Dartmouth Announces Test Scores Required Starting Next Year

[Anonymous]

[mastodon]p

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Friends who read these essays for a living tell me they definitely can tell.

really? How can they tell?

I don't know. I have two friends who read essays (one Ivy and one public Ivy), and they assure me they can detect the essays written (in whole or part) by admissions consultants or parents.

they can't tell fake passion projects from real ones, even when it's quite clear to the rest of us. so not so sure about essays

Silly to think they can tell when they don’t know the particular kid. My child can write better than most AO out there. They will likely think she is an adult by your assessment. Another reason to think many of them aren’t very bright.

And they are the gatekeepers for the schools your DD applies to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. There may not be much difference between at 1500 and a 1600, but a 1200 does speak to the ability of a kid with a great GPA to succeed in a competitive college environment

There is no reason a college environment should be competitive.

Did you read the article? It's saying the opposite. Dartmouth wants to find people with SAT scores below 1400, and they were frustrated that their target audience wasn't taking the SAT.

That’s not what the charts show. They correlate non-reporters with a test level of 1400. And the “crossover point” on admission advantage was 1400. Implying that there were less advantaged students with 1400s who didn’t submit, but would have been admitted if they had. They’re saying they’d take a less advantaged student with a 1400 over an advantaged student with a 1600.

Do you think non reporters would have scores all exactly 1400, or a range of scores above and below, or nearly all above, or nearly al below?

And do you think those scores, if known, would have the same or different correlation to GPA as the reporters?

I can’t copy and paste text for some reason, but pp. 5-7 explains how they identified 1,000+ less advantaged applicants who scored 1400 or more who didn’t submit scores and were not admitted, and submitting scores would have improved their chances of admission.

The report isn’t long and is worth a read.

https://home.dartmouth.edu/sites/home/files/2024-02/sat-undergrad-admissions.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. There may not be much difference between at 1500 and a 1600, but a 1200 does speak to the ability of a kid with a great GPA to succeed in a competitive college environment

There is no reason a college environment should be competitive.

Did you read the article? It's saying the opposite. Dartmouth wants to find people with SAT scores below 1400, and they were frustrated that their target audience wasn't taking the SAT.

oh yea, so 2.5 GPA should be fine

1350 SAT is 90TH percentile. So in reality, not that far from a 1500. The differences are small.
Especially if that 1350 is from a kid in a disadvantaged area, in a HS where only 25% of kids even go to college and the kid only had 3-4 AP courses offered (or none at all). This kid likely took the SAT once, and with minimal prep. So that shows the kid has what it takes to succeed at Dartmouth, if they also have a high gpa.
That is what they are searching for.

BTW, 2.5 GPA is less than 50th percentile, so no, it "won't be fine". But you knew that

You bring up two other good points...get rid of super-scoring and limit kids to taking the SAT only 2x.

And identify extended time tests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. There may not be much difference between at 1500 and a 1600, but a 1200 does speak to the ability of a kid with a great GPA to succeed in a competitive college environment

There is no reason a college environment should be competitive.

Did you read the article? It's saying the opposite. Dartmouth wants to find people with SAT scores below 1400, and they were frustrated that their target audience wasn't taking the SAT.

oh yea, so 2.5 GPA should be fine

1350 SAT is 90TH percentile. So in reality, not that far from a 1500. The differences are small.
Especially if that 1350 is from a kid in a disadvantaged area, in a HS where only 25% of kids even go to college and the kid only had 3-4 AP courses offered (or none at all). This kid likely took the SAT once, and with minimal prep. So that shows the kid has what it takes to succeed at Dartmouth, if they also have a high gpa.
That is what they are searching for.

BTW, 2.5 GPA is less than 50th percentile, so no, it "won't be fine". But you knew that

You bring up two other good points...get rid of super-scoring and limit kids to taking the SAT only 2x.

And identify extended time tests.

Yes…and either eliminate or give it to everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A huge blow to the DEI crowd.

And with legacy beginning to be pulled as well at many colleges...hopefully, we can enter a 'merit-based' admissions era.

I feel like people aren’t reading the article.

Dartmouth is basically saying we will take lots of kids with SAT scores in the 1300s and 1400s coming from disadvantaged schools.

I don’t see how that will help the 1580 Asian kid from TJ. Those parents will be crying louder than ever.

That is not at all what the article said.

Ok, what did it say...here is a direct quote:

“We’re looking for the kids who are excelling in their environment. We know society is unequal,” Beilock said. “Kids that are excelling in their environment, we think, are a good bet to excel at Dartmouth and out in the world.” The admissions office will judge an applicant’s environment partly by comparing his or her test score with the score distribution at the applicant’s high schools, Coffin said. In some cases, even an SAT score well below 1,400 can help an application.

No,

You are misreading.

The article said that kids at those lower performing schools (such as a school where most kids graduate at a 3rd grade reading level or no one takes calculus) with scores in that range (1400+/-) are kids who have proven they can succeed at a school like Dartmouth. In contrast, a kid from a wealthy school with every resource at thier disposal who still only has a middling SAT score but high GPA will struggle.

