Dartmouth Announces Test Scores Required Starting Next Year

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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

No it isn’t. Historically that was a score that a number of admits had, or around that score. A 1400 is 95th percentile. A 1500 is 98 percentile, fyi. A 95 percentile score shows you can likely manage the work at an Ivy.

Nope sorry.
1,400 is well below the 25th percentile for Dartmouth and other Ivies and highly selective schools.
It's not even middling. It's a low score for highly selective scores probably from athletes, URMs, legacies, etc.

think that many people on this board seem to have a highly inflated view of kids at Ivies and what it takes to graduate from one. There are, undoubtedly, some brilliant kids at Ivies. There are also, undoubtedly, some above average kids who get in for a variety of reasons and then do just fine. Someone who scores in the 95th percentile in the country is not too dumb to succeed at an Ivy or other selective school. I think the mystique is misleading, and anyone who has been to one or knows a lot of people who went to Ivies would say the same if they’re being honest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great! They're bringing back the tests. To truly want to see who has the chops, they need to do away with super scoring. One and done and decide.

Some I think look at that too.

Georgetown requires all tests. But that didn’t help my kid EA anyway. UW 4.0 and a 36ACT (not SS). Legacy is huge there. Legacy get in at 38% where it was 5% acceptance EA early round for kids that weren’t.

That is where schools could really step up. Stop taking less qualified kids, lessee merit just because daddy went there and grandpa too.

Legacy will be much harder to displace. The problem is that legacy is popular with all graduates across all races. You have plenty of URM graduates that are against removing legacy because finally their kids can benefit.

UVA is dumping it next year. Hopkins already dumped it. Many ivies don’t give it much weight and it only applies to undergrad and a parent (not more distant relative). Georgetown’s policy is incredulous.

Hopkins dumped it years ago. Ivies actually do give it a decent amount of weight. I believe the stats show much higher acceptance rates for legacies at many Ivies (though still overall low). Definitely Princeton legacy acceptances are much higher than overall acceptance rate.

I never even think of legacy in the context of state schools...was it ever really a big factor at UVA?

[Anonymous]

The PSAT/NMSQT is a one-shot deal. Why not the SAT/ACT?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The PSAT/NMSQT is a one-shot deal. Why not the SAT/ACT?

I think twice is fine. Everyone has a bad day, under the weather and some sittings are harder than others. Two sitting cap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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

No it isn’t. Historically that was a score that a number of admits had, or around that score. A 1400 is 95th percentile. A 1500 is 98 percentile, fyi. A 95 percentile score shows you can likely manage the work at an Ivy.

Nope sorry.
1,400 is well below the 25th percentile for Dartmouth and other Ivies and highly selective schools.
It's not even middling. It's a low score for highly selective scores probably from athletes, URMs, legacies, etc.

think that many people on this board seem to have a highly inflated view of kids at Ivies and what it takes to graduate from one. There are, undoubtedly, some brilliant kids at Ivies. There are also, undoubtedly, some above average kids who get in for a variety of reasons and then do just fine. Someone who scores in the 95th percentile in the country is not too dumb to succeed at an Ivy or other selective school. I think the mystique is misleading, and anyone who has been to one or knows a lot of people who went to Ivies would say the same if they’re being honest.

I think most people forget how they thought in college and how college kids still think. I mean, most kids pick a major that plays to their strengths whether verbal or math.

The STEM kid that received a 780 in Math and lets say a 650 in verbal isn't registering for some advanced english class where you have to read a novel every week and write a 30 page paper every week. No, they are finding a reasonably interesting class that fulfills that requirement and has maybe 3 5 page papers all semester. There are internal review boards at every school, so you know the professors that are chill (i.e., grade easily).

Similarly, the kid with high verbal and lower Math majoring in English isn't signing up for organic chemistry or a discrete math class. No, they are taking physics for poets (every school has the equivalent) to satisfy that requirement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Class rank has been a significant component of college admissions forever.

Right so I find it odd that they were having such a hard time identifying these kids. All the other information in the application didn't tip them off? Obviously they aren't really reading all the applications if they need this data point to help sort some straight into the trash.

Many HSs do not rank.

Maybe that should back as well. Why not? Would be much more indicative of ability to succeed with a demonstrated track record of success vs a one time test.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Class rank has been a significant component of college admissions forever.

Right so I find it odd that they were having such a hard time identifying these kids. All the other information in the application didn't tip them off? Obviously they aren't really reading all the applications if they need this data point to help sort some straight into the trash.

Many HSs do not rank.

And many that do have 200 valedictorians abs more than 1/2 the class with a 4.0. Quickly gpa became an irrelevant stat for differentiating students due to grade inflation and differences in high schools.

4.0 UW? 200 students have 4.0 UW?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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

No it isn’t. Historically that was a score that a number of admits had, or around that score. A 1400 is 95th percentile. A 1500 is 98 percentile, fyi. A 95 percentile score shows you can likely manage the work at an Ivy.

