Swarthmore officially test optional for rising seniors

[Anonymous]

^and yes ~12k applied, but this group self-selected

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:SLACs have no choice. In this day and age they need as many applicants as they can get. Especially for liberal arts colleges, requiring high SAT's would destroy supply of applicants.

At least with respect to Swarthmore this is just bunkum. Swarthmore acceptance rate before going test optional was 7.7% it is now 7.5%. approximately 13000 applicants to Swarthmore before TO, which is almost exactly the same number now. If what you are saying is true you should see a huge spike in applications. If you did some homework you could base your observations on data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We were waiting on this news to see if our legacy low-1400s scorer with an otherwise excellent application should retake. Now he'll just go TO, and has a reasonable shot with an ED application. The unfortunate part of the TO thing at the super selective schools is that kids who get less than a 1500 don't submit so it's a race to the top.

You should reconsider. In theory TO is meant to level the playing field for smart kids who don't have the opportunity or resources. If your kid is not in that set, and your kids school is also not under-resourced, applying TO means you have a weaker application than another kid from the same/similar school who submits strong test scores and has the ECs too. Retaking doesn't hurt, and may help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Twenty-seven percent of the admitted students are among the first generation in their family to attend college. A total of 27% are affiliated with local, national, and international community-based organizations such as A Better Chance (ABC), College Match, EducationUSA, Gear Up, Lenfest Scholars Foundation, Matriculate, Heights Philadelphia, Open Dreams, Our Moon Education, TeenSharp, and QuestBridge."


One third of Swarthmore admits are FGLI. I applaud the school for doing the right thing.

Purely from a strategy point of view, it's better for a regular unhook Asian applicant to apply to national universities rather than SLAC such as Swarthmore. The lacs are already really small. With 1/3 spots to FGLI, the chances for a regular unhook Asian applicant is much smaller.

I am more supportive of diversity efforts than more than half of America, based on the last election. But 27% is really going overboard. And the need to scream this from the rooftops is also going overboard. I have a hard time believing that all 27% are up to par with the rest of the applicant pool. I'm all for giving them the benefit of the doubt if it is close, but my guess is that there are plenty for whom it isn't even close. Which is unfortunate because it drags down those who actually meet standards.

No it doesn't. It gives them very valuable and different perspective. If you go to a country club all your life you are not likely to understand the issues of those outside the country club. A diverse student body benefits all students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Twenty-seven percent of the admitted students are among the first generation in their family to attend college. A total of 27% are affiliated with local, national, and international community-based organizations such as A Better Chance (ABC), College Match, EducationUSA, Gear Up, Lenfest Scholars Foundation, Matriculate, Heights Philadelphia, Open Dreams, Our Moon Education, TeenSharp, and QuestBridge."


One third of Swarthmore admits are FGLI. I applaud the school for doing the right thing.

Purely from a strategy point of view, it's better for a regular unhook Asian applicant to apply to national universities rather than SLAC such as Swarthmore. The lacs are already really small. With 1/3 spots to FGLI, the chances for a regular unhook Asian applicant is much smaller.

I am more supportive of diversity efforts than more than half of America, based on the last election. But 27% is really going overboard. And the need to scream this from the rooftops is also going overboard. I have a hard time believing that all 27% are up to par with the rest of the applicant pool. I'm all for giving them the benefit of the doubt if it is close, but my guess is that there are plenty for whom it isn't even close. Which is unfortunate because it drags down those who actually meet standards.

No it doesn't. It gives them very valuable and different perspective. If you go to a country club all your life you are not likely to understand the issues of those outside the country club. A diverse student body benefits all students.

You don't need 27% to get diversity. 15-20% is fine. 27% is diversity for the sake of diversity and performance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Twenty-seven percent of the admitted students are among the first generation in their family to attend college. A total of 27% are affiliated with local, national, and international community-based organizations such as A Better Chance (ABC), College Match, EducationUSA, Gear Up, Lenfest Scholars Foundation, Matriculate, Heights Philadelphia, Open Dreams, Our Moon Education, TeenSharp, and QuestBridge."


