Princeton to require test scores beginning in 2027

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look the reality is that most of our kids and most of us parents hate taking and preparing for this one-day stressful test. But it does add value. I'm happy it's becoming the norm again to mandate testing.

The schools that will use test scores as one criteria for admission already did this for decades pre-covid. So this isn't some big ideological leap. Going TO temporarily was and I think it negatively impacted college admissions process and added to anxiety and hysteria.

If anything, going test required again will bring SAT scores back down to earth. It's really hard to get a combined SAT score north of 1500 so I'll be happy when scores in the 1400's become the new standard for top schools again.

Scor3s will continue to be high due to superscoring. The digital tests are shorter so easier for kids to take multiple times.

The current SAT is too easy. They need to bring back the old test where maybe 1 kid got over a 1500 at many high schools and there was far more differentiation at the top. 1400 was Ivy level, and even a score in the 1000s meant something. But the College Board has been at the forefront of the great failed social experiment in education.

You say it’s too easy, but my work gives me access to scores and you would not believe how low most of them are. Those who get above 1500 are rare. They are just concentrated in affluent school circles.

20,000 kids got over a 1450 last year. 200,000 got over a 1290. These aren't even superscores. The test is not a test for anything meaningful except to show you meet some marginal criteria for performance. Don't blame affluence because even a large number of poor Asians outperform almost all of the non-Asian kids in these affluent neighborhoods.

The dumbing down of the SAT is just DEI for average white kids with the cover that somehow they're helping URM. The helping URM argument doesn't fly because top schools admit URM with low stats anyway.

Your raw numbers are meaningless. Between 1 & 2% of kids get a 1500. The average score is still around 1000-1050. So stop with the ridiculous “it’s too easy” and “everyone gets a 1500.” This is objectively false.

How are raw numbers ridiculous when there are a finite total number of freshmen seats at top colleges? 1% is 10,000 kids and that's without superscoring.

Quoting the average SAT score is meaningless because those kids at or near the 50%ile are basically going to auto-admit schools.

Only people who didn't score high when they were a kid would make the argument that the SAT isn't too easy today.

Have you even seen the questions on these tests? It's a joke. Instead of vocab, analogies, and adhd-proof long-form passages, you basically have a harder TOEFL test. And don't even get me started on Desmos hacks.

They're also the same people that don't realize how easy the NMS cutoff is for actually smart kids and complain how the cutoff is so low in other states.

What also sucks is the proliferation of people who claim thar mid level schools are excellent because of the SAT score inflation. There have historically only been roughly 20-25 regular colleges and 8-10 LAC max that could possible claim to be in any conversation of top schools (some would probablyclaim fewer but I'mbeing generous). Yet how is it that so many mediocre colleges are bragging about their SAT scores among admittants?

Literally you can't even be in the conversation of "I'm really smart" unless you're in that 1%. Next you'll be saying how a 4.0 uw gpa reflects excellence. Or how your kid is amazing at baseball or soccer because they're on a random travel team.

Aw, PP. you are smart and your SAT score was very high! I’m sorry it hurts your feelings that other people also got high SAT scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look the reality is that most of our kids and most of us parents hate taking and preparing for this one-day stressful test. But it does add value. I'm happy it's becoming the norm again to mandate testing.

The schools that will use test scores as one criteria for admission already did this for decades pre-covid. So this isn't some big ideological leap. Going TO temporarily was and I think it negatively impacted college admissions process and added to anxiety and hysteria.

If anything, going test required again will bring SAT scores back down to earth. It's really hard to get a combined SAT score north of 1500 so I'll be happy when scores in the 1400's become the new standard for top schools again.

Scor3s will continue to be high due to superscoring. The digital tests are shorter so easier for kids to take multiple times.

The current SAT is too easy. They need to bring back the old test where maybe 1 kid got over a 1500 at many high schools and there was far more differentiation at the top. 1400 was Ivy level, and even a score in the 1000s meant something. But the College Board has been at the forefront of the great failed social experiment in education.

You say it’s too easy, but my work gives me access to scores and you would not believe how low most of them are. Those who get above 1500 are rare. They are just concentrated in affluent school circles.

20,000 kids got over a 1450 last year. 200,000 got over a 1290. These aren't even superscores. The test is not a test for anything meaningful except to show you meet some marginal criteria for performance. Don't blame affluence because even a large number of poor Asians outperform almost all of the non-Asian kids in these affluent neighborhoods.

The dumbing down of the SAT is just DEI for average white kids with the cover that somehow they're helping URM. The helping URM argument doesn't fly because top schools admit URM with low stats anyway.

