Anonymous wrote:Test scores alone are not highly indicative of a successful future college student. It makes no sense to force a college to admit students based on this criteria. I don’t know why we put so much weight upon them. All they really do is generically show relative strengths and weaknesses among high schools.
I keep seeing this claim made but there are decades of research studies on this topic and many show that SAT scores are a very strong predictor of not only college grades but future career success as well.
+1 which is why MIT went back to requiring SAT scores.
MIT is only ONE T25 school. Georgetown still requires the SAT since it's not in the common app.
How about HYPS and the other 1,800+ who are test optional? How about the SAT/ACT going digital to even stay relevant?
I think you've missed the test optional trend. Get used to it. It is here to stay.
It is here to stay because more and more schools want to increase DEI. Getting rid of SAT scores is one way to do that. Why not just get rid of GPAs since there is so much grade inflation and grading is als
o pretty subjective?
GPA - and rigor- over 4 years is a better indicator of college success (at least freshman year) than one 3-hour test.
The AOs know this.
The AOs are failures in life. If they weren't, they wouldn't be stuck in an admissions office. They have low level degrees in xyz studies type areas and have their own personal social agendas to fulfill. I know this because I have the misfortune of interacting with many of them. Professors are not happy about the trajectory of admissions decisions over the past decade
The distain for people who work in education across this forum is so sad. If these failures are picking the classes, why would you want to be part of them? They suck at life, but somehow are able to put together talented cohorts year after year?
+1
Just sour grapes from the PP.
+1
Not to mention, how much "transparency" does China have?? GTFOH.
It's really a huge shame that the US has less transparency than even China when it comes to college admission. seriously WTF
Once again, if China is so awesome, you are free to go there and experience this awesome system.
So you agree that US college admission system is less transparent than even China.
Do you agree with every parts of every US systems. Is that why you are here?
I'm not sure about you, but I think there are rooms to make improvements in many arears in this country.
I care about this country where my kids were born, so unlike you I don't just leave just because I you don't like something.
I like to see improvements and progress.
I was born here, no plans to leave. I do NOT think the Western European, china, India ways of tracking kids at an early age is a better system. So I will fight to not change to that.
The main problem with our current system appears to be many feel "entitled" to an elite university experience because they "worked so hard and got high test scores over 12 years". The blinders are on and they cannot recognize there are not enough spaces for everyone who is highly qualified. And somehow refuse to recognize this and search for great Target and safety schools. Nobody is saying you cannot get an education. You can---most likely at a 25-50 ranked school---still excellent choice and it will not hold your kid back at all, unless they come from an area of entitlement/privilege that they are too good for those schools.
Reaches are just that---reaches for every DAMN person who applies, unless you are an athlete or kid of a president/last name of Bezos or gates/etc. So reach for the stars, but have a good plan in place for if that doesn't work. Because statistically, it will not work out.
It seems many entitled kids this is the first time money and privilege has not bought them everything they wanted. And they cannot seem to recognize their extreme privilege over most of the other kids in the US
The main problem with our current system is that there's no clear rules, no transparency, and they even discriminate based on race.
Admissions' tried to have clear rules, then people worked the system, and ruined it for everyone else. So, there will never be clear rules again.
Anonymous wrote:Huge cultural chasm here. America does not have the same testing traditions you find in just about every other country in the world. Americans believe in never quitting more than they believe in winning. That's why footbalk teams that lose hard fought games get celebrated almost as though they won.
The difference is every other country in the world has clear rule and transparency.
Another difference is that America rewards persistence. Many other countries give you just one chance to measure up in life. Not so in the USA.
Test measures persistence. It's for 12 years of persistent education
Also they do reward persistence with sort of GPA together with Test
I don't care if you do GPA only Test only GPA + Test, GPA + Test + whatever.
The important thing is clear rule and transparency.
the only thing you are asking for is how much was spent on making sure those scores were achieved. that's it. and not an amount, a percentage of income. if a 400k family spends 40k and an 80k family spends 8k its the same type of leg up, it is.
I am so tired of test prep being a replacement for intelligence and capability.
Same for GPA, ECs, Essay, etc.
I think test score is at least most objective and fair, so that disadvantaged intelligent and capable students get chance to compete.
Standardized testing has racist origins in the U S (and was used to justify segregation in the military and schools)., is culturally biased ( "pre test" questions that were answered correctly by most blacks were thrown out), and today is more a reflection of household income , test prep, and superscoriing.
Not even close to objective.
Most of the 1,900 colleges that are now test optional will remain after the AA ruling.
Good.
+1
Those arguing against this are just upset their kid has "lost their advantage" of privilege. Also, they apparently do not understand the numbers---there are simply many more kids with 1400/1450+ SAT and "qualified for elite schools" than there are spots. So most will be rejected. Nobody is entitled to a spot at an elite school, nobody. Once you recognize that and plan with great "target schools" you will be happier. Focus on the goal---getting your degree and starting a career, which can be done at a school ranked #30
+1
There are good schools even from #31 through #200 or so.
People are obsessed with T25s.
Expectations for college admissions need to get reset.
OK, then tell that to the URM who apply to T25. Tell them they should aim lower T100 to T200. It fits them better.
+100
they'll be much better off where they fit better
Such arrogance to suggest you know where a URM will “fit better”. URMs are not a monolith!
Anonymous wrote:Huge cultural chasm here. America does not have the same testing traditions you find in just about every other country in the world. Americans believe in never quitting more than they believe in winning. That's why footbalk teams that lose hard fought games get celebrated almost as though they won.
The difference is every other country in the world has clear rule and transparency.
Another difference is that America rewards persistence. Many other countries give you just one chance to measure up in life. Not so in the USA.