That statement is talking about the potential to resources ratio. It is not a statement about a hard cut off of test scores.

You are completely misreading the entire article.

My comment was in response to someone claiming that now schools will admit purely on merit. Dartmouth's policy will now accept plenty of kids with a 1300 or 1400 from an under-resourced school vs. the TJ kid with a 1580. It's not even about a wealthy school vs. non-wealthy school (at least from the perspective of student-body wealth).

The TJ parents will continue to cry that the world is biased against them because their 1580 kid was rejected by Dartmouth while some 1300 kid from Harlem public schools was admitted.

They won’t just cry. Someone will sue. Watch.

Based on what? Nothing in the constitution says that schools are required to take the top test score. I don't see this lawsuit as having any legs unless they can prove discrimination actually happened. If Dartmouth wants to prioritize lower-income and disadvantaged students, that's totally their right.

Exactly. Rich people aren’t a protected class. As long as they aren’t placing students into separate groups for admission based on race, they can choose to interpret the meaning of test scores in the context of educational advantages or disadvantages that any student might have experienced. Their data shows that students with a 1400 SAT or above do well at Dartmouth. There are plenty of advantaged kids applying with 1500+, so that’s expected, in light of their educational advantages. A SAT of 1400 is great for a kid from a bad school, and the data shows they’ll be successful at Dartmouth. The problem is that test optional was artificially inflating the SAT average, so less advantaged kids weren’t submitting their 1400’s and unintentionally disadvantaging themselves even more.

[Anonymous]

We can’t afford top 20 so I don’t think this will affect us. Especially in a few years, schools not considered “selective” won’t do this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. There may not be much difference between at 1500 and a 1600, but a 1200 does speak to the ability of a kid with a great GPA to succeed in a competitive college environment

There is no reason a college environment should be competitive.

Did you read the article? It's saying the opposite. Dartmouth wants to find people with SAT scores below 1400, and they were frustrated that their target audience wasn't taking the SAT.

I will say I don’t really get that because a kid who scores 1280 even if a great student at their underperforming high school will likely struggle at an Ivy League school. Will that kid have the resources to major in something that would likely make it that they can make “a difference as a leader” and graduate? There has to be a minimum requirement at some point so that the students picked can be those that are successful.

If you read the report, they specifically identified less advantaged students with SATs above 1400 who applied test optional and were not admitted. They would have had a greater chance of admission if they had submitted their scores.

https://home.dartmouth.edu/sites/home/files/2024-02/sat-undergrad-admissions.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. There may not be much difference between at 1500 and a 1600, but a 1200 does speak to the ability of a kid with a great GPA to succeed in a competitive college environment

There is no reason a college environment should be competitive.

Did you read the article? It's saying the opposite. Dartmouth wants to find people with SAT scores below 1400, and they were frustrated that their target audience wasn't taking the SAT.

That’s not what the charts show. They correlate non-reporters with a test level of 1400. And the “crossover point” on admission advantage was 1400. Implying that there were less advantaged students with 1400s who didn’t submit, but would have been admitted if they had. They’re saying they’d take a less advantaged student with a 1400 over an advantaged student with a 1600.

Do you think non reporters would have scores all exactly 1400, or a range of scores above and below, or nearly all above, or nearly al below?

And do you think those scores, if known, would have the same or different correlation to GPA as the reporters?

I can’t copy and paste text for some reason, but pp. 5-7 explains how they identified 1,000+ less advantaged applicants who scored 1400 or more who didn’t submit scores and were not admitted, and submitting scores would have improved their chances of admission.

The report isn’t long and is worth a read.

https://home.dartmouth.edu/sites/home/files/2024-02/sat-undergrad-admissions.pdf

Interesting read indeed.

The 1400 test scorers from the cushy UMC suburban enclaves are in trouble.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. There may not be much difference between at 1500 and a 1600, but a 1200 does speak to the ability of a kid with a great GPA to succeed in a competitive college environment

There is no reason a college environment should be competitive.

Did you read the article? It's saying the opposite. Dartmouth wants to find people with SAT scores below 1400, and they were frustrated that their target audience wasn't taking the SAT.

That’s not what the charts show. They correlate non-reporters with a test level of 1400. And the “crossover point” on admission advantage was 1400. Implying that there were less advantaged students with 1400s who didn’t submit, but would have been admitted if they had. They’re saying they’d take a less advantaged student with a 1400 over an advantaged student with a 1600.

Do you think non reporters would have scores all exactly 1400, or a range of scores above and below, or nearly all above, or nearly al below?

And do you think those scores, if known, would have the same or different correlation to GPA as the reporters?

I can’t copy and paste text for some reason, but pp. 5-7 explains how they identified 1,000+ less advantaged applicants who scored 1400 or more who didn’t submit scores and were not admitted, and submitting scores would have improved their chances of admission.

The report isn’t long and is worth a read.

https://home.dartmouth.edu/sites/home/files/2024-02/sat-undergrad-admissions.pdf

Interesting read indeed.

The 1400 test scorers from the cushy UMC suburban enclaves are in trouble.

