When is the standardized craze gonna hit the LACs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably soon. Once Williams or Amherst makes a move, others will quickly go back. I don't see Amherst doing this anytime soon, since they're struggling to get their diversity numbers back up and want to get them higher. I really doubt Pomona or any west coast LAC would make such a move.

Struggling to get diversity numbers up? You should see the class of 2029 at Amherst. Last year was a blip.

I’d love to but Amherst hid its diversity numbers in its class of 2029 press release.

There not supposed to collect that data anymore, remember?

[Anonymous]

Craze?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Craze?

I would say small trend, among elite schools. LACs will continue to do their own thing because they want to be able to shape their small classes the way they want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably soon. Once Williams or Amherst makes a move, others will quickly go back. I don't see Amherst doing this anytime soon, since they're struggling to get their diversity numbers back up and want to get them higher. I really doubt Pomona or any west coast LAC would make such a move.

Struggling to get diversity numbers up? You should see the class of 2029 at Amherst. Last year was a blip.

I’d love to but Amherst hid its diversity numbers in its class of 2029 press release.

Fgli is a reasonable proxy.

Not true! The same year all the schools dropped in diversity, they had record fgli students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The main problem with TO is that it discouraged applicants from less-advantaged backgrounds from submitting test scores that would have provided an additional positive signal of their academic abilities. So many FGLI URM kids apply with TO ending up having much reduced chance of admission. Test required allows FGLI URM kids submit their 1400 score, which, opposite to many kids thought, it's a great score in their context, even for WASP.

By staying TO, rich kids with resources benefit the most, they often seek out undersubscribed majors and doign fancy ECs to impress the AOs. They do not deserve the seats as much as the FGLI URM kids, but under TO, AOs have no choice but admitting rich kids.

This is true for a narrow band of schools. Most schools have seen record diversity since TO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They want the appearance of being a rigorous selective institution, and being TO allows them to do this. In reality, many students at these schools have low scores.

NO, just no

Why do you say no? It’s true at almost all selective colleges now. Why wouldn’t it also be true at these schools? TO obscures low test scores.

I’m afraid your bias is clouding your judgement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the upside of requiring scores? The number of applications go down, their average SAT scores go down, and they have a harder time admitting certain kids they want. The biggest benefit to SLACs of TO are their recruited athletes (not URM, as someone here is assuming). Some kids test well; others do not. Some spend thousands to prep; others cannot. The SAT/ACT is one data point, and can be more easily manipulated than GPA.

+1 The test required zealots are so thirsty. They just can’t accept when any TO applicant is admitted to a selective school over Larlo and their 1500+. Why would these schools, given the current college admissions landscape, do anything to limit applications. Especially with the pending lawsuit challenging the practice of ED, most schools will not be looking to give up the flexibility that TO provides. This test required wave isn’t coming.

The ED lawsuit id going to go nowhere, there is no harm. But I agree that the top SLACs aren't in a rush to go back to testing. They have no need to when they can get as many kids as they want with stats equal to anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The main problem with TO is that it discouraged applicants from less-advantaged backgrounds from submitting test scores that would have provided an additional positive signal of their academic abilities. So many FGLI URM kids apply with TO ending up having much reduced chance of admission. Test required allows FGLI URM kids submit their 1400 score, which, opposite to many kids thought, it's a great score in their context, even for WASP.

By staying TO, rich kids with resources benefit the most, they often seek out undersubscribed majors and doign fancy ECs to impress the AOs. They do not deserve the seats as much as the FGLI URM kids, but under TO, AOs have no choice but admitting rich kids.

Well, PPs above believe TO only benefits applicants that are institutional priorities (URM, FGLI, Athletes, etc) and that if you are a ORM or Majority upper middle/upper class student then you must submit test scores. Which one is it? I think you’re both wrong. (Kids don’t apply to LACs by major, btw) I think the main way that privileged kids disproportionately get into SLACs is through athletics. To reach the level of a recruitable athlete in the NESCAC, for example, takes a significant financial commitment. But even those kids have to submit a score in prereads and meet a certain threshold or they will not pass, TO or not. Moreover, most of not all of the top 20ish SLACs participate in Questbridge and admit many students from “less-advantaged “ backgrounds. Plenty of pathways for kids whi didn’t “found” their own non profits.