Test measures persistence. It's for 12 years of persistent education
Also they do reward persistence with sort of GPA together with Test
I don't care if you do GPA only Test only GPA + Test, GPA + Test + whatever.
The important thing is clear rule and transparency.
the only thing you are asking for is how much was spent on making sure those scores were achieved. that's it. and not an amount, a percentage of income. if a 400k family spends 40k and an 80k family spends 8k its the same type of leg up, it is.
I am so tired of test prep being a replacement for intelligence and capability.
Same for GPA, ECs, Essay, etc.
I think test score is at least most objective and fair, so that disadvantaged intelligent and capable students get chance to compete.
Standardized testing has racist origins in the U S (and was used to justify segregation in the military and schools)., is culturally biased ( "pre test" questions that were answered correctly by most blacks were thrown out), and today is more a reflection of household income , test prep, and superscoriing.
Not even close to objective.
Most of the 1,900 colleges that are now test optional will remain after the AA ruling.
Good.
+1
Those arguing against this are just upset their kid has "lost their advantage" of privilege. Also, they apparently do not understand the numbers---there are simply many more kids with 1400/1450+ SAT and "qualified for elite schools" than there are spots. So most will be rejected. Nobody is entitled to a spot at an elite school, nobody. Once you recognize that and plan with great "target schools" you will be happier. Focus on the goal---getting your degree and starting a career, which can be done at a school ranked #30
+1
There are good schools even from #31 through #200 or so.
People are obsessed with T25s.
Expectations for college admissions need to get reset.
OK, then tell that to the URM who apply to T25. Tell them they should aim lower T100 to T200. It fits them better.
+100
they'll be much better off where they fit better
yep, less likely for people to assume that they didn't get in on their own merits.
Anonymous wrote:Huge cultural chasm here. America does not have the same testing traditions you find in just about every other country in the world. Americans believe in never quitting more than they believe in winning. That's why footbalk teams that lose hard fought games get celebrated almost as though they won.
The difference is every other country in the world has clear rule and transparency.
Another difference is that America rewards persistence. Many other countries give you just one chance to measure up in life. Not so in the USA.
Test measures persistence. It's for 12 years of persistent education
Also they do reward persistence with sort of GPA together with Test
I don't care if you do GPA only Test only GPA + Test, GPA + Test + whatever.
The important thing is clear rule and transparency.
the only thing you are asking for is how much was spent on making sure those scores were achieved. that's it. and not an amount, a percentage of income. if a 400k family spends 40k and an 80k family spends 8k its the same type of leg up, it is.
I am so tired of test prep being a replacement for intelligence and capability.
Same for GPA, ECs, Essay, etc.
I think test score is at least most objective and fair, so that disadvantaged intelligent and capable students get chance to compete.
Standardized testing has racist origins in the U S (and was used to justify segregation in the military and schools)., is culturally biased ( "pre test" questions that were answered correctly by most blacks were thrown out), and today is more a reflection of household income , test prep, and superscoriing.
Not even close to objective.
Most of the 1,900 colleges that are now test optional will remain after the AA ruling.
Good.
+1
Those arguing against this are just upset their kid has "lost their advantage" of privilege. Also, they apparently do not understand the numbers---there are simply many more kids with 1400/1450+ SAT and "qualified for elite schools" than there are spots. So most will be rejected. Nobody is entitled to a spot at an elite school, nobody. Once you recognize that and plan with great "target schools" you will be happier. Focus on the goal---getting your degree and starting a career, which can be done at a school ranked #30
+1
There are good schools even from #31 through #200 or so.
People are obsessed with T25s.
Expectations for college admissions need to get reset.
OK, then tell that to the URM who apply to T25. Tell them they should aim lower T100 to T200. It fits them better.
First, plenty of URM never even think of applying to T25 because it's so outside of their world when their parents do not have college degrees and are struggling just to keep the lights on and food on the table. So the group of "qualified URMs" is already much much smaller than everyone else at a T25. And many of them do end attending "lower ranked schools"---they attend the local state U that has a 60%+ acceptance rate and will be affordable and an easy drive from home.
However, it is Harvard/Stanford/any T25 choice as to how they build their freshman class. They see value in a URM or lower income student with only a 1500 and it's their right to admit them. I tend to agree that kid getting a 1500 means more than your 1%er getting a 1580. That kid will work harder and contribute more to the university over 4 years, and if Harvard thinks that, they will offer them admissions. Fact is outside of athletes, nobody with just a 1200 is getting admission to Harvard. So stop arguing that your kid with a 1580 is "better than a kid with a 1450+"---the difference is only in your head. Harvard has concluded that "1450ish is the cutoff" or whatever level and from there they look at other factors. And yes, I'd like my kids to attend colleges that are diverse. If you want an all asian college, you can apply in India or china and achieve just that. I want diversity on all levels.
+1
-1 no one stated that they wanted all Asian Americans in the college. And you are racist, implying that Asian Americans should "go back to their country".
Not racist---married to an Asian American, so I intimately understand both systems, having had a spouse go thru both sides. They much prefer the US system and are grateful our kids are not going thru the other system. Just sick of the few posters who keep wishing our system was "like china and India"---those systems exist and if that is what you want, then yes you are free to send your kids there. The fact you want to send them to a US school indicates that yes, our system overall is a better system. There are many faults with the China/India/Much of Europe way of tracking kids at an early age. I hope we never do that in this country---I don't think it's beneficial.
But complaining it's not fair your 1580 kid got rejected from highly rejective schools is ridiculous. Fact is most kids get rejected. But yes there are plenty of excellent schools out there, so focus on ones your kid can get into, and apply to the Reaches and reach for the stars, if it happens great, but if not, your kid is not forced to attend school #4001---many other excellent choices, some even better than the T25s you are so hell-bent on attending.