If SAT score are the best predictors of success, as some say, then those kids from the UMC enclaves will have no trouble transferring in later after these low scorers fail out. Guess we'll see in a few years how this plays out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Excited! None of the taking test 4-6x anymore to get a 36!
34 is great!! Like it was in 2019! Move on!

They also need to require every score and no superscoring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So...Dartmouth's acceptance rate in 2020 (2019-2020 was the last year that tests were required) was 8.97 percent. Yes, it has gotten worse since then (6.15% last year) but the point is that it test optional is not what made it impossible for high stats kids to get into Dartmouth. It was a crapshoot before then.

There needs to be a more systemic change, for example, the Common App needs to limit the number of applications each student can submit (say, 12 schools). Then, colleges won't be flooded with applications, students will have to be more thoughtful about where they apply, and tests (if they are required) can actually be used as part of a holistic review because colleges will have more than a hot second to review applications.

Agree. There is no downside for kids to apply to 20 reach schools. They need to limit the number of applications. There are just far too many applications these days to be able to consider applicants fully.

Until I had a kid that went through this process, I would have agreed with you. But even with the common app, each application to a selective college is a lot of work. Those supplemental essays where you explain why the school and you are a good fit take effort if done correctly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. There may not be much difference between at 1500 and a 1600, but a 1200 does speak to the ability of a kid with a great GPA to succeed in a competitive college environment

There is no reason a college environment should be competitive.

Did you read the article? It's saying the opposite. Dartmouth wants to find people with SAT scores below 1400, and they were frustrated that their target audience wasn't taking the SAT.

That’s not what the charts show. They correlate non-reporters with a test level of 1400. And the “crossover point” on admission advantage was 1400. Implying that there were less advantaged students with 1400s who didn’t submit, but would have been admitted if they had. They’re saying they’d take a less advantaged student with a 1400 over an advantaged student with a 1600.

Do you think non reporters would have scores all exactly 1400, or a range of scores above and below, or nearly all above, or nearly al below?

And do you think those scores, if known, would have the same or different correlation to GPA as the reporters?

I can’t copy and paste text for some reason, but pp. 5-7 explains how they identified 1,000+ less advantaged applicants who scored 1400 or more who didn’t submit scores and were not admitted, and submitting scores would have improved their chances of admission.

The report isn’t long and is worth a read.

https://home.dartmouth.edu/sites/home/files/2024-02/sat-undergrad-admissions.pdf

Interesting read indeed.

The 1400 test scorers from the cushy UMC suburban enclaves are in trouble.

If SAT score are the best predictors of success, as some say, then those kids from the UMC enclaves will have no trouble transferring in later after these low scorers fail out. Guess we'll see in a few years how this plays out.

Reading comprehension is apparently not your strong suit.

They aren’t talking about accepting “low scorers.” The opposite, in fact. Getting rid of test optional allows them to exclude the “low scorers.” They identified 1,000+ less advantaged kids with scores over 1400 who would have had a better chance of getting in if they had submitted scores. Their data shows that having a test score of 1400 or above is highly correlated with academic success at Dartmouth. There are qualified less advantaged kids out there and test optional just made them harder to identify.

[Anonymous]

This return to test scores at Dartmouth may indeed be helpful for under resourced students, but with or without it, there aren't a lot of high state URM kids looking at Dartmouth. It doesn't seem to be attractive to large numbers of those students given the size, location, weather, distance to a major US city, the frat bro culture and greater focus on squash, skiing and sailing than football, soccer or basketball. The numbers before Covid weren't impressive so this won't make it more attractive, except perhaps to 1st Gen kids from rural areas. My DD and a few friends participated in a virtual panel and said the students of color were all international.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So...Dartmouth's acceptance rate in 2020 (2019-2020 was the last year that tests were required) was 8.97 percent. Yes, it has gotten worse since then (6.15% last year) but the point is that it test optional is not what made it impossible for high stats kids to get into Dartmouth. It was a crapshoot before then.

There needs to be a more systemic change, for example, the Common App needs to limit the number of applications each student can submit (say, 12 schools). Then, colleges won't be flooded with applications, students will have to be more thoughtful about where they apply, and tests (if they are required) can actually be used as part of a holistic review because colleges will have more than a hot second to review applications.

Agree. There is no downside for kids to apply to 20 reach schools. They need to limit the number of applications. There are just far too many applications these days to be able to consider applicants fully.

Until I had a kid that went through this process, I would have agreed with you. But even with the common app, each application to a selective college is a lot of work. Those supplemental essays where you explain why the school and you are a good fit take effort if done correctly.

Agree. The idea that you fill it out once and click send is mistaken. The Common App saves some re-typing of the basic stuff, but it seemed that every application ranged from slightly to significantly different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I finally read the announcement and wow!!! They actually came out and said that applicants that would have been accepted were instead denied because they did not submit their SAT scores.

After 2-3 years of DCUM advise to not submit good scores - like 1400+

Anybody feel like they've been snookered? As in you applied TO even though you had good scores?

+1. DCUM parents were told on her over and over again that this wasn't a good strategy and didn't listen.