No, test optional isn’t the reason your kid didn’t get in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Test optional exists solely to allow colleges to continue their practice of soft racial quotas in the face of potential restrictions on affirmative action. Its is unambiguously good for URMs, unambiguously bad for high stats white and Asian kids, and kind of a wash for low-stats kids who now have a small chance of getting lucky going TO but face a lot more uncertainty.

I don’t think this is true. How do you square that with the fact that many top SLACs have had test optional for years before Covid and it has not impacted their quality or selectivity? Bowdoin is an example but there are others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good kids are getting rejected from top schools, because top schools no longer care about academic excellence as much as they care about "Diversity"
There are very few students who meet ALL of the following criteria
1) Top 1-3% of graduating class
2) 1550 in SATor 35 ACT or higher in test scores
3) National AP scholar.
4) 750 or higher in 2 Subject Tests

These are truly gifted students. All of them could easily be accommodated in the top 15 schools, many times over, but most don't get in, because top schools are obsessed with diversity.

This is a tragedy for this country in the long run, because as any economist will tell you, we are grossly misallocating some of the best resources of our academic institutions on some very questionable talent, instead of focusing them on talent that can benefit the most from them and consequently turbocharge the US economy into the next generation.

But eh. Becoming fat, dumb and careless is probably necessary for the baton to pass from the US to some other nation. That's the way history has worked

Huh? Are these students just going to not go to college and drop out of the potential work force because they haven't been admitted to a top college?
Lol.
No, they're going to go to other colleges, get educated and they'll do well and learn what they need to learn at the schools they attend. Then they will go on to succeed in the workforce.

You are posting as if their life and their future contribution to society will END if they don't attend a top 15 university.
This thinking is SO WARPED.

Agree. In some respects, it’s better for the country to distribute these exceptionally bright kids around the country to raise the level of other universities.

Frankly, I personally think the top schools are not taking unqualified kids TO. They are just different bright kids with different skills, but I believe in the value of soft skills. I have seen it. I have a high stats kid with fewer soft skills and a test optional kid with off the charts EQ who will probably run the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good kids are getting rejected from top schools, because top schools no longer care about academic excellence as much as they care about "Diversity"
There are very few students who meet ALL of the following criteria
1) Top 1-3% of graduating class
2) 1550 in SATor 35 ACT or higher in test scores
3) National AP scholar.
4) 750 or higher in 2 Subject Tests

These are truly gifted students. All of them could easily be accommodated in the top 15 schools, many times over, but most don't get in, because top schools are obsessed with diversity.

This is a tragedy for this country in the long run, because as any economist will tell you, we are grossly misallocating some of the best resources of our academic institutions on some very questionable talent, instead of focusing them on talent that can benefit the most from them and consequently turbocharge the US economy into the next generation.

But eh. Becoming fat, dumb and careless is probably necessary for the baton to pass from the US to some other nation. That's the way history has worked

No---the difference between someone with a 1520 and a 1580 is minuscule. Both are really smart people---one may just not test as well. Does not mean they are not as smart or as valuable as an employee. In fact, plenty who have test anxiety do exceedingly well in life. Universities have recognized that the SAT/ACT is not the best indicator of excellence and adjusted accordingly.

Fun fact: my 26 ACT kid (who despite hours of tutoring could not change the score) graduated college, employed by a great company, 1 year out just got the highest raise possible for the "first year cohorts". Even those who my kid thought were "top contributors"and as good as my kid got lower raises. The company "ranks the same year cohorts" and distributes raises according to that ranking. That means my "so-so academic kiddo" based on ACT testing, is somehow excelling in the real world. We always knew that---give them the opportunity and they have the drive and desire to do well and everyone would want them on their team. They are working alongside kids who went to "better universities" and those kids likely have higher GPAs and higher SAT scores. Yet somehow it doesn't matter if you have the right drive and work ethic.

Well, yes, there are winners and losers in test optional. Your son was a winner and thus you think the change is right and fair. I’m skeptical that TO does much more than add a lot of random chance to the process for anyone but the URMs it is intended to benefit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's a ZERO SUM GAME.

If a lower score kid got lucky and got in with TO when otherwise wouldn't have even applied, there's another kid with higher score didn't get in.

Facts.

I don’t know if this is good or bad but let’s not play dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test optional exists solely to allow colleges to continue their practice of soft racial quotas in the face of potential restrictions on affirmative action. Its is unambiguously good for URMs, unambiguously bad for high stats white and Asian kids, and kind of a wash for low-stats kids who now have a small chance of getting lucky going TO but face a lot more uncertainty.