Ah, got it. So because the US system is better we need to celebrate racism. Thanks for your excellent opinion that is certainly valid since you are "married to an Asian American"
Nope--you would be the racist if you think it's always about race why someone does not get in. For every "asian with a 1580" who is rejected there are also white students, URM who are also rejected with similar scores---Why? Because those schools reject 95% of their applicants. It's lottery, and your SAT score buys you a ticket, after that the score does not matter---the rest of your application does. You have no clue what the teacher recs, ECs, volunteering, difficult life events a kid experienced goes into the holistic evaluation--and why the school accepts who they do. But fact is many many bright highly qualified kids gets rejected, along with yours. The sheer fact you think suing is a good thing in this situation tells me about your privilege and entitlement issues.
But yes, most schools do not aim to be 100% asian even in the engineering schools. Do you have issues with engineering programs who strive for a M/F balance, thus admitting more females each year to get there? I for one think the world is a better place that we now have more women in engineering/CS/STEM areas if that is what they want to major in. Since 50 years ago, women largely did not go to college, did you/do you find issues with universities working to ensure they have a good M/F balance. Similarly, I think it's great if we help ensure lower incomes students who have not had the same privileges as my kid, to get a great college experience. I can recognize my privilege and realize that a kid with a 3.7 and 1450 from an underprivileged life/environemnt might be more appealing than my 1% kiddo. I can feel happy that kid is getting the experience---I didn't think of suing when my kid didn't get into their T25 schools---I realized it was a lottery and had a long list of targets and safeties that they got into they loved as well
No feeling that you may have justifies systemic racism against Asian applicants but thank you for sharing
Harvard is ~30% asian for the most recent class. Berkeley is ~40% asian students.
USA is less than 10% persons of asian decent. How is it systemic racism? Each school admits a higher population of Asians than exist in the US population.
Are you now going to argue that asians are "just smarter" than everyone else and thus deserve to attend Harvard at a higher rate?
There are so many reasons he did not get accepted and race is likely not it. Berkeley is test blind and does not do AA for over a decade. Fact is while he is a great candidate, Harvard acceptance rate is single digits. 9+ kids are rejected for every 1 that is accepted. 8 out of every 9 kids rejected is likely considered" highly qualified" for Harvard (and any other T25). Yet the school has to reject all 9, so the first is easy, they are "not qualified", the other 8 could easily get the coveted spot, so the difference comes down to ECs, volunteering, personal essays, teacher recommendations, etc. 9 kids out of 10 will be disappointed. You did not read the essays or Teacher recs or see the volunteering or ECs, etc. You have no way to know why the choice was made. And a lot of it may be preferences---the AO liked the kid's essay, or the kid had an intriguing volunteer situation where they seemed to be genuinely engaged vs most who are just doing what they think will get them into a top school. You really have no clue what it is---99.9999% chance that race is NOT the reason. And if it seems that way, it's much more likely that Harvard saw an outstanding person who is first gen, low income and they want to give them the opportunity of attending Harvard---race is likely just a byproduct for you to scream "racism" ---it's very likely the person was admitted for being lower income or grabbed the AO attention due to being low income and how the persevered thru their life struggles and are somehow still a great candidate. So yes, I guess you are "discriminated against" for growing up with privilege, but that is a really convoluted way of looking at things.
DP.. why does it matter what the Asian American population is compared to the % of total population? Since when does any institution have to reflect the overall population? The reason why Asian American population is higher in colleges is because they apply to college at a higher rate; they value education. Other groups don't, I guess.
I don't know if Asian Americans are "smarter", but they sure have higher stats.
And if you look at the stats in the Harvard case, a black student from a UMC with lower stats has a better chance of getting in compared to an Asian American student from a MC family with higher stats.
Do you think a middle class Asian American student really has more academic and opportunity than an UMC black student with two lawyer parents?
this. there was an op-ed in the nytimes recently making the case the affirmitive action needs to change from being race-based to being class-based. I think that makes a lot of sense (I'm south asian american).
Anonymous wrote:Huge cultural chasm here. America does not have the same testing traditions you find in just about every other country in the world. Americans believe in never quitting more than they believe in winning. That's why footbalk teams that lose hard fought games get celebrated almost as though they won.
The difference is every other country in the world has clear rule and transparency.
Another difference is that America rewards persistence. Many other countries give you just one chance to measure up in life. Not so in the USA.
Test measures persistence. It's for 12 years of persistent education
Also they do reward persistence with sort of GPA together with Test
I don't care if you do GPA only Test only GPA + Test, GPA + Test + whatever.
The important thing is clear rule and transparency.
the only thing you are asking for is how much was spent on making sure those scores were achieved. that's it. and not an amount, a percentage of income. if a 400k family spends 40k and an 80k family spends 8k its the same type of leg up, it is.
I am so tired of test prep being a replacement for intelligence and capability.
Same for GPA, ECs, Essay, etc.
I think test score is at least most objective and fair, so that disadvantaged intelligent and capable students get chance to compete.
Standardized testing has racist origins in the U S (and was used to justify segregation in the military and schools)., is culturally biased ( "pre test" questions that were answered correctly by most blacks were thrown out), and today is more a reflection of household income , test prep, and superscoriing.
Not even close to objective.
Most of the 1,900 colleges that are now test optional will remain after the AA ruling.
Good.
+1
Those arguing against this are just upset their kid has "lost their advantage" of privilege. Also, they apparently do not understand the numbers---there are simply many more kids with 1400/1450+ SAT and "qualified for elite schools" than there are spots. So most will be rejected. Nobody is entitled to a spot at an elite school, nobody. Once you recognize that and plan with great "target schools" you will be happier. Focus on the goal---getting your degree and starting a career, which can be done at a school ranked #30
+1
There are good schools even from #31 through #200 or so.