Your raw numbers are meaningless. Between 1 & 2% of kids get a 1500. The average score is still around 1000-1050. So stop with the ridiculous “it’s too easy” and “everyone gets a 1500.” This is objectively false.

How are raw numbers ridiculous when there are a finite total number of freshmen seats at top colleges? 1% is 10,000 kids and that's without superscoring.

Quoting the average SAT score is meaningless because those kids at or near the 50%ile are basically going to auto-admit schools.

Only people who didn't score high when they were a kid would make the argument that the SAT isn't too easy today.

Have you even seen the questions on these tests? It's a joke. Instead of vocab, analogies, and adhd-proof long-form passages, you basically have a harder TOEFL test. And don't even get me started on Desmos hacks.

They're also the same people that don't realize how easy the NMS cutoff is for actually smart kids and complain how the cutoff is so low in other states.

What also sucks is the proliferation of people who claim thar mid level schools are excellent because of the SAT score inflation. There have historically only been roughly 20-25 regular colleges and 8-10 LAC max that could possible claim to be in any conversation of top schools (some would probablyclaim fewer but I'mbeing generous). Yet how is it that so many mediocre colleges are bragging about their SAT scores among admittants?

Literally you can't even be in the conversation of "I'm really smart" unless you're in that 1%. Next you'll be saying how a 4.0 uw gpa reflects excellence. Or how your kid is amazing at baseball or soccer because they're on a random travel team.

Aw, PP. you are smart and your SAT score was very high! I’m sorry it hurts your feelings that other people also got high SAT scores.

Amazing how the average SAT score of people on this forum is probably 50%ile and 90 IQ or lower. This alone should explain how education in America is a multi-generational systemic failure.

The DCUM colleges and universities section should be split into separate sections just like how the hs sections are. The admissions requirements for excellent, good, and mediocre schools is just too different and the wannabes and never weres just troll.

I mean imagine coming into a Princeton post and not realizing who the vast majority of the kids who attend are an why score inflation at the top is a problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look the reality is that most of our kids and most of us parents hate taking and preparing for this one-day stressful test. But it does add value. I'm happy it's becoming the norm again to mandate testing.

The schools that will use test scores as one criteria for admission already did this for decades pre-covid. So this isn't some big ideological leap. Going TO temporarily was and I think it negatively impacted college admissions process and added to anxiety and hysteria.

If anything, going test required again will bring SAT scores back down to earth. It's really hard to get a combined SAT score north of 1500 so I'll be happy when scores in the 1400's become the new standard for top schools again.

Scor3s will continue to be high due to superscoring. The digital tests are shorter so easier for kids to take multiple times.

The current SAT is too easy. They need to bring back the old test where maybe 1 kid got over a 1500 at many high schools and there was far more differentiation at the top. 1400 was Ivy level, and even a score in the 1000s meant something. But the College Board has been at the forefront of the great failed social experiment in education.

100% agree. I don’t find the SAT a meaningful measure of anything until it’s actually a rigorous exam.

You don’t find? Who are you?

Hey idiot! This is actually a forum where everyone is allowed to speak on their experiences, not just you. If you can’t accept that, stop reading forums!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If top LACs want to be given the same gravitas and seen as credible places to attract top student communities (similar to Ivies), they will also move to test required like Harvard, Princeton, MIT, Brown etc.

Otherwise, all the poor scoring students with inflated 4.0 GPAs will flock to LACs to hide.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look the reality is that most of our kids and most of us parents hate taking and preparing for this one-day stressful test. But it does add value. I'm happy it's becoming the norm again to mandate testing.

The schools that will use test scores as one criteria for admission already did this for decades pre-covid. So this isn't some big ideological leap. Going TO temporarily was and I think it negatively impacted college admissions process and added to anxiety and hysteria.

If anything, going test required again will bring SAT scores back down to earth. It's really hard to get a combined SAT score north of 1500 so I'll be happy when scores in the 1400's become the new standard for top schools again.

Scor3s will continue to be high due to superscoring. The digital tests are shorter so easier for kids to take multiple times.

The current SAT is too easy. They need to bring back the old test where maybe 1 kid got over a 1500 at many high schools and there was far more differentiation at the top. 1400 was Ivy level, and even a score in the 1000s meant something. But the College Board has been at the forefront of the great failed social experiment in education.

You say it’s too easy, but my work gives me access to scores and you would not believe how low most of them are. Those who get above 1500 are rare. They are just concentrated in affluent school circles.