One PP said "plenty of athletes are FG LI" and you said athletes are rich kids. Which one is true?

Regardless, you are wrong on so many levels. WASP currently only have about 8% URM or less, maybe Williams a little bit more. AND these URM are mostly rich private school kids. The real underresourced URM in public schools don't get picked up by WASP. Inner city URM for example is rarely seen in WASP.

Questbridge is far less than enough. WASP do admit 20%+ Questbridge or similar kids, but this is not the norm among T20 LACs. Many LACs pick up far less than that figure. I don't know what is the figure for Bowdoin or Middlebury (doubt it that is high), but if you go down to Washington & Lee level, the percentage is very small.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suspect Williams and Amherst would like to require testing but don’t want to mess w their rankings.

I bet they don’t. How has it hurt them? How did it help them before?

1. a lot of highly selective colleges dont actually want a zillion apps. this is why there's a trend of not releasing admissions rate. it's a bad look politically, it puts qualified people from applying, it's a burden to the college

2. they risk letting in kids who can't do the work. faculty almost always wants to go back to testing for a reason

I think maybe 10 highly selective schools don’t want a zillion apps. The brands that kids like to take flyers on. Very small group. And this risk of “kids who can’t do the work” is such a spurious argument. First off, even when some schools produce data saying TO kids don’t perform as well, they are usually a few tenths of GPA points lower. Not flunking out. Second, if a school was committed to TO and spent the time reviewing admissions result. How kids performed over time, and perfecting TO practices they could totally do it. Bowdoin doesn’t seem to have a problem with retention/graduation rates. These are just straw man arguments from people who think test scores should pretty much be outcome determinative.

agree, but also agree that includes Williams and Amherst

also, the data seems mixed. Bowdoin found one thing. Dartmouth found another. MIT found another.

I don’t really get this. The top lacs all get a very similar number of applications, and it’s not exactly high. Williams and Amherst aren’t that special with who they select, and they don’t get much advantage from test required. So far the only top lac to go back to test required is CMC in fall 2028, but a month before the faculty recommendation to bring back test scores, the faculty voted in the complete opposite direction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I suspect Williams and Amherst would like to require testing but don’t want to mess w their rankings.

There Prescence at the top of the rankings has nothing to do with student profiles. The student profiles are basically identical for the top 8-10 schools and the equal to the top privates. Their position at teh top of teh rankings is driven by the size of their endowments. The rankings of the top SLACs is almost perfectly correlated with the ranking of the schools based on endowment size.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The main problem with TO is that it discouraged applicants from less-advantaged backgrounds from submitting test scores that would have provided an additional positive signal of their academic abilities. So many FGLI URM kids apply with TO ending up having much reduced chance of admission. Test required allows FGLI URM kids submit their 1400 score, which, opposite to many kids thought, it's a great score in their context, even for WASP.

By staying TO, rich kids with resources benefit the most, they often seek out undersubscribed majors and doign fancy ECs to impress the AOs. They do not deserve the seats as much as the FGLI URM kids, but under TO, AOs have no choice but admitting rich kids.

Well, PPs above believe TO only benefits applicants that are institutional priorities (URM, FGLI, Athletes, etc) and that if you are a ORM or Majority upper middle/upper class student then you must submit test scores. Which one is it? I think you’re both wrong. (Kids don’t apply to LACs by major, btw) I think the main way that privileged kids disproportionately get into SLACs is through athletics. To reach the level of a recruitable athlete in the NESCAC, for example, takes a significant financial commitment. But even those kids have to submit a score in prereads and meet a certain threshold or they will not pass, TO or not. Moreover, most of not all of the top 20ish SLACs participate in Questbridge and admit many students from “less-advantaged “ backgrounds. Plenty of pathways for kids whi didn’t “found” their own non profits.

One PP said "plenty of athletes are FG LI" and you said athletes are rich kids. Which one is true?