People are obsessed with T25s.
Expectations for college admissions need to get reset.
OK, then tell that to the URM who apply to T25. Tell them they should aim lower T100 to T200. It fits them better.
First, plenty of URM never even think of applying to T25 because it's so outside of their world when their parents do not have college degrees and are struggling just to keep the lights on and food on the table. So the group of "qualified URMs" is already much much smaller than everyone else at a T25. And many of them do end attending "lower ranked schools"---they attend the local state U that has a 60%+ acceptance rate and will be affordable and an easy drive from home.
However, it is Harvard/Stanford/any T25 choice as to how they build their freshman class. They see value in a URM or lower income student with only a 1500 and it's their right to admit them. I tend to agree that kid getting a 1500 means more than your 1%er getting a 1580. That kid will work harder and contribute more to the university over 4 years, and if Harvard thinks that, they will offer them admissions. Fact is outside of athletes, nobody with just a 1200 is getting admission to Harvard. So stop arguing that your kid with a 1580 is "better than a kid with a 1450+"---the difference is only in your head. Harvard has concluded that "1450ish is the cutoff" or whatever level and from there they look at other factors. And yes, I'd like my kids to attend colleges that are diverse. If you want an all asian college, you can apply in India or china and achieve just that. I want diversity on all levels.
+1
-1 no one stated that they wanted all Asian Americans in the college. And you are racist, implying that Asian Americans should "go back to their country".
Not racist---married to an Asian American, so I intimately understand both systems, having had a spouse go thru both sides. They much prefer the US system and are grateful our kids are not going thru the other system. Just sick of the few posters who keep wishing our system was "like china and India"---those systems exist and if that is what you want, then yes you are free to send your kids there. The fact you want to send them to a US school indicates that yes, our system overall is a better system. There are many faults with the China/India/Much of Europe way of tracking kids at an early age. I hope we never do that in this country---I don't think it's beneficial.
But complaining it's not fair your 1580 kid got rejected from highly rejective schools is ridiculous. Fact is most kids get rejected. But yes there are plenty of excellent schools out there, so focus on ones your kid can get into, and apply to the Reaches and reach for the stars, if it happens great, but if not, your kid is not forced to attend school #4001---many other excellent choices, some even better than the T25s you are so hell-bent on attending.
Ah, got it. So because the US system is better we need to celebrate racism. Thanks for your excellent opinion that is certainly valid since you are "married to an Asian American"
Nope--you would be the racist if you think it's always about race why someone does not get in. For every "asian with a 1580" who is rejected there are also white students, URM who are also rejected with similar scores---Why? Because those schools reject 95% of their applicants. It's lottery, and your SAT score buys you a ticket, after that the score does not matter---the rest of your application does. You have no clue what the teacher recs, ECs, volunteering, difficult life events a kid experienced goes into the holistic evaluation--and why the school accepts who they do. But fact is many many bright highly qualified kids gets rejected, along with yours. The sheer fact you think suing is a good thing in this situation tells me about your privilege and entitlement issues.
But yes, most schools do not aim to be 100% asian even in the engineering schools. Do you have issues with engineering programs who strive for a M/F balance, thus admitting more females each year to get there? I for one think the world is a better place that we now have more women in engineering/CS/STEM areas if that is what they want to major in. Since 50 years ago, women largely did not go to college, did you/do you find issues with universities working to ensure they have a good M/F balance. Similarly, I think it's great if we help ensure lower incomes students who have not had the same privileges as my kid, to get a great college experience. I can recognize my privilege and realize that a kid with a 3.7 and 1450 from an underprivileged life/environemnt might be more appealing than my 1% kiddo. I can feel happy that kid is getting the experience---I didn't think of suing when my kid didn't get into their T25 schools---I realized it was a lottery and had a long list of targets and safeties that they got into they loved as well
No feeling that you may have justifies systemic racism against Asian applicants but thank you for sharing
Harvard is ~30% asian for the most recent class. Berkeley is ~40% asian students.
USA is less than 10% persons of asian decent. How is it systemic racism? Each school admits a higher population of Asians than exist in the US population.
Are you now going to argue that asians are "just smarter" than everyone else and thus deserve to attend Harvard at a higher rate?
There are so many reasons he did not get accepted and race is likely not it. Berkeley is test blind and does not do AA for over a decade. Fact is while he is a great candidate, Harvard acceptance rate is single digits. 9+ kids are rejected for every 1 that is accepted. 8 out of every 9 kids rejected is likely considered" highly qualified" for Harvard (and any other T25). Yet the school has to reject all 9, so the first is easy, they are "not qualified", the other 8 could easily get the coveted spot, so the difference comes down to ECs, volunteering, personal essays, teacher recommendations, etc. 9 kids out of 10 will be disappointed. You did not read the essays or Teacher recs or see the volunteering or ECs, etc. You have no way to know why the choice was made. And a lot of it may be preferences---the AO liked the kid's essay, or the kid had an intriguing volunteer situation where they seemed to be genuinely engaged vs most who are just doing what they think will get them into a top school. You really have no clue what it is---99.9999% chance that race is NOT the reason. And if it seems that way, it's much more likely that Harvard saw an outstanding person who is first gen, low income and they want to give them the opportunity of attending Harvard---race is likely just a byproduct for you to scream "racism" ---it's very likely the person was admitted for being lower income or grabbed the AO attention due to being low income and how the persevered thru their life struggles and are somehow still a great candidate. So yes, I guess you are "discriminated against" for growing up with privilege, but that is a really convoluted way of looking at things.
