Noted. |
I think maybe 10 highly selective schools don’t want a zillion apps. The brands that kids like to take flyers on. Very small group. And this risk of “kids who can’t do the work” is such a spurious argument. First off, even when some schools produce data saying TO kids don’t perform as well, they are usually a few tenths of GPA points lower. Not flunking out. Second, if a school was committed to TO and spent the time reviewing admissions result. How kids performed over time, and perfecting TO practices they could totally do it. Bowdoin doesn’t seem to have a problem with retention/graduation rates. These are just straw man arguments from people who think test scores should pretty much be outcome determinative. |
Right? Like, have people who get panic attacks tried just not getting them? So dumb. |
Wait so 56% of Amherst's class is either FGLI or recruited athlete?? This just confirms it's absolutely pointless to apply ED to any of the top LACs. Nearly all the spots are taken by recruit athlete/FGLI. Also, I think it builds a lot of divisions in the student population: social class and sports teams. |
|
The main problem with TO is that it discouraged applicants from less-advantaged backgrounds from submitting test scores that would have provided an additional positive signal of their academic abilities. So many FGLI URM kids apply with TO ending up having much reduced chance of admission. Test required allows FGLI URM kids submit their 1400 score, which, opposite to many kids thought, it's a great score in their context, even for WASP.
By staying TO, rich kids with resources benefit the most, they often seek out undersubscribed majors and doign fancy ECs to impress the AOs. They do not deserve the seats as much as the FGLI URM kids, but under TO, AOs have no choice but admitting rich kids. |
agree, but also agree that includes Williams and Amherst also, the data seems mixed. Bowdoin found one thing. Dartmouth found another. MIT found another. |
plenty of athletes are FGLI. plenty are rich, but just saying you can't add those number together. you see this on every team. |
That was not our impression after visiting Amherst. Most of those sports require considerable resources in HS to get to a level of D3 recruitment. I'm sure there is some overlap, just don't think a whole lot. |
Williams will not be losing their rankings #1 among LACs regardless if their standardized tests go down a smidge. They are far ahead of the pack and have been consistently for years. However, if they do move back to test required the other top LACs will follow their lead. |
All of that is correct. Plus there is the issue of geographic diversity (40+ states, a number of countries represented in the class). Very few spots left for unhooked kids. The one kid I know who got in ED had perfect stats. |
There's plenty of FGLI who are athletes on D1 teams with full rides, less so at LACs which are generally D3 schools where it's majority comprised of privileged kids. |
Yes, this. |
+1 |
Well, PPs above believe TO only benefits applicants that are institutional priorities (URM, FGLI, Athletes, etc) and that if you are a ORM or Majority upper middle/upper class student then you must submit test scores. Which one is it? I think you’re both wrong. (Kids don’t apply to LACs by major, btw) I think the main way that privileged kids disproportionately get into SLACs is through athletics. To reach the level of a recruitable athlete in the NESCAC, for example, takes a significant financial commitment. But even those kids have to submit a score in prereads and meet a certain threshold or they will not pass, TO or not. Moreover, most of not all of the top 20ish SLACs participate in Questbridge and admit many students from “less-advantaged “ backgrounds. Plenty of pathways for kids whi didn’t “found” their own non profits. |
I will give you a high low of only 10% of recruited athletes first gen. Regardless, because there is athlete attrition every year, the recruited freshman class has to be higher than the overall athlete percentage. |