20,000 kids got over a 1450 last year. 200,000 got over a 1290. These aren't even superscores. The test is not a test for anything meaningful except to show you meet some marginal criteria for performance. Don't blame affluence because even a large number of poor Asians outperform almost all of the non-Asian kids in these affluent neighborhoods.

The dumbing down of the SAT is just DEI for average white kids with the cover that somehow they're helping URM. The helping URM argument doesn't fly because top schools admit URM with low stats anyway.

Your raw numbers are meaningless. Between 1 & 2% of kids get a 1500. The average score is still around 1000-1050. So stop with the ridiculous “it’s too easy” and “everyone gets a 1500.” This is objectively false.

How are raw numbers ridiculous when there are a finite total number of freshmen seats at top colleges? 1% is 10,000 kids and that's without superscoring.

Quoting the average SAT score is meaningless because those kids at or near the 50%ile are basically going to auto-admit schools.

Only people who didn't score high when they were a kid would make the argument that the SAT isn't too easy today.

Have you even seen the questions on these tests? It's a joke. Instead of vocab, analogies, and adhd-proof long-form passages, you basically have a harder TOEFL test. And don't even get me started on Desmos hacks.

They're also the same people that don't realize how easy the NMS cutoff is for actually smart kids and complain how the cutoff is so low in other states.

What also sucks is the proliferation of people who claim thar mid level schools are excellent because of the SAT score inflation. There have historically only been roughly 20-25 regular colleges and 8-10 LAC max that could possible claim to be in any conversation of top schools (some would probablyclaim fewer but I'mbeing generous). Yet how is it that so many mediocre colleges are bragging about their SAT scores among admittants?

Literally you can't even be in the conversation of "I'm really smart" unless you're in that 1%. Next you'll be saying how a 4.0 uw gpa reflects excellence. Or how your kid is amazing at baseball or soccer because they're on a random travel team.

SAT math is 8th grade level internationally… if your kid did not even score 700+ then stay away from accounting/med and did not score 750+ then stay away from engineering/ Econ (finance) …

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except for a few top names, they will all move in this direction.

Our school CCs have been telling us this is where the wind was blowing for awhile. University leaders and faculty and board want this. Individual AOs were happy with TO because it made their judgment more important and gave them a lot of pride in the art of their job of picking and shaping a class. AOs liked the individual discretion, but other senior admin did not.

Chicago, Columbia, and Vandy will stick to TO.

You don’t know that.

[Anonymous]

I think LACs need to lose athletic recruiting.

It makes no sense. It’s not mission-aligned as they say at work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article: https://paw.princeton.edu/article/princeton-admissions-will-again-require-standardized-tests-2027?fbclid=IwZnRzaANU7X9leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHvmrW3LZZY5mXPhvhsCrG2EWBpksuhc_7ikmbdAsRlzFNBeZR56RezvUNEk5_aem_KjQIumqc7QdB6-__Om2GrQ

The University reviewed data from five years of test-optional admissions and “found that academic performance at Princeton was stronger for students who chose to submit test scores than for students who did not,” the announcement said.

This is a big nothingburger. They knew that going in, before the experiment — as did everyone. The experiment was about whether these TO kids could do well and succeed at Princeton. They have given no data at all on that point, under the guise of giving us a “conclusion” on the obvious point. It’s an obfuscation. The actual numbers must be even worse than expected…

Yep that is what professors have been muttering at two different ivies since 2021 when my first launched. They claimed to see a difference in stem that first semester with TO students on campus.

My professor friends have also been complaining about weaknesses in students since the pandemic. It's not necessarily TO though. Students are having a harder time preparing for class, participating in class, communicating difficulties with professors respectfully, submitting assignments on time. High schools are not teaching the necessary soft skills -- it's not because their standardized test scores are too low.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article: https://paw.princeton.edu/article/princeton-admissions-will-again-require-standardized-tests-2027?fbclid=IwZnRzaANU7X9leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHvmrW3LZZY5mXPhvhsCrG2EWBpksuhc_7ikmbdAsRlzFNBeZR56RezvUNEk5_aem_KjQIumqc7QdB6-__Om2GrQ

The University reviewed data from five years of test-optional admissions and “found that academic performance at Princeton was stronger for students who chose to submit test scores than for students who did not,” the announcement said.

This is a big nothingburger. They knew that going in, before the experiment — as did everyone. The experiment was about whether these TO kids could do well and succeed at Princeton. They have given no data at all on that point, under the guise of giving us a “conclusion” on the obvious point. It’s an obfuscation. The actual numbers must be even worse than expected…

Yep that is what professors have been muttering at two different ivies since 2021 when my first launched. They claimed to see a difference in stem that first semester with TO students on campus.