DP.. why does it matter what the Asian American population is compared to the % of total population? Since when does any institution have to reflect the overall population? The reason why Asian American population is higher in colleges is because they apply to college at a higher rate; they value education. Other groups don't, I guess.
I don't know if Asian Americans are "smarter", but they sure have higher stats.
And if you look at the stats in the Harvard case, a black student from a UMC with lower stats has a better chance of getting in compared to an Asian American student from a MC family with higher stats.
Do you think a middle class Asian American student really has more academic and opportunity than an UMC black student with two lawyer parents?
this. there was an op-ed in the nytimes recently making the case the affirmitive action needs to change from being race-based to being class-based. I think that makes a lot of sense (I'm south asian american).
What you do not understand is that too many Asian applicants are the problem, not too many African American/Hispanic.
Anonymous wrote:Test scores alone are not highly indicative of a successful future college student. It makes no sense to force a college to admit students based on this criteria. I don’t know why we put so much weight upon them. All they really do is generically show relative strengths and weaknesses among high schools.
I keep seeing this claim made but there are decades of research studies on this topic and many show that SAT scores are a very strong predictor of not only college grades but future career success as well.
+1 which is why MIT went back to requiring SAT scores.
MIT is only ONE T25 school. Georgetown still requires the SAT since it's not in the common app.
How about HYPS and the other 1,800+ who are test optional? How about the SAT/ACT going digital to even stay relevant?
I think you've missed the test optional trend. Get used to it. It is here to stay.
It is here to stay because more and more schools want to increase DEI. Getting rid of SAT scores is one way to do that. Why not just get rid of GPAs since there is so much grade inflation and grading is als
o pretty subjective?
GPA - and rigor- over 4 years is a better indicator of college success (at least freshman year) than one 3-hour test.
The AOs know this.
The AOs are failures in life. If they weren't, they wouldn't be stuck in an admissions office. They have low level degrees in xyz studies type areas and have their own personal social agendas to fulfill. I know this because I have the misfortune of interacting with many of them. Professors are not happy about the trajectory of admissions decisions over the past decade
The distain for people who work in education across this forum is so sad. If these failures are picking the classes, why would you want to be part of them? They suck at life, but somehow are able to put together talented cohorts year after year?
+1
Just sour grapes from the PP.
+1
Not to mention, how much "transparency" does China have?? GTFOH.
It's really a huge shame that the US has less transparency than even China when it comes to college admission. seriously WTF
These are private institutions we are talking about. Not some government-controlled Chinese schools. :roll:
Anonymous wrote:Test scores alone are not highly indicative of a successful future college student. It makes no sense to force a college to admit students based on this criteria. I don’t know why we put so much weight upon them. All they really do is generically show relative strengths and weaknesses among high schools.
I keep seeing this claim made but there are decades of research studies on this topic and many show that SAT scores are a very strong predictor of not only college grades but future career success as well.
+1 which is why MIT went back to requiring SAT scores.
MIT is only ONE T25 school. Georgetown still requires the SAT since it's not in the common app.
How about HYPS and the other 1,800+ who are test optional? How about the SAT/ACT going digital to even stay relevant?
I think you've missed the test optional trend. Get used to it. It is here to stay.
It is here to stay because more and more schools want to increase DEI. Getting rid of SAT scores is one way to do that. Why not just get rid of GPAs since there is so much grade inflation and grading is als
o pretty subjective?
GPA - and rigor- over 4 years is a better indicator of college success (at least freshman year) than one 3-hour test.
The AOs know this.
The AOs are failures in life. If they weren't, they wouldn't be stuck in an admissions office. They have low level degrees in xyz studies type areas and have their own personal social agendas to fulfill. I know this because I have the misfortune of interacting with many of them. Professors are not happy about the trajectory of admissions decisions over the past decade
The distain for people who work in education across this forum is so sad. If these failures are picking the classes, why would you want to be part of them? They suck at life, but somehow are able to put together talented cohorts year after year?
+1
Just sour grapes from the PP.
+1
Not to mention, how much "transparency" does China have?? GTFOH.
It's really a huge shame that the US has less transparency than even China when it comes to college admission. seriously WTF
These are private institutions we are talking about. Not some government-controlled Chinese schools. :roll:
It's really a huge shame that the US regards Universities like country clubs
Even communist government controlled colleges are not like that. WTF
Anonymous wrote:Huge cultural chasm here. America does not have the same testing traditions you find in just about every other country in the world. Americans believe in never quitting more than they believe in winning. That's why footbalk teams that lose hard fought games get celebrated almost as though they won.
The difference is every other country in the world has clear rule and transparency.
Another difference is that America rewards persistence. Many other countries give you just one chance to measure up in life. Not so in the USA.
Test measures persistence. It's for 12 years of persistent education
Also they do reward persistence with sort of GPA together with Test
I don't care if you do GPA only Test only GPA + Test, GPA + Test + whatever.
The important thing is clear rule and transparency.
the only thing you are asking for is how much was spent on making sure those scores were achieved. that's it. and not an amount, a percentage of income. if a 400k family spends 40k and an 80k family spends 8k its the same type of leg up, it is.
I am so tired of test prep being a replacement for intelligence and capability.
Same for GPA, ECs, Essay, etc.
I think test score is at least most objective and fair, so that disadvantaged intelligent and capable students get chance to compete.
Standardized testing has racist origins in the U S (and was used to justify segregation in the military and schools)., is culturally biased ( "pre test" questions that were answered correctly by most blacks were thrown out), and today is more a reflection of household income , test prep, and superscoriing.
Not even close to objective.
Most of the 1,900 colleges that are now test optional will remain after the AA ruling.
Good.