Nope sorry.
1,400 is well below the 25th percentile for Dartmouth and other Ivies and highly selective schools.
It's not even middling. It's a low score for highly selective scores probably from athletes, URMs, legacies, etc.

think that many people on this board seem to have a highly inflated view of kids at Ivies and what it takes to graduate from one. There are, undoubtedly, some brilliant kids at Ivies. There are also, undoubtedly, some above average kids who get in for a variety of reasons and then do just fine. Someone who scores in the 95th percentile in the country is not too dumb to succeed at an Ivy or other selective school. I think the mystique is misleading, and anyone who has been to one or knows a lot of people who went to Ivies would say the same if they’re being honest.

What are you babbling about??
We have numbers. The fact is 1,400 is well below the 25th percentile for Dartmouth and other Ivies and highly selective schools.

I'm sure they are not too dumb, but not good enough for highly selective schools as there are plenty of 1500+ kids to choose from.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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

No it isn’t. Historically that was a score that a number of admits had, or around that score. A 1400 is 95th percentile. A 1500 is 98 percentile, fyi. A 95 percentile score shows you can likely manage the work at an Ivy.

Nope sorry.
1,400 is well below the 25th percentile for Dartmouth and other Ivies and highly selective schools.
It's not even middling. It's a low score for highly selective scores probably from athletes, URMs, legacies, etc.

think that many people on this board seem to have a highly inflated view of kids at Ivies and what it takes to graduate from one. There are, undoubtedly, some brilliant kids at Ivies. There are also, undoubtedly, some above average kids who get in for a variety of reasons and then do just fine. Someone who scores in the 95th percentile in the country is not too dumb to succeed at an Ivy or other selective school. I think the mystique is misleading, and anyone who has been to one or knows a lot of people who went to Ivies would say the same if they’re being honest.

What are you babbling about??
We have numbers. The fact is 1,400 is well below the 25th percentile for Dartmouth and other Ivies and highly selective schools.

I'm sure they are not too dumb, but not good enough for highly selective schools as there are plenty of 1500+ kids to choose from.

I think our problem is actually your posts aren't very clear.

Are you simply arguing that Dartmouth does and should accept more kids with 1500+...or are you claiming someone with a 1400 will struggle at Dartmouth?

Certainly, the current 25%ile bracket is inflated due to TO. After next year's admission cycle, Dartmouth's range will drop now that tests are required. There is no reason to believe it will not revert to 2019 ranges of 1450 - 1550.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting that Dartmouth and Georgetown, the two elite schools that have seen their prestige erode the most recently, are both using an allegiance to standardized testing to try to differentiate and gain back some lost relevance.

Telling that Dartmouth laundered the announcement through David Leonhardt rather than a journalist. Leonhardt's poor reputation rests on his willingness to spread pandemic-era disinformation to huge audiences. A journalist would ask inconvenient questions about things like how the shift to a digital SAT makes Dartmouth's data useless.

Also revealing that Dartmouth's new president has been looking for ways to mollify right-wing trolls scalp-hunting for Ivy leaders. The WSJ duly trumpeted the SAT mandate (however, without quite realizing that Dartmouth couched it in strong pro-DEI terms).

Can't just take Coffin at his word, unfortunately.

I've probably missed something, but how have Dartmouth and Georgetown had "their prestige erode the most"?

Also, I'm no Leonhardt fan--can't stand the guy--but the Washington Post had an article on this, too. I think Dartmouth must have put out a press release, and some newspapers picked it up. It doesn't look like they sent it to Leonhardt specifically.

[Anonymous]

Dartmouth relies on Questbridge to provide them with the large bulk of their diversity.

Dartmouth and Georgetown are the most barbell schools. I think it shows a basic lack of understanding about diversity and the world outside their feeders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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

No it isn’t. Historically that was a score that a number of admits had, or around that score. A 1400 is 95th percentile. A 1500 is 98 percentile, fyi. A 95 percentile score shows you can likely manage the work at an Ivy.

Nope sorry.
1,400 is well below the 25th percentile for Dartmouth and other Ivies and highly selective schools.
It's not even middling. It's a low score for highly selective scores probably from athletes, URMs, legacies, etc.

think that many people on this board seem to have a highly inflated view of kids at Ivies and what it takes to graduate from one. There are, undoubtedly, some brilliant kids at Ivies. There are also, undoubtedly, some above average kids who get in for a variety of reasons and then do just fine. Someone who scores in the 95th percentile in the country is not too dumb to succeed at an Ivy or other selective school. I think the mystique is misleading, and anyone who has been to one or knows a lot of people who went to Ivies would say the same if they’re being honest.

What are you babbling about??
We have numbers. The fact is 1,400 is well below the 25th percentile for Dartmouth and other Ivies and highly selective schools.

I'm sure they are not too dumb, but not good enough for highly selective schools as there are plenty of 1500+ kids to choose from.

I think our problem is actually your posts aren't very clear.

Are you simply arguing that Dartmouth does and should accept more kids with 1500+...or are you claiming someone with a 1400 will struggle at Dartmouth?

