upstate NY. They make the same money.

Just food for thought. Curious about what other high school parents think.

I think what parents do not realize is that it is extremely obvious if a kid is told what to take and also what to do - colleges want kids who can think for themselves. Tiger parents (for lack of a better term) don't generally admit they are tiger parents, but it shows crystal clear in applications.

[Anonymous]

If a kid is read to and exposed to learning from the time they are born, and their talents nurtured, then they can get good grades (even if not 4.0) and score well in APs and SATs. It is all about consistent learning throughout K-12, so that you are not stressed out in high school.

[Anonymous]

My kid will go to state flagship. This does not mean that their academic and EC record will not be of someone that gets into Ivies.

[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?

NP here. I don't value sports admits or legacy admits. Many people don't and I'd just assume they both go away or they add slots to compensate for those admits.

Giving a wider range of kids . . . I don't know. I WAS the kid that was from a poor upbringing in the midwest, grandparents were immigrants, first gen to go to college. I didn't get any special privileges for that. I did the "checklist" of things to prepare and make my case for admission (and it was a low tiered, nothing big state U that most would look down on here).

So, I ended up going to law school and now do well (but far from the "well off" crowd in DC as I chose not to go BigLaw despite having the resume to do it). My offspring, now, have way more advantages than I did. And are doing well against any metric you choose: grades, athletes, club, community service, is a good test-taker. So that should be valued less? Because I worked to get into a better place than I was born into? I'm sorry, but I don't support that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If a kid is read to and exposed to learning from the time they are born, and their talents nurtured, then they can get good grades (even if not 4.0) and score well in APs and SATs. It is all about consistent learning throughout K-12, so that you are not stressed out in high school.

Your oversimplified formula makes no mention of the ~14% of kids who have learning disabilities. So, don't presume why some kids find themselves in academic trouble.

Not everyone is given the same tools (or brains) to work with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has it made anyone else reconsider how their teen is approaching high school and academics?

If busting your ass studying to get a 4.0 and > 1500 SAT isn't enough to get you into T30 (T50??) schools anymore, are you going to encourage your child to relax more, take it easy, and enjoy the social aspects of high school more? Still take it seriously but not AS seriously as maybe kids in the past did. Are you going to do what you can to take the pressure off, I guess I am asking.

I've been reading all the threads on here about disappointed kids and I get it. I remember what that was like but, twenty years ago, we were rewarded for that hard work by getting into top colleges. That seems to not be happening anymore. And from my experience in the workforce, I see that you can go to a lot of different schools and still end up in the same desirable place. I work with a guy who went to Harvard and a guy who went to a tiny no name school in upstate NY. They make the same money.

Just food for thought. Curious about what other high school parents think.

I think what parents do not realize is that it is extremely obvious if a kid is told what to take and also what to do - colleges want kids who can think for themselves. Tiger parents (for lack of a better term) don't generally admit they are tiger parents, but it shows crystal clear in applications.

High achieving kids are well...high achieving, they are not busting their ass. For some it all just comes easy, that is why they are high achieving. Some kids just have it and in global competition for the best schools the cream rises, sorry your kid didn't live up to your unrealistic expectations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kid will go to state flagship. This does not mean that their academic and EC record will not be of someone that gets into Ivies.

Writing bad yours is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid will go to state flagship. This does not mean that their academic and EC record will not be of someone that gets into Ivies.

Writing bad yours is.

ESL is a thing...liberal racist you are.