Regardless, you are wrong on so many levels. WASP currently only have about 8% URM or less, maybe Williams a little bit more. AND these URM are mostly rich private school kids. The real underresourced URM in public schools don't get picked up by WASP. Inner city URM for example is rarely seen in WASP.

Questbridge is far less than enough. WASP do admit 20%+ Questbridge or similar kids, but this is not the norm among T20 LACs. Many LACs pick up far less than that figure. I don't know what is the figure for Bowdoin or Middlebury (doubt it that is high), but if you go down to Washington & Lee level, the percentage is very small.

You mean Black? Definitely way more than 8% URM and Williams has never led WASP in diversity- it’s always been worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The main problem with TO is that it discouraged applicants from less-advantaged backgrounds from submitting test scores that would have provided an additional positive signal of their academic abilities. So many FGLI URM kids apply with TO ending up having much reduced chance of admission. Test required allows FGLI URM kids submit their 1400 score, which, opposite to many kids thought, it's a great score in their context, even for WASP.

By staying TO, rich kids with resources benefit the most, they often seek out undersubscribed majors and doign fancy ECs to impress the AOs. They do not deserve the seats as much as the FGLI URM kids, but under TO, AOs have no choice but admitting rich kids.

Well, PPs above believe TO only benefits applicants that are institutional priorities (URM, FGLI, Athletes, etc) and that if you are a ORM or Majority upper middle/upper class student then you must submit test scores. Which one is it? I think you’re both wrong. (Kids don’t apply to LACs by major, btw) I think the main way that privileged kids disproportionately get into SLACs is through athletics. To reach the level of a recruitable athlete in the NESCAC, for example, takes a significant financial commitment. But even those kids have to submit a score in prereads and meet a certain threshold or they will not pass, TO or not. Moreover, most of not all of the top 20ish SLACs participate in Questbridge and admit many students from “less-advantaged “ backgrounds. Plenty of pathways for kids whi didn’t “found” their own non profits.

One PP said "plenty of athletes are FG LI" and you said athletes are rich kids. Which one is true?

Regardless, you are wrong on so many levels. WASP currently only have about 8% URM or less, maybe Williams a little bit more. AND these URM are mostly rich private school kids. The real underresourced URM in public schools don't get picked up by WASP. Inner city URM for example is rarely seen in WASP.

Questbridge is far less than enough. WASP do admit 20%+ Questbridge or similar kids, but this is not the norm among T20 LACs. Many LACs pick up far less than that figure. I don't know what is the figure for Bowdoin or Middlebury (doubt it that is high), but if you go down to Washington & Lee level, the percentage is very small.

Completely false.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The main problem with TO is that it discouraged applicants from less-advantaged backgrounds from submitting test scores that would have provided an additional positive signal of their academic abilities. So many FGLI URM kids apply with TO ending up having much reduced chance of admission. Test required allows FGLI URM kids submit their 1400 score, which, opposite to many kids thought, it's a great score in their context, even for WASP.

By staying TO, rich kids with resources benefit the most, they often seek out undersubscribed majors and doign fancy ECs to impress the AOs. They do not deserve the seats as much as the FGLI URM kids, but under TO, AOs have no choice but admitting rich kids.

Well, PPs above believe TO only benefits applicants that are institutional priorities (URM, FGLI, Athletes, etc) and that if you are a ORM or Majority upper middle/upper class student then you must submit test scores. Which one is it? I think you’re both wrong. (Kids don’t apply to LACs by major, btw) I think the main way that privileged kids disproportionately get into SLACs is through athletics. To reach the level of a recruitable athlete in the NESCAC, for example, takes a significant financial commitment. But even those kids have to submit a score in prereads and meet a certain threshold or they will not pass, TO or not. Moreover, most of not all of the top 20ish SLACs participate in Questbridge and admit many students from “less-advantaged “ backgrounds. Plenty of pathways for kids whi didn’t “found” their own non profits.

One PP said "plenty of athletes are FG LI" and you said athletes are rich kids. Which one is true?