One third of Swarthmore admits are FGLI. I applaud the school for doing the right thing.

Purely from a strategy point of view, it's better for a regular unhook Asian applicant to apply to national universities rather than SLAC such as Swarthmore. The lacs are already really small. With 1/3 spots to FGLI, the chances for a regular unhook Asian applicant is much smaller.

I am more supportive of diversity efforts than more than half of America, based on the last election. But 27% is really going overboard. And the need to scream this from the rooftops is also going overboard. I have a hard time believing that all 27% are up to par with the rest of the applicant pool. I'm all for giving them the benefit of the doubt if it is close, but my guess is that there are plenty for whom it isn't even close. Which is unfortunate because it drags down those who actually meet standards.

No it doesn't. It gives them very valuable and different perspective. If you go to a country club all your life you are not likely to understand the issues of those outside the country club. A diverse student body benefits all students.

You don't need 27% to get diversity. 15-20% is fine. 27% is diversity for the sake of diversity and performance.

It’s performative now to give people scholarships? You do understand the school doesn’t have to give these people money, but they care enough about having an economically diverse class to do so?

You people are gross and obsessed with status. God forbid a low income child get an education!

[Anonymous]

The College Board shouldn't have the power in college admissions that it does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Twenty-seven percent of the admitted students are among the first generation in their family to attend college. A total of 27% are affiliated with local, national, and international community-based organizations such as A Better Chance (ABC), College Match, EducationUSA, Gear Up, Lenfest Scholars Foundation, Matriculate, Heights Philadelphia, Open Dreams, Our Moon Education, TeenSharp, and QuestBridge."


One third of Swarthmore admits are FGLI. I applaud the school for doing the right thing.

Purely from a strategy point of view, it's better for a regular unhook Asian applicant to apply to national universities rather than SLAC such as Swarthmore. The lacs are already really small. With 1/3 spots to FGLI, the chances for a regular unhook Asian applicant is much smaller.

I am more supportive of diversity efforts than more than half of America, based on the last election. But 27% is really going overboard. And the need to scream this from the rooftops is also going overboard. I have a hard time believing that all 27% are up to par with the rest of the applicant pool. I'm all for giving them the benefit of the doubt if it is close, but my guess is that there are plenty for whom it isn't even close. Which is unfortunate because it drags down those who actually meet standards.

No it doesn't. It gives them very valuable and different perspective. If you go to a country club all your life you are not likely to understand the issues of those outside the country club. A diverse student body benefits all students.

You don't need 27% to get diversity. 15-20% is fine. 27% is diversity for the sake of diversity and performance.

Even at 27%, it still under-indexes the prevalence of this demo which approaches ~50% of high school students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Twenty-seven percent of the admitted students are among the first generation in their family to attend college. A total of 27% are affiliated with local, national, and international community-based organizations such as A Better Chance (ABC), College Match, EducationUSA, Gear Up, Lenfest Scholars Foundation, Matriculate, Heights Philadelphia, Open Dreams, Our Moon Education, TeenSharp, and QuestBridge."


One third of Swarthmore admits are FGLI. I applaud the school for doing the right thing.

Purely from a strategy point of view, it's better for a regular unhook Asian applicant to apply to national universities rather than SLAC such as Swarthmore. The lacs are already really small. With 1/3 spots to FGLI, the chances for a regular unhook Asian applicant is much smaller.

I am more supportive of diversity efforts than more than half of America, based on the last election. But 27% is really going overboard. And the need to scream this from the rooftops is also going overboard. I have a hard time believing that all 27% are up to par with the rest of the applicant pool. I'm all for giving them the benefit of the doubt if it is close, but my guess is that there are plenty for whom it isn't even close. Which is unfortunate because it drags down those who actually meet standards.