My professor friends have also been complaining about weaknesses in students since the pandemic. It's not necessarily TO though. Students are having a harder time preparing for class, participating in class, communicating difficulties with professors respectfully, submitting assignments on time. High schools are not teaching the necessary soft skills -- it's not because their standardized test scores are too low.

Yeah, it has nothing to do with TO and everything to do with learning loss + social media. Attention span and work habits were crushed. Basic problem solving has bee impacted to the point that people ask gen AI basic questions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The digital test is less consistent than the paper one. So yes, multiple retakes are more beneficial than they were only a few years ago. With the paper test, scores went up over time due to an increase in academic skills. With the digital test, that can happen too, or maybe you get a lower score than a year before. There is a lot of luck in what questions you get on test day and either the equating process doesn't seem to be accurately capturing weight/difficulty or the adaptive nature of which section 2 one gets is way off.

So true. DC scored 120 points lower than the previous try. The types of questions with answers designed to trick the student are annoying too. It just doesn't relate to the type of work most people do at their jobs.

Students scoring really high are clearly well-educated, but students scoring high but not super high might just get a bad test or not be great at these types of questions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article: https://paw.princeton.edu/article/princeton-admissions-will-again-require-standardized-tests-2027?fbclid=IwZnRzaANU7X9leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHvmrW3LZZY5mXPhvhsCrG2EWBpksuhc_7ikmbdAsRlzFNBeZR56RezvUNEk5_aem_KjQIumqc7QdB6-__Om2GrQ

The University reviewed data from five years of test-optional admissions and “found that academic performance at Princeton was stronger for students who chose to submit test scores than for students who did not,” the announcement said.

This is a big nothingburger. They knew that going in, before the experiment — as did everyone. The experiment was about whether these TO kids could do well and succeed at Princeton. They have given no data at all on that point, under the guise of giving us a “conclusion” on the obvious point. It’s an obfuscation. The actual numbers must be even worse than expected…

Yep that is what professors have been muttering at two different ivies since 2021 when my first launched. They claimed to see a difference in stem that first semester with TO students on campus.

My professor friends have also been complaining about weaknesses in students since the pandemic. It's not necessarily TO though. Students are having a harder time preparing for class, participating in class, communicating difficulties with professors respectfully, submitting assignments on time. High schools are not teaching the necessary soft skills -- it's not because their standardized test scores are too low.

Yeah, it has nothing to do with TO and everything to do with learning loss + social media. Attention span and work habits were crushed. Basic problem solving has bee impacted to the point that people ask gen AI basic questions.

+1 Closing schools really hurt. This year's seniors were only in 6th grade when schools closed for a year and a half.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look the reality is that most of our kids and most of us parents hate taking and preparing for this one-day stressful test. But it does add value. I'm happy it's becoming the norm again to mandate testing.

The schools that will use test scores as one criteria for admission already did this for decades pre-covid. So this isn't some big ideological leap. Going TO temporarily was and I think it negatively impacted college admissions process and added to anxiety and hysteria.

If anything, going test required again will bring SAT scores back down to earth. It's really hard to get a combined SAT score north of 1500 so I'll be happy when scores in the 1400's become the new standard for top schools again.

Scor3s will continue to be high due to superscoring. The digital tests are shorter so easier for kids to take multiple times.

The current SAT is too easy. They need to bring back the old test where maybe 1 kid got over a 1500 at many high schools and there was far more differentiation at the top. 1400 was Ivy level, and even a score in the 1000s meant something. But the College Board has been at the forefront of the great failed social experiment in education.

You say it’s too easy, but my work gives me access to scores and you would not believe how low most of them are. Those who get above 1500 are rare. They are just concentrated in affluent school circles.

20,000 kids got over a 1450 last year. 200,000 got over a 1290. These aren't even superscores. The test is not a test for anything meaningful except to show you meet some marginal criteria for performance. Don't blame affluence because even a large number of poor Asians outperform almost all of the non-Asian kids in these affluent neighborhoods.

The dumbing down of the SAT is just DEI for average white kids with the cover that somehow they're helping URM. The helping URM argument doesn't fly because top schools admit URM with low stats anyway.

Your raw numbers are meaningless. Between 1 & 2% of kids get a 1500. The average score is still around 1000-1050. So stop with the ridiculous “it’s too easy” and “everyone gets a 1500.” This is objectively false.