I don’t think this is true. How do you square that with the fact that many top SLACs have had test optional for years before Covid and it has not impacted their quality or selectivity? Bowdoin is an example but there are others.

What’s your basis for the claim that going test optional does not decrease quality? Unless you believe that test results correlate zero or negatively with student quality, the expected outcome of TO would be to reduce student quality, not increase it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's a ZERO SUM GAME.

If a lower score kid got lucky and got in with TO when otherwise wouldn't have even applied, there's another kid with higher score didn't get in.

Admissions person here. FACT: That lower score wasn't lucky, That lower score kid was more interesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a ZERO SUM GAME.

If a lower score kid got lucky and got in with TO when otherwise wouldn't have even applied, there's another kid with higher score didn't get in.

Admissions person here. FACT: That lower score wasn't lucky, That lower score kid was more interesting.

They were VERY lucky TO happened in time for them, lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test optional exists solely to allow colleges to continue their practice of soft racial quotas in the face of potential restrictions on affirmative action. Its is unambiguously good for URMs, unambiguously bad for high stats white and Asian kids, and kind of a wash for low-stats kids who now have a small chance of getting lucky going TO but face a lot more uncertainty.

I don’t think this is true. How do you square that with the fact that many top SLACs have had test optional for years before Covid and it has not impacted their quality or selectivity? Bowdoin is an example but there are others.

Right. And not only that, how do you square this with the fact that a place like Berkeley has not had a meaningful bump in admissions of URMs since they started test optional. Nor has any other major college. They still run in the 3-9% column for black and brown students and less than 1% indigenous. If this were true those numbers would be a lot higher

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a ZERO SUM GAME.

If a lower score kid got lucky and got in with TO when otherwise wouldn't have even applied, there's another kid with higher score didn't get in.

Admissions person here. FACT: That lower score wasn't lucky, That lower score kid was more interesting.

You can say the same thing about a college football player who runs slowly and can’t lift much weight in NFL combine. Somehow he should be drafted because he is “more interesting.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good kids are getting rejected from top schools, because top schools no longer care about academic excellence as much as they care about "Diversity"
There are very few students who meet ALL of the following criteria
1) Top 1-3% of graduating class
2) 1550 in SATor 35 ACT or higher in test scores
3) National AP scholar.
4) 750 or higher in 2 Subject Tests

These are truly gifted students. All of them could easily be accommodated in the top 15 schools, many times over, but most don't get in, because top schools are obsessed with diversity.

This is a tragedy for this country in the long run, because as any economist will tell you, we are grossly misallocating some of the best resources of our academic institutions on some very questionable talent, instead of focusing them on talent that can benefit the most from them and consequently turbocharge the US economy into the next generation.

But eh. Becoming fat, dumb and careless is probably necessary for the baton to pass from the US to some other nation. That's the way history has worked

My seniors has all of that and is going to a top 50 school rather than top 20. And guess what! It’s no “tragedy”-she’ll do great there because she’s very hardworking and very smart. And the same will be true in grad school and the workplace. If you are conveying to your kids it’s a travesty they didn’t get in to a top 15 school you’re not doing them sny favors.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test optional exists solely to allow colleges to continue their practice of soft racial quotas in the face of potential restrictions on affirmative action. Its is unambiguously good for URMs, unambiguously bad for high stats white and Asian kids, and kind of a wash for low-stats kids who now have a small chance of getting lucky going TO but face a lot more uncertainty.

I don’t think this is true. How do you square that with the fact that many top SLACs have had test optional for years before Covid and it has not impacted their quality or selectivity? Bowdoin is an example but there are others.

What’s your basis for the claim that going test optional does not decrease quality? Unless you believe that test results correlate zero or negatively with student quality, the expected outcome of TO would be to reduce student quality, not increase it.

There have been schools doing it for decades. My example of Bowdoin is illustrative. They are still too notch and very selective.

Also, schools have done studies (was it Wake?) that showed very little difference since the pandemic.

The standardized tests show a baseline but they are easily prepped and gamed and people can take them many, many times to get the superscore they want. I agree they have some value to separate out those completely unprepared for college, but in the higher ranges, they are not meaningful. People put way too much emphasis on 20 or so point differences on the SAT. Any decent prep class can show you how to strategize to gain more than that amount. They are not useless, just not meaningful enough for the emphasis they have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a ZERO SUM GAME.