+1
Those arguing against this are just upset their kid has "lost their advantage" of privilege. Also, they apparently do not understand the numbers---there are simply many more kids with 1400/1450+ SAT and "qualified for elite schools" than there are spots. So most will be rejected. Nobody is entitled to a spot at an elite school, nobody. Once you recognize that and plan with great "target schools" you will be happier. Focus on the goal---getting your degree and starting a career, which can be done at a school ranked #30
+1
There are good schools even from #31 through #200 or so.
People are obsessed with T25s.
Expectations for college admissions need to get reset.
OK, then tell that to the URM who apply to T25. Tell them they should aim lower T100 to T200. It fits them better.
First, plenty of URM never even think of applying to T25 because it's so outside of their world when their parents do not have college degrees and are struggling just to keep the lights on and food on the table. So the group of "qualified URMs" is already much much smaller than everyone else at a T25. And many of them do end attending "lower ranked schools"---they attend the local state U that has a 60%+ acceptance rate and will be affordable and an easy drive from home.
However, it is Harvard/Stanford/any T25 choice as to how they build their freshman class. They see value in a URM or lower income student with only a 1500 and it's their right to admit them. I tend to agree that kid getting a 1500 means more than your 1%er getting a 1580. That kid will work harder and contribute more to the university over 4 years, and if Harvard thinks that, they will offer them admissions. Fact is outside of athletes, nobody with just a 1200 is getting admission to Harvard. So stop arguing that your kid with a 1580 is "better than a kid with a 1450+"---the difference is only in your head. Harvard has concluded that "1450ish is the cutoff" or whatever level and from there they look at other factors. And yes, I'd like my kids to attend colleges that are diverse. If you want an all asian college, you can apply in India or china and achieve just that. I want diversity on all levels.
+1
-1 no one stated that they wanted all Asian Americans in the college. And you are racist, implying that Asian Americans should "go back to their country".
Not racist---married to an Asian American, so I intimately understand both systems, having had a spouse go thru both sides. They much prefer the US system and are grateful our kids are not going thru the other system. Just sick of the few posters who keep wishing our system was "like china and India"---those systems exist and if that is what you want, then yes you are free to send your kids there. The fact you want to send them to a US school indicates that yes, our system overall is a better system. There are many faults with the China/India/Much of Europe way of tracking kids at an early age. I hope we never do that in this country---I don't think it's beneficial.
But complaining it's not fair your 1580 kid got rejected from highly rejective schools is ridiculous. Fact is most kids get rejected. But yes there are plenty of excellent schools out there, so focus on ones your kid can get into, and apply to the Reaches and reach for the stars, if it happens great, but if not, your kid is not forced to attend school #4001---many other excellent choices, some even better than the T25s you are so hell-bent on attending.
Ah, got it. So because the US system is better we need to celebrate racism. Thanks for your excellent opinion that is certainly valid since you are "married to an Asian American"
Nope--you would be the racist if you think it's always about race why someone does not get in. For every "asian with a 1580" who is rejected there are also white students, URM who are also rejected with similar scores---Why? Because those schools reject 95% of their applicants. It's lottery, and your SAT score buys you a ticket, after that the score does not matter---the rest of your application does. You have no clue what the teacher recs, ECs, volunteering, difficult life events a kid experienced goes into the holistic evaluation--and why the school accepts who they do. But fact is many many bright highly qualified kids gets rejected, along with yours. The sheer fact you think suing is a good thing in this situation tells me about your privilege and entitlement issues.
But yes, most schools do not aim to be 100% asian even in the engineering schools. Do you have issues with engineering programs who strive for a M/F balance, thus admitting more females each year to get there? I for one think the world is a better place that we now have more women in engineering/CS/STEM areas if that is what they want to major in. Since 50 years ago, women largely did not go to college, did you/do you find issues with universities working to ensure they have a good M/F balance. Similarly, I think it's great if we help ensure lower incomes students who have not had the same privileges as my kid, to get a great college experience. I can recognize my privilege and realize that a kid with a 3.7 and 1450 from an underprivileged life/environemnt might be more appealing than my 1% kiddo. I can feel happy that kid is getting the experience---I didn't think of suing when my kid didn't get into their T25 schools---I realized it was a lottery and had a long list of targets and safeties that they got into they loved as well
No feeling that you may have justifies systemic racism against Asian applicants but thank you for sharing
Harvard is ~30% asian for the most recent class. Berkeley is ~40% asian students.
USA is less than 10% persons of asian decent. How is it systemic racism? Each school admits a higher population of Asians than exist in the US population.
Are you now going to argue that asians are "just smarter" than everyone else and thus deserve to attend Harvard at a higher rate?
There are so many reasons he did not get accepted and race is likely not it. Berkeley is test blind and does not do AA for over a decade. Fact is while he is a great candidate, Harvard acceptance rate is single digits. 9+ kids are rejected for every 1 that is accepted. 8 out of every 9 kids rejected is likely considered" highly qualified" for Harvard (and any other T25). Yet the school has to reject all 9, so the first is easy, they are "not qualified", the other 8 could easily get the coveted spot, so the difference comes down to ECs, volunteering, personal essays, teacher recommendations, etc. 9 kids out of 10 will be disappointed. You did not read the essays or Teacher recs or see the volunteering or ECs, etc. You have no way to know why the choice was made. And a lot of it may be preferences---the AO liked the kid's essay, or the kid had an intriguing volunteer situation where they seemed to be genuinely engaged vs most who are just doing what they think will get them into a top school. You really have no clue what it is---99.9999% chance that race is NOT the reason. And if it seems that way, it's much more likely that Harvard saw an outstanding person who is first gen, low income and they want to give them the opportunity of attending Harvard---race is likely just a byproduct for you to scream "racism" ---it's very likely the person was admitted for being lower income or grabbed the AO attention due to being low income and how the persevered thru their life struggles and are somehow still a great candidate. So yes, I guess you are "discriminated against" for growing up with privilege, but that is a really convoluted way of looking at things.