Certainly, the current 25%ile bracket is inflated due to TO. After next year's admission cycle, Dartmouth's range will drop now that tests are required. There is no reason to believe it will not revert to 2019 ranges of 1450 - 1550.

I'm just stating the fact.
This is from 2017-2018 CDS before pandemic when scores were mandatory.
https://www.dartmouth.edu/oir/pdfs/cds_2017-2018.pdf
Middle 50 is around 1450 - 1550. Not much difference for TO.
1400 is not middleing, it's lower end, 0-25

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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

No it isn’t. Historically that was a score that a number of admits had, or around that score. A 1400 is 95th percentile. A 1500 is 98 percentile, fyi. A 95 percentile score shows you can likely manage the work at an Ivy.

Nope sorry.
1,400 is well below the 25th percentile for Dartmouth and other Ivies and highly selective schools.
It's not even middling. It's a low score for highly selective scores probably from athletes, URMs, legacies, etc.

think that many people on this board seem to have a highly inflated view of kids at Ivies and what it takes to graduate from one. There are, undoubtedly, some brilliant kids at Ivies. There are also, undoubtedly, some above average kids who get in for a variety of reasons and then do just fine. Someone who scores in the 95th percentile in the country is not too dumb to succeed at an Ivy or other selective school. I think the mystique is misleading, and anyone who has been to one or knows a lot of people who went to Ivies would say the same if they’re being honest.

What are you babbling about??
We have numbers. The fact is 1,400 is well below the 25th percentile for Dartmouth and other Ivies and highly selective schools.

I'm sure they are not too dumb, but not good enough for highly selective schools as there are plenty of 1500+ kids to choose from.

I think our problem is actually your posts aren't very clear.

Are you simply arguing that Dartmouth does and should accept more kids with 1500+...or are you claiming someone with a 1400 will struggle at Dartmouth?

Certainly, the current 25%ile bracket is inflated due to TO. After next year's admission cycle, Dartmouth's range will drop now that tests are required. There is no reason to believe it will not revert to 2019 ranges of 1450 - 1550.

I'm just stating the fact.
This is from 2017-2018 CDS before pandemic when scores were mandatory.
https://www.dartmouth.edu/oir/pdfs/cds_2017-2018.pdf
Middle 50 is around 1450 - 1550. Not much difference for TO.
1400 is not middleing, it's lower end, 0-25

and a lot of the lower end kids come in backdoor - athletes, legacy, URM, big donation, celebrities, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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

No it isn’t. Historically that was a score that a number of admits had, or around that score. A 1400 is 95th percentile. A 1500 is 98 percentile, fyi. A 95 percentile score shows you can likely manage the work at an Ivy.

Nope sorry.
1,400 is well below the 25th percentile for Dartmouth and other Ivies and highly selective schools.
It's not even middling. It's a low score for highly selective scores probably from athletes, URMs, legacies, etc.

think that many people on this board seem to have a highly inflated view of kids at Ivies and what it takes to graduate from one. There are, undoubtedly, some brilliant kids at Ivies. There are also, undoubtedly, some above average kids who get in for a variety of reasons and then do just fine. Someone who scores in the 95th percentile in the country is not too dumb to succeed at an Ivy or other selective school. I think the mystique is misleading, and anyone who has been to one or knows a lot of people who went to Ivies would say the same if they’re being honest.

What are you babbling about??
We have numbers. The fact is 1,400 is well below the 25th percentile for Dartmouth and other Ivies and highly selective schools.

I'm sure they are not too dumb, but not good enough for highly selective schools as there are plenty of 1500+ kids to choose from.

First, I do not babble. I pointed out that people expressing concern that 1400 score kids will not be able to keep up or succeed at highly selective schools are misguided. I know people like to assume that kids who get high scores are all really special, and brilliant students and will do well at Ivies. But we have all either been or known kids who are high scorers who don’t succeed. Believe me, not everyone at Harvard is a genius. Kids who are merely smart, dedicated, hard-working, or savvy about which classes to take will be just fine once they get there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting that Dartmouth and Georgetown, the two elite schools that have seen their prestige erode the most recently, are both using an allegiance to standardized testing to try to differentiate and gain back some lost relevance.

Telling that Dartmouth laundered the announcement through David Leonhardt rather than a journalist. Leonhardt's poor reputation rests on his willingness to spread pandemic-era disinformation to huge audiences. A journalist would ask inconvenient questions about things like how the shift to a digital SAT makes Dartmouth's data useless.

Also revealing that Dartmouth's new president has been looking for ways to mollify right-wing trolls scalp-hunting for Ivy leaders. The WSJ duly trumpeted the SAT mandate (however, without quite realizing that Dartmouth couched it in strong pro-DEI terms).

Can't just take Coffin at his word, unfortunately.

I've probably missed something, but how have Dartmouth and Georgetown had "their prestige erode the most"?

Also, I'm no Leonhardt fan--can't stand the guy--but the Washington Post had an article on this, too. I think Dartmouth must have put out a press release, and some newspapers picked it up. It doesn't look like they sent it to Leonhardt specifically.

The above PP does not respond well (or at all) to criticism of their post.