Stanford will be requiring test scores

[Anonymous]

Stanford is trying to admit the next SCOTUS nominee, WNBA star, Apple CEO. Another Beltway bandit is a dime a zone. 1300s and 1600s gets the job done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And there goes the low income students!

My guess is they will also be giving poor students a preference in admissions.
That is what MIT did and their pell grant students went from 20% to 24% of the entering class.

I don't really see why this is any more a fair system. I get that poor people aren't a protected class, but it is ridiculous that we attempt to correct education at the finish line.

This! All resources must be applied at the primary/secondary education levels. Admission to college should be on the same standard for everyone with minor exceptions for culturally ingrained BS like sports and legacy. Subsidize those that can't pay tuition but that shouldn't be a factor in admissions.

I'm a big proponent of required AP/IB and SAT scores. Every time I bring this up, someone responds with "But not all underfunded schools provide AP coursework" 1) Okay and? How many poor students are going to elite colleges in the first place and 2) this is not a good defense as to why we should allow underprepared students into elite schools. They will be surrounded and trampled by students who all do well in standardized exams.

LOL. Tell it to my spouse.

Grew up dirt poor, got good (but not elite) scores on standardized tests, accepted to HYPS.

First in family to attend college. While the spoiled rich kids (like me) were partying, they worked 3 jobs to pay for school and have $$$ to eat/live.

Def did NOT get "trampled by" students who did well on standardized exams.

In fact, they graduated at top of class, went on to top 5 grad school, became a nationally known expert in their field, and was eventually appointed to prominent national leadership position by BO.

I know multiple others from similar backgrounds with similar stories.

Bottom line: a lot of the poor kids are a whole lot smarter and hungrier than the wealthy kids who get it all handed to them on a silver platter.

So he stole a spot from a student who could've gone further with their education. This doesn't impress me like you think it should. Getting into a top 5 grad school from an elite college is a given.

You clearly miss the point. His/her spouse was qualified, did well, was successful, contributed to society and did the school proud. I think some of the folks here need to band together and either start Pompous U. or bombard a less selective university with apps and agree to all attend. Make it their own for their beyond genius off-spring where slots aren't 'stolen' and education isn't sullied by the intellectually inferior.

Their spouse would have done well and been successful regardless of where they went to school.

Also, why don't you run with that great idea of yours? Start a U (don't care what you call it), convince all smart have-nots to attend and turn that into an elite school over time?

As for spouse success and any school argument, you could presumably say that about the tippy-top students, so then why the aversion to broaden the student body? As for starting another school, Im not bothered by allowing for the "smart have-nots" have a piece of the pie.

"smart have-nots"....yeah, Pompous U. fits

This has been repeated ad-nauseam on every thread. Simple concept - if you want society's handouts, don't expect
Gucci. Start that Dumbass U.

I appear to have struck a nerve. It is the colleges/universities that decide admissions. You seem upset that some seem to hold values different from your own. In all seriousness, families for whom providing opportunities to less resourced students is a sticking point can choose a different set of schools. If mad at HPYS, stick it to them by applying elsewhere.

+1. It reminds me of Red Pills who are angry with women for not desiring them. Go where you're wanted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And there goes the low income students!

My guess is they will also be giving poor students a preference in admissions.
That is what MIT did and their pell grant students went from 20% to 24% of the entering class.

I don't really see why this is any more a fair system. I get that poor people aren't a protected class, but it is ridiculous that we attempt to correct education at the finish line.

This! All resources must be applied at the primary/secondary education levels. Admission to college should be on the same standard for everyone with minor exceptions for culturally ingrained BS like sports and legacy. Subsidize those that can't pay tuition but that shouldn't be a factor in admissions.

I'm a big proponent of required AP/IB and SAT scores. Every time I bring this up, someone responds with "But not all underfunded schools provide AP coursework" 1) Okay and? How many poor students are going to elite colleges in the first place and 2) this is not a good defense as to why we should allow underprepared students into elite schools. They will be surrounded and trampled by students who all do well in standardized exams.

LOL. Tell it to my spouse.

Grew up dirt poor, got good (but not elite) scores on standardized tests, accepted to HYPS.

First in family to attend college. While the spoiled rich kids (like me) were partying, they worked 3 jobs to pay for school and have $$$ to eat/live.

Def did NOT get "trampled by" students who did well on standardized exams.

In fact, they graduated at top of class, went on to top 5 grad school, became a nationally known expert in their field, and was eventually appointed to prominent national leadership position by BO.

I know multiple others from similar backgrounds with similar stories.

Bottom line: a lot of the poor kids are a whole lot smarter and hungrier than the wealthy kids who get it all handed to them on a silver platter.