Regardless, you are wrong on so many levels. WASP currently only have about 8% URM or less, maybe Williams a little bit more. AND these URM are mostly rich private school kids. The real underresourced URM in public schools don't get picked up by WASP. Inner city URM for example is rarely seen in WASP.

Questbridge is far less than enough. WASP do admit 20%+ Questbridge or similar kids, but this is not the norm among T20 LACs. Many LACs pick up far less than that figure. I don't know what is the figure for Bowdoin or Middlebury (doubt it that is high), but if you go down to Washington & Lee level, the percentage is very small.

You mean Black? Definitely way more than 8% URM and Williams has never led WASP in diversity- it’s always been worse.

Swarthmore and Amherst lead in diversity, by quite a bit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For class of 2028 enrolled students score submission
Williams,35% SAT, 15% ACT
Amherst 39% SAT, 22% ACT

They may want to go back to test required, but that's a little jump from these numbers. Hard to say.

Williams 25th percentile now is 1500, back when tests were required it was 1430. Amherst 25th percentile is now 1500, back when tests were required it was 1410.

They will remain TO because they want the flexibility. Amherst was 21% FGLI this year, 35% recruited athletes. Test required doesn't allow them to build the classes they want. Everyone knows if you're unhooked and not an institutional priority, you need to submit the scores though.

Wait so 56% of Amherst's class is either FGLI or recruited athlete?? This just confirms it's absolutely pointless to apply ED to any of the top LACs. Nearly all the spots are taken by recruit athlete/FGLI.

Also, I think it builds a lot of divisions in the student population: social class and sports teams.

plenty of athletes are FGLI. plenty are rich, but just saying you can't add those number together. you see this on every team.

Almost no athletes are FGLI, that is a major reason that many cite against athletic preferences. Truth is that you cannot reach the level needed to be recruitable for sports at the top SLACs without years of expensive training.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The main problem with TO is that it discouraged applicants from less-advantaged backgrounds from submitting test scores that would have provided an additional positive signal of their academic abilities. So many FGLI URM kids apply with TO ending up having much reduced chance of admission. Test required allows FGLI URM kids submit their 1400 score, which, opposite to many kids thought, it's a great score in their context, even for WASP.

By staying TO, rich kids with resources benefit the most, they often seek out undersubscribed majors and doign fancy ECs to impress the AOs. They do not deserve the seats as much as the FGLI URM kids, but under TO, AOs have no choice but admitting rich kids.

Well, PPs above believe TO only benefits applicants that are institutional priorities (URM, FGLI, Athletes, etc) and that if you are a ORM or Majority upper middle/upper class student then you must submit test scores. Which one is it? I think you’re both wrong. (Kids don’t apply to LACs by major, btw) I think the main way that privileged kids disproportionately get into SLACs is through athletics. To reach the level of a recruitable athlete in the NESCAC, for example, takes a significant financial commitment. But even those kids have to submit a score in prereads and meet a certain threshold or they will not pass, TO or not. Moreover, most of not all of the top 20ish SLACs participate in Questbridge and admit many students from “less-advantaged “ backgrounds. Plenty of pathways for kids whi didn’t “found” their own non profits.

One PP said "plenty of athletes are FG LI" and you said athletes are rich kids. Which one is true?

Regardless, you are wrong on so many levels. WASP currently only have about 8% URM or less, maybe Williams a little bit more. AND these URM are mostly rich private school kids. The real underresourced URM in public schools don't get picked up by WASP. Inner city URM for example is rarely seen in WASP.

Questbridge is far less than enough. WASP do admit 20%+ Questbridge or similar kids, but this is not the norm among T20 LACs. Many LACs pick up far less than that figure. I don't know what is the figure for Bowdoin or Middlebury (doubt it that is high), but if you go down to Washington & Lee level, the percentage is very small.

You mean Black? Definitely way more than 8% URM and Williams has never led WASP in diversity- it’s always been worse.

Swarthmore and Amherst lead in diversity, by quite a bit.

Can you show any stat that shows a reasonable difference in diversity by Swat, Amherst, and Pomona. It’s all about the same.