Dartmouth Announces Test Scores Required Starting Next Year

[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

This is the most DEI-friendly document ever released by an Ivy League school. Sorry, UMC test fetishists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article shows why Jackson-Reed HS bats way above its weight class when it comes to elite college admissions.

J-R kids getting a high SAT (1450+) when the school average is closer to 1000 and even worse for DCPS overall are sought after by schools like Dartmouth. Now combine that with some very DC-specific opportunities for interning, leadership, etc and you have a very compelling applicant.

Right, the white upper middle class kids get a major admissions bump. but many of them struggle when they're in college. I know a few (a relative and the kid if a good friend) they are both floundering. Others do fine and even great. But 4 years of crap for high school doesn't work for all kids.

Many do not struggle (somehow just mine and the 10 kids my kid knows are doing very well at college, with my own at a Top 5). Just apparently the two you purport to know. You also seem to now have your own research which refutes the entire thesis of this post...that kids with high SAT scores in fact don't do well in college.

Me thinks your kid was rejected from a top school and you are bitter.

DP
public school booster mom:
Methinks your kid did tons of enrichment activities, attended summer camps, traveled, read independently, had test prep + writing tutors, college admissions counseling (applied ED, too), & most importantly, has full-pay parents…

Uh...no enrichment activities (are the clubs at school with leadership enrichment activities?), no summer camps (other than actually working at a STEM camp)...I don't understand traveling...did some test prep...absolutely no writing tutors (what's the point? for a STEM major)...no college admissions counseling...yes ED, so full pay.

But what is your point? PP was saying JR kids struggle at college, so I guess you are trying to imply we spent thousands on outside resources? Absolutely not the case, and usually not the case for any of the top JR kids.

You have spent thousands on college tuition. You’ll be spending around $250-300K. Not an easy thing for any FGLI student & your kid is an example of the upper middle class students getting an admissions bump b/c JR as PP stated.

I commend you for admitting that you are a full-pay ED family. Most DCUMers like to fib.

PP was implying JR kids struggle at college…my kid actually scored a 1550, so maybe if from JR that made my kid almost a sure admit, but not a low score.

I actually don’t deny we may be benefiting from JR’s overall low scores, but that doesn’t mean kids are struggling at top colleges.

If you don't know JR kids struggling at colleges, you aren't looking very far. it sounds like your kid learned to read and write despite attending JR-as evidenced by his 1550. But many did not and they're from upper middle class families in ward 3. I know a few who are really not doing well in college. They're in way over their heads. I have no doubt that they'll figure it out but denying this is happening (because your kid is doing well) is really insulting to those of us who have it happening to our kids. It's feels really dismissive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1

A good thing Dartmouth did was establish a "qualified" SAT benchmark of 1400. The "but I got a 1450 or 1500...not fair!" types can shut up.

Is Dartmouth really having trouble identifying qualified kids? Or just the right kind?

TO made it difficult for Dartmouth to determine whether a kid had the chops to stick out through four years and thrive. TO allowed kids to gain admission who were not prepared for the rigors and thus needed to draw extra on the school’s resources (tutoring, advising, mental health services, etc) and/or drop out of the school (which is bad for Dartmouth’s ranking, waste of financial aid, and maybe saddling the kid with debt but no degree).

Basically, Dartmouth thinks that going back to the SAT will allow them to better identify under-privileged kids who need less hand-holding.

In what way are these high scoring kids underprivileged exactly? They are probably from stable families, who value education. That's a lot of privilege right there. Do they just have the right zip code?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1

A good thing Dartmouth did was establish a "qualified" SAT benchmark of 1400. The "but I got a 1450 or 1500...not fair!" types can shut up.

Is Dartmouth really having trouble identifying qualified kids? Or just the right kind?

Please read the posted article

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

The statement really only applies to URMs. Any privileged white or Asian kid is not helped by submitting a 1450.

Wrong! I took my kid a party this weekend and heard all kinds of stuff from the kids and from parents waiting around to pick up later. There was some very serious second guessing going on.

Your kid with a 3.7UW and a super scored 1540 still isn’t getting in.