Anonymous wrote:Test scores alone are not highly indicative of a successful future college student. It makes no sense to force a college to admit students based on this criteria. I don’t know why we put so much weight upon them. All they really do is generically show relative strengths and weaknesses among high schools.
I keep seeing this claim made but there are decades of research studies on this topic and many show that SAT scores are a very strong predictor of not only college grades but future career success as well.
+1 which is why MIT went back to requiring SAT scores.
MIT is only ONE T25 school. Georgetown still requires the SAT since it's not in the common app.
How about HYPS and the other 1,800+ who are test optional? How about the SAT/ACT going digital to even stay relevant?
I think you've missed the test optional trend. Get used to it. It is here to stay.
It is here to stay because more and more schools want to increase DEI. Getting rid of SAT scores is one way to do that. Why not just get rid of GPAs since there is so much grade inflation and grading is als
o pretty subjective?
GPA - and rigor- over 4 years is a better indicator of college success (at least freshman year) than one 3-hour test.
The AOs know this.
The AOs are failures in life. If they weren't, they wouldn't be stuck in an admissions office. They have low level degrees in xyz studies type areas and have their own personal social agendas to fulfill. I know this because I have the misfortune of interacting with many of them. Professors are not happy about the trajectory of admissions decisions over the past decade
The distain for people who work in education across this forum is so sad. If these failures are picking the classes, why would you want to be part of them? They suck at life, but somehow are able to put together talented cohorts year after year?
+1
Just sour grapes from the PP.
+1
Not to mention, how much "transparency" does China have?? GTFOH.
It's really a huge shame that the US has less transparency than even China when it comes to college admission. seriously WTF
Once again, if China is so awesome, you are free to go there and experience this awesome system.
So you agree that US college admission system is less transparent than even China.
Do you agree with every parts of every US systems. Is that why you are here?
I'm not sure about you, but I think there are rooms to make improvements in many arears in this country.
I care about this country where my kids were born, so unlike you I don't just leave just because I you don't like something.
I like to see improvements and progress.
I was born here, no plans to leave. I do NOT think the Western European, china, India ways of tracking kids at an early age is a better system. So I will fight to not change to that.
The main problem with our current system appears to be many feel "entitled" to an elite university experience because they "worked so hard and got high test scores over 12 years". The blinders are on and they cannot recognize there are not enough spaces for everyone who is highly qualified. And somehow refuse to recognize this and search for great Target and safety schools. Nobody is saying you cannot get an education. You can---most likely at a 25-50 ranked school---still excellent choice and it will not hold your kid back at all, unless they come from an area of entitlement/privilege that they are too good for those schools.
Reaches are just that---reaches for every DAMN person who applies, unless you are an athlete or kid of a president/last name of Bezos or gates/etc. So reach for the stars, but have a good plan in place for if that doesn't work. Because statistically, it will not work out.
It seems many entitled kids this is the first time money and privilege has not bought them everything they wanted. And they cannot seem to recognize their extreme privilege over most of the other kids in the US
The main problem with our current system is that there's no clear rules, no transparency, and they even discriminate based on race.
Admissions' tried to have clear rules, then people worked the system, and ruined it for everyone else. So, there will never be clear rules again.
Anonymous wrote:Huge cultural chasm here. America does not have the same testing traditions you find in just about every other country in the world. Americans believe in never quitting more than they believe in winning. That's why footbalk teams that lose hard fought games get celebrated almost as though they won.
The difference is every other country in the world has clear rule and transparency.
Another difference is that America rewards persistence. Many other countries give you just one chance to measure up in life. Not so in the USA.
Test measures persistence. It's for 12 years of persistent education
Also they do reward persistence with sort of GPA together with Test
I don't care if you do GPA only Test only GPA + Test, GPA + Test + whatever.
The important thing is clear rule and transparency.
the only thing you are asking for is how much was spent on making sure those scores were achieved. that's it. and not an amount, a percentage of income. if a 400k family spends 40k and an 80k family spends 8k its the same type of leg up, it is.
I am so tired of test prep being a replacement for intelligence and capability.
Same for GPA, ECs, Essay, etc.
I think test score is at least most objective and fair, so that disadvantaged intelligent and capable students get chance to compete.
Standardized testing has racist origins in the U S (and was used to justify segregation in the military and schools)., is culturally biased ( "pre test" questions that were answered correctly by most blacks were thrown out), and today is more a reflection of household income , test prep, and superscoriing.
Not even close to objective.
Most of the 1,900 colleges that are now test optional will remain after the AA ruling.
Good.
+1
Those arguing against this are just upset their kid has "lost their advantage" of privilege. Also, they apparently do not understand the numbers---there are simply many more kids with 1400/1450+ SAT and "qualified for elite schools" than there are spots. So most will be rejected. Nobody is entitled to a spot at an elite school, nobody. Once you recognize that and plan with great "target schools" you will be happier. Focus on the goal---getting your degree and starting a career, which can be done at a school ranked #30
+1
There are good schools even from #31 through #200 or so.
People are obsessed with T25s.
Expectations for college admissions need to get reset.
OK, then tell that to the URM who apply to T25. Tell them they should aim lower T100 to T200. It fits them better.
First, plenty of URM never even think of applying to T25 because it's so outside of their world when their parents do not have college degrees and are struggling just to keep the lights on and food on the table. So the group of "qualified URMs" is already much much smaller than everyone else at a T25. And many of them do end attending "lower ranked schools"---they attend the local state U that has a 60%+ acceptance rate and will be affordable and an easy drive from home.