So he stole a spot from a student who could've gone further with their education. This doesn't impress me like you think it should. Getting into a top 5 grad school from an elite college is a given.

You clearly miss the point. His/her spouse was qualified, did well, was successful, contributed to society and did the school proud. I think some of the folks here need to band together and either start Pompous U. or bombard a less selective university with apps and agree to all attend. Make it their own for their beyond genius off-spring where slots aren't 'stolen' and education isn't sullied by the intellectually inferior.

Their spouse would have done well and been successful regardless of where they went to school.

Also, why don't you run with that great idea of yours? Start a U (don't care what you call it), convince all smart have-nots to attend and turn that into an elite school over time?

As for spouse success and any school argument, you could presumably say that about the tippy-top students, so then why the aversion to broaden the student body? As for starting another school, Im not bothered by allowing for the "smart have-nots" have a piece of the pie.

"smart have-nots"....yeah, Pompous U. fits

This has been repeated ad-nauseam on every thread. Simple concept - if you want society's handouts, don't expect
Gucci. Start that Dumbass U.

I appear to have struck a nerve. It is the colleges/universities that decide admissions. You seem upset that some seem to hold values different from your own. In all seriousness, families for whom providing opportunities to less resourced students is a sticking point can choose a different set of schools. If mad at HPYS, stick it to them by applying elsewhere.

+1. It reminds me of Red Pills who are angry with women for not desiring them. Go where you're wanted.

This is an odd take on racial discrimination by publicly funded institutions that are important rungs on the ladder of opportunity in america.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not every 1450 is close to the same based on life circumstances.

My guess is no one who has posted on this thread thus far will have a kid admitted to Stanford in the next 5 years. So many people here worry about the policies at these schools for no reason.

Well, DS '2026 at a T15 currently will likely apply to Stanford Law (reeeeeeach, he knows) in a few years, so I'm moderately interested in what the university is doing, generally. Who they're admitting, political winds, campus environment. to wit, he's keeping his eye on this sort of bullshit involving an undergrad dean and the law school. TLDR: dean doubles down on suppression of 110% protected political speech of invited speaker, sides with hecklers.

Stanford Law School Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Tirien Steinbach had been asked by the Federalist Society to attend the event as an observer and de-escalator. About 30 minutes into his lecture, and after much shouting by the students, Duncan asked for an administrator to address the heckling. Instead, Steinbach took the floor and told Duncan that she was uncomfortable with his presence and the event, which was “tearing the fabric of the community that I care about apart,” she said in a now-viral video.

Sounds about right. The Federalist society threatens these elite law schools that they will ask their members to ban these colleges' students from clerking with them if the school does not let them come and speak at events. Then, the school invites speakers that students do not want to see and pay $100,000 per year to attend a college that doesn't listen to them...and then chaos.

Noone forced them to go to the federalist society meeting to heckle their speaker. They went out of their way to shout down a federal judge because they disagreed with him.

"Out of the way"...it's their campus. It's no way at all. You know what's out of the way-going to an entirely different state to a university as a Judge to speak.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not every 1450 is close to the same based on life circumstances.

My guess is no one who has posted on this thread thus far will have a kid admitted to Stanford in the next 5 years. So many people here worry about the policies at these schools for no reason.

Well, DS '2026 at a T15 currently will likely apply to Stanford Law (reeeeeeach, he knows) in a few years, so I'm moderately interested in what the university is doing, generally. Who they're admitting, political winds, campus environment. to wit, he's keeping his eye on this sort of bullshit involving an undergrad dean and the law school. TLDR: dean doubles down on suppression of 110% protected political speech of invited speaker, sides with hecklers.

Stanford Law School Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Tirien Steinbach had been asked by the Federalist Society to attend the event as an observer and de-escalator. About 30 minutes into his lecture, and after much shouting by the students, Duncan asked for an administrator to address the heckling. Instead, Steinbach took the floor and told Duncan that she was uncomfortable with his presence and the event, which was “tearing the fabric of the community that I care about apart,” she said in a now-viral video.

Sounds about right. The Federalist society threatens these elite law schools that they will ask their members to ban these colleges' students from clerking with them if the school does not let them come and speak at events. Then, the school invites speakers that students do not want to see and pay $100,000 per year to attend a college that doesn't listen to them...and then chaos.

The Federalist Society members presumably wanted to hear the talk, no?

And you're making my point - it's worth monitoring how tender and wrapped in bubble wrap a student body is that it is closed off to hearing ideas they disagree with and the ensuing discussion. That's unappealing, as is admitting successive cohorts who are less capable of doing the typical work (the actual subject of this thread)

I don't see why students have to agree with everyone the school