Please take your rudeness and hostility to FairfaxUnderground. You are offering nothing to the discussion

[Anonymous]

Read the article - it suggests 1400 AND being from an inner city high school or school lacking resources would get in. But NOT an upper middle class DCUM DS or DD with a 1400. Point being if you managed a 1400 without out all the resources and benefits you probably have the grit and intellect to hold your own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Read the article - it suggests 1400 AND being from an inner city high school or school lacking resources would get in. But NOT an upper middle class DCUM DS or DD with a 1400. Point being if you managed a 1400 without out all the resources and benefits you probably have the grit and intellect to hold your own.

So go to a crap high school and get a middling score will be the new playbook?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Read the article - it suggests 1400 AND being from an inner city high school or school lacking resources would get in. But NOT an upper middle class DCUM DS or DD with a 1400. Point being if you managed a 1400 without out all the resources and benefits you probably have the grit and intellect to hold your own.

So go to a crap high school and get a middling score will be the new playbook?

It wouldn’t be the worst thing if smart, well resourced were distributed more equally through school districts. Clustering in W’s or Walls comes with its own set of problems. Really smart kids usually come with engaged parents who demand more of the school…not a bad thing for Eastern HS in DCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Read the article - it suggests 1400 AND being from an inner city high school or school lacking resources would get in. But NOT an upper middle class DCUM DS or DD with a 1400. Point being if you managed a 1400 without out all the resources and benefits you probably have the grit and intellect to hold your own.

So go to a crap high school and get a middling score will be the new playbook?

It wouldn’t be the worst thing if smart, well resourced were distributed more equally through school districts. Clustering in W’s or Walls comes with its own set of problems. Really smart kids usually come with engaged parents who demand more of the school…not a bad thing for Eastern HS in DCPS.

This never ends well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think test optional did not help my son, a high-scoring student. It will come too late for him but I am so glad Dartmouth (and hopefully many others) go back that route.

FWIW, at a summer tour of Dartmouth I met an economist (none of the 4 who wrote the piece) who said that he had taught for nearly 30 years and his grade distribution had never been quite so erratic as in the TO years. Dartmouth may spin it the way they have in this article, but they will ALSO benefit from keeping out kids of affluent families who snuck in behind TO.

I wish this movement started earlier.

My 2 high achievers got screwed by test optional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Read the article - it suggests 1400 AND being from an inner city high school or school lacking resources would get in. But NOT an upper middle class DCUM DS or DD with a 1400. Point being if you managed a 1400 without out all the resources and benefits you probably have the grit and intellect to hold your own.

So go to a crap high school and get a middling score will be the new playbook?

1400 is not a middling score.

Do you people know anything about standardized tests?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Read the article - it suggests 1400 AND being from an inner city high school or school lacking resources would get in. But NOT an upper middle class DCUM DS or DD with a 1400. Point being if you managed a 1400 without out all the resources and benefits you probably have the grit and intellect to hold your own.

So go to a crap high school and get a middling score will be the new playbook?

1400 is not a middling score.

Do you people know anything about standardized tests?

It's a middling score for selective schools.
It's probably high score for 3000+ other schools.
Do you know anything about college admissions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Read the article - it suggests 1400 AND being from an inner city high school or school lacking resources would get in. But NOT an upper middle class DCUM DS or DD with a 1400. Point being if you managed a 1400 without out all the resources and benefits you probably have the grit and intellect to hold your own.

So go to a crap high school and get a middling score will be the new playbook?

1400 is not a middling score.

Do you people know anything about standardized tests?

+1

95th percentile isn't middling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

The statement really only applies to URMs. Any privileged white or Asian kid is not helped by submitting a 1450.

Wrong! I took my kid a party this weekend and heard all kinds of stuff from the kids and from parents waiting around to pick up later. There was some very serious second guessing going on.

Your kid with a 3.7UW and a super scored 1540 still isn’t getting in.

Oh, man ... the shrews with 4.0 UW / 6.4 weighted (curated in this grade inflation age with all manner of re-takes, light cheating, and brown nosing) kiddos who cannot crest an 1120 are REALLY mad!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Read the article - it suggests 1400 AND being from an inner city high school or school lacking resources would get in. But NOT an upper middle class DCUM DS or DD with a 1400. Point being if you managed a 1400 without out all the resources and benefits you probably have the grit and intellect to hold your own.

So go to a crap high school and get a middling score will be the new playbook?

1400 is not a middling score.

Do you people know anything about standardized tests?

+1

95th percentile isn't middling.

It's lower than middlling for highly selective schools like Dartmouth.

1,400 is well below the 25th percentile for Dartmouth.

It's a high score for JMU