However, it is Harvard/Stanford/any T25 choice as to how they build their freshman class. They see value in a URM or lower income student with only a 1500 and it's their right to admit them. I tend to agree that kid getting a 1500 means more than your 1%er getting a 1580. That kid will work harder and contribute more to the university over 4 years, and if Harvard thinks that, they will offer them admissions. Fact is outside of athletes, nobody with just a 1200 is getting admission to Harvard. So stop arguing that your kid with a 1580 is "better than a kid with a 1450+"---the difference is only in your head. Harvard has concluded that "1450ish is the cutoff" or whatever level and from there they look at other factors. And yes, I'd like my kids to attend colleges that are diverse. If you want an all asian college, you can apply in India or china and achieve just that. I want diversity on all levels.
+1
-1 no one stated that they wanted all Asian Americans in the college. And you are racist, implying that Asian Americans should "go back to their country".
Not racist---married to an Asian American, so I intimately understand both systems, having had a spouse go thru both sides. They much prefer the US system and are grateful our kids are not going thru the other system. Just sick of the few posters who keep wishing our system was "like china and India"---those systems exist and if that is what you want, then yes you are free to send your kids there. The fact you want to send them to a US school indicates that yes, our system overall is a better system. There are many faults with the China/India/Much of Europe way of tracking kids at an early age. I hope we never do that in this country---I don't think it's beneficial.
But complaining it's not fair your 1580 kid got rejected from highly rejective schools is ridiculous. Fact is most kids get rejected. But yes there are plenty of excellent schools out there, so focus on ones your kid can get into, and apply to the Reaches and reach for the stars, if it happens great, but if not, your kid is not forced to attend school #4001---many other excellent choices, some even better than the T25s you are so hell-bent on attending.
China and India aren't the only countries that don't use the "likeability" factor. The UK doesn't; Canada doesn't.
Only the US uses it, and it started with trying to discriminate against Jews. Now, they use it to discriminate against Asian Americans.
If a 1580 kid was rejected over a 1550 kid, I can understand that. But, if you look at the stats, it shows that stats for certain groups are *much* lower than Asian Americans. The bar for Asian Americans is higher already than for URM, and these colleges made it even higher by adding in the ridiculous "likeability" factor (again, used to historically discriminate against Jews).
You make way too much of test scores. They just aren't that important. Why are you so fixated on the SAT?
Anonymous wrote:Test scores alone are not highly indicative of a successful future college student. It makes no sense to force a college to admit students based on this criteria. I don’t know why we put so much weight upon them. All they really do is generically show relative strengths and weaknesses among high schools.
I keep seeing this claim made but there are decades of research studies on this topic and many show that SAT scores are a very strong predictor of not only college grades but future career success as well.
+1 which is why MIT went back to requiring SAT scores.
MIT is only ONE T25 school. Georgetown still requires the SAT since it's not in the common app.
How about HYPS and the other 1,800+ who are test optional? How about the SAT/ACT going digital to even stay relevant?
I think you've missed the test optional trend. Get used to it. It is here to stay.
It is here to stay because more and more schools want to increase DEI. Getting rid of SAT scores is one way to do that. Why not just get rid of GPAs since there is so much grade inflation and grading is als
o pretty subjective?
GPA - and rigor- over 4 years is a better indicator of college success (at least freshman year) than one 3-hour test.
The AOs know this.
The AOs are failures in life. If they weren't, they wouldn't be stuck in an admissions office. They have low level degrees in xyz studies type areas and have their own personal social agendas to fulfill. I know this because I have the misfortune of interacting with many of them. Professors are not happy about the trajectory of admissions decisions over the past decade
The distain for people who work in education across this forum is so sad. If these failures are picking the classes, why would you want to be part of them? They suck at life, but somehow are able to put together talented cohorts year after year?
+1
Just sour grapes from the PP.
+1
Not to mention, how much "transparency" does China have?? GTFOH.
It's really a huge shame that the US has less transparency than even China when it comes to college admission. seriously WTF
These are private institutions we are talking about. Not some government-controlled Chinese schools. :roll:
It's really a huge shame that the US regards Universities like country clubs
Even communist government controlled colleges are not like that. WTF
There are 4000 4-year colleges in the U.S., and some are like country clubs, but if you don't like that style, you have other options. Some are state run and institutional, some are like big football tailgate parties, some are like very small intellectual parlors. Many options.
IMHO being hung up on a ranking scheme that started in 1983 and was meant to be a marketing tool is an odd way to view education.
Anonymous wrote:So shocking how many support anti-asian hate.
They used to discriminate against Jews in exactly same way Harvard now does against Asians.
Can't knock em down based on merits, so you gotta attack their character and figure out ways less accomplished people get in (ahem race).
It is not anti-asian to want URMs to have access to elite universities, and its the white supremacists' agenda to make you think it's "us or them." If you think the powers that be are going to let only test scores and GPAs factor into elite universities, you're kidding yourself.
They don't care about Asians and they don't care about black and brown people.
Anonymous wrote:So shocking how many support anti-asian hate.
They used to discriminate against Jews in exactly same way Harvard now does against Asians.
Can't knock em down based on merits, so you gotta attack their character and figure out ways less accomplished people get in (ahem race).
So, regardless of how you feel about the various posts, it seems silly to say that they used to discriminate against jews the same way Harvard does against Asians.
You do realize that when they discriminated against Jews that meant there were basically 0 zero Jews admitted to Harvard. If 20% - 30% of Harvard is Asian...how is that even remotely the same?
Let's make sure we get our outrage comparisons correct.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}