How are raw numbers ridiculous when there are a finite total number of freshmen seats at top colleges? 1% is 10,000 kids and that's without superscoring.

Quoting the average SAT score is meaningless because those kids at or near the 50%ile are basically going to auto-admit schools.

Only people who didn't score high when they were a kid would make the argument that the SAT isn't too easy today.

Have you even seen the questions on these tests? It's a joke. Instead of vocab, analogies, and adhd-proof long-form passages, you basically have a harder TOEFL test. And don't even get me started on Desmos hacks.

They're also the same people that don't realize how easy the NMS cutoff is for actually smart kids and complain how the cutoff is so low in other states.

What also sucks is the proliferation of people who claim thar mid level schools are excellent because of the SAT score inflation. There have historically only been roughly 20-25 regular colleges and 8-10 LAC max that could possible claim to be in any conversation of top schools (some would probablyclaim fewer but I'mbeing generous). Yet how is it that so many mediocre colleges are bragging about their SAT scores among admittants?

Literally you can't even be in the conversation of "I'm really smart" unless you're in that 1%. Next you'll be saying how a 4.0 uw gpa reflects excellence. Or how your kid is amazing at baseball or soccer because they're on a random travel team.

I have to think this isn’t a serious post. Are people in real life this obsessed with “top schools” and which kids are ACTUALLY “smart”? (Apparently, 99% of them are dumb! But who cares about them anyway?). If you are trying to make everyone else posting on the college forum look calm and sane— good job. And that’s quite the feat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except for a few top names, they will all move in this direction.

Our school CCs have been telling us this is where the wind was blowing for awhile. University leaders and faculty and board want this. Individual AOs were happy with TO because it made their judgment more important and gave them a lot of pride in the art of their job of picking and shaping a class. AOs liked the individual discretion, but other senior admin did not.

Chicago, Columbia, and Vandy will stick to TO.

Columbia will have a change of heart eventually, too.

For class of ‘28 (most recent one we data for) 61% of enrolled students submitted scores. I’ll bet that percentage went higher for class of ‘29

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article: https://paw.princeton.edu/article/princeton-admissions-will-again-require-standardized-tests-2027?fbclid=IwZnRzaANU7X9leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHvmrW3LZZY5mXPhvhsCrG2EWBpksuhc_7ikmbdAsRlzFNBeZR56RezvUNEk5_aem_KjQIumqc7QdB6-__Om2GrQ

The University reviewed data from five years of test-optional admissions and “found that academic performance at Princeton was stronger for students who chose to submit test scores than for students who did not,” the announcement said.

This is a big nothingburger. They knew that going in, before the experiment — as did everyone. The experiment was about whether these TO kids could do well and succeed at Princeton. They have given no data at all on that point, under the guise of giving us a “conclusion” on the obvious point. It’s an obfuscation. The actual numbers must be even worse than expected…

Yep that is what professors have been muttering at two different ivies since 2021 when my first launched. They claimed to see a difference in stem that first semester with TO students on campus.

My professor friends have also been complaining about weaknesses in students since the pandemic. It's not necessarily TO though. Students are having a harder time preparing for class, participating in class, communicating difficulties with professors respectfully, submitting assignments on time. High schools are not teaching the necessary soft skills -- it's not because their standardized test scores are too low.

Yeah, it has nothing to do with TO and everything to do with learning loss + social media. Attention span and work habits were crushed. Basic problem solving has bee impacted to the point that people ask gen AI basic questions.

+1 Closing schools really hurt. This year's seniors were only in 6th grade when schools closed for a year and a half.

They've had 6 years to get over it.

My kids were in 7th and 10th grade during the pandemic. The older is now 3rd year in college, and a senior who will graduate in 2026.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except for a few top names, they will all move in this direction.

Our school CCs have been telling us this is where the wind was blowing for awhile. University leaders and faculty and board want this. Individual AOs were happy with TO because it made their judgment more important and gave them a lot of pride in the art of their job of picking and shaping a class. AOs liked the individual discretion, but other senior admin did not.

Chicago, Columbia, and Vandy will stick to TO.

Columbia will have a change of heart eventually, too.

For class of ‘28 (most recent one we data for) 61% of enrolled students submitted scores. I’ll bet that percentage went higher for class of ‘29

Truly sucks. My kid was class of '28 WL and had high scores and 5s all APs. They really were looking to drive up certain other populations and openly said so.

61% is very LOW for an Ivy. Other Ivies when they were TO were still having ~85% submit scores.

And they still aren't requiring them until 2027--a serious outlier in T10-15 admissions. This has a direct impact on student quality.