If a lower score kid got lucky and got in with TO when otherwise wouldn't have even applied, there's another kid with higher score didn't get in.

Admissions person here. FACT: That lower score wasn't lucky, That lower score kid was more interesting.

You can say the same thing about a college football player who runs slowly and can’t lift much weight in NFL combine. Somehow he should be drafted because he is “more interesting.”

that is a ridiculous comparison.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good kids are getting rejected from top schools, because top schools no longer care about academic excellence as much as they care about "Diversity"
There are very few students who meet ALL of the following criteria
1) Top 1-3% of graduating class
2) 1550 in SATor 35 ACT or higher in test scores
3) National AP scholar.
4) 750 or higher in 2 Subject Tests

These are truly gifted students. All of them could easily be accommodated in the top 15 schools, many times over, but most don't get in, because top schools are obsessed with diversity.

This is a tragedy for this country in the long run, because as any economist will tell you, we are grossly misallocating some of the best resources of our academic institutions on some very questionable talent, instead of focusing them on talent that can benefit the most from them and consequently turbocharge the US economy into the next generation.

But eh. Becoming fat, dumb and careless is probably necessary for the baton to pass from the US to some other nation. That's the way history has worked

A student like you describe would only be rejected from a tiny handful of universities. You seem to view admission to those as a brass ring for a job well done. But I’m pretty confident that same student, if they didn’t feel put upon by not getting into their “dream school” would excel at Michigan State or Ohio State or University of Arizona. If they are truly as exceptional and gifted as you think they are, there is probably nothing that student couldn’t accomplish from these schools that they could from one on the highly rejective ones. What you really seem to want is access into the exclusive club that gets what 95% of applicants can’t have, even if you don’t know if it’s inherently better or not. All over the world countries have exception universities that are not so small as ours are. The scarcity of supply is false. These schools could easily add more seats. Alumni don’t want the schools to broaden access because they want the insularity.

No, they cannot easily "add more seats". At most ivy's kids live on campus all 4 years. Add 500 students per year and you have a huge housing issue. Not to mention classes will be larger, less advising, classes more difficult to get into, etc... an entire list of issues if the infrastructure is not in place. So it won't solve the problem (500 at each is still a dent and most will still get rejected) and doing so with out infratsturce would degrade the experience just look at non T25 schools who have done it recently (Northeastern is one example---grown 3-4K students in last few years without any infrastructure in place---many parents and students are not happy. Many kids cannot land coops, because more students looking coupled with the bad economy is not a good thing, kids cannot get into classes because so many students and they are all registering for classes in case they don't get a coop---which many wont' so they wont be dropping out of the classes to make more space...it's not a good situation when you add students without an infrastructure plan put in place first).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a ZERO SUM GAME.

If a lower score kid got lucky and got in with TO when otherwise wouldn't have even applied, there's another kid with higher score didn't get in.

Admissions person here. FACT: That lower score wasn't lucky, That lower score kid was more interesting.

You can say the same thing about a college football player who runs slowly and can’t lift much weight in NFL combine. Somehow he should be drafted because he is “more interesting.”

That is a terrible analogy, but following it, yes, maybe that player has another standout skill like being really good at not getting tackled (I’m not a football fan). There are different skills sets. Yes, college is academic but it is also leadership, ingenuity, creativity, etc. There are many valuable skills that fall outside of what the tests cover. Colleges want alumni that will later make the college look good and donate. That takes more than test scores. Of course, you know this, but you just don’t agree with it. That’s a shame because you are not the AO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And don’t give me BS that standardized tests don’t matter. Grade inflation is rampant in some schools. Comparing GPAs from different schools are worse than comparing oranges and apples.

Tell me that the numbers at football combines are irrelevant for NFL draft. Tell Black people that how fast you run, how much weight you lift is irrelevant to success in NFL.

Very different issues. Yes, how fast you can run, how much you can lift, how you perform at the combine is directly related to your success in the NFL. Because those "tests" are ALL part of your daily job in the NFL.

How you perform on the SAT is NOT directly related to how well you will do in college or in life in your career. It simply is not the best indicator. In the real world, if I don't know an answer to a problem, I consult with my team lead, my cohorts, or simply anyone who is an expert in that area. I work to solve the problem, and I don't do it in a vacuum by myself. In the real world, I don't guess at what the formula is before I do calculations, I look it up and make damn sure I'm using the right formula. I talk to others if I have any questions or concerns.