What about another 1/3 of Swarthmore who are athletes and legacies? Are they "close"?

My takeaway is do not ED Swat if you are unhooked. Same goes for Williams, Amherst, and Bowdoin. It's better for the unhooked high score applicants to just play the RD lottery.

I think these schools have also shifted too far in terms of bending their standards for athletes. Legacies pay the bills, and unless you are writing huge checks (I'm talking a few applicants a year, max), legacies don't have the admissions flexibility that minorities, FGLI and athletes do.

Swat should uphold academic standards with respect to athletes. Or at least test required while admitting them, so that we can be aware of their real score range.

[Anonymous]

I went to Swarthmore in the ‘90s. They don’t care about sports recruiting, but they definitely care about FGLI and legacy.

Although I have always thought it was very cynical of them to try to persuade low-income students that careers in academia in the humanities are a path to the middle class. I know many people from Swarthmore who wasted their 20s in PhD programs and never got tenure track jobs. They would have been much better off in anything else: nursing, accounting, IT, engineering, even K-12 teaching. It’s fine to go that route if you have family money, but not if you need to get a job and lift your family out of poverty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I went to Swarthmore in the ‘90s. They don’t care about sports recruiting, but they definitely care about FGLI and legacy.

Although I have always thought it was very cynical of them to try to persuade low-income students that careers in academia in the humanities are a path to the middle class. I know many people from Swarthmore who wasted their 20s in PhD programs and never got tenure track jobs. They would have been much better off in anything else: nursing, accounting, IT, engineering, even K-12 teaching. It’s fine to go that route if you have family money, but not if you need to get a job and lift your family out of poverty.

Isn't Swat best known for its engineering?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just receive an email from Bowdoin this morning. I can't copy the image here, but basically the email is about:

"What we look for in a college application:"

Academics (white color); Heart (light blue color); Income (orange); Test scores (Green).

The image shows a bar chart with half in white color, and another half in light blue.

My takeaway is that yes you can still submit the scores to Bowdoin, but no they are not going to consider it.

Why do you say these things? They report that test scores are considered in their CDS.

Also, Bowdoin has been test optional for years and years. I want to say since the 90’s. This is not new for SLACs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The College Board shouldn't have the power in college admissions that it does.

Agree!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We were waiting on this news to see if our legacy low-1400s scorer with an otherwise excellent application should retake. Now he'll just go TO, and has a reasonable shot with an ED application. The unfortunate part of the TO thing at the super selective schools is that kids who get less than a 1500 don't submit so it's a race to the top.

You should reconsider. In theory TO is meant to level the playing field for smart kids who don't have the opportunity or resources. If your kid is not in that set, and your kids school is also not under-resourced, applying TO means you have a weaker application than another kid from the same/similar school who submits strong test scores and has the ECs too. Retaking doesn't hurt, and may help.

That may be a purpose of TO but not the only purpose. These schools are open minded enough to realize there are many skills that make a scholar. Standardized test taking may be one, but there are several others. I have a high scoring kid and a low scoring kid and have been able to see the things each brings to their college community. My low scorer is doing fine (not top of the class but not failing) at a competitive school. I doubt any would expect them to do so well with a 26 ACT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need flexibility for athletic recruits and other institutional priorities. Swarthmore admits a very high percentage of non-white/Asian and FGLI students.

This is the real reason (plus the very bad optics of potentially being the only top SLAC that’s test required). Swarthmore recruits more first-gen than any other SLAC I am aware of. Posters assuming the real reason for this decision is a lack of correlation between academic performance in college and students’ SATs are drinking the Kool-Aid.

In fact, it is more revealing than anything that Swat put off this decision for so long: the correlation must be huge — or they would not have even considered it.

Depending on the major. For humanities, TO admits might do just fine or might excel. For engineering or premed, TO admits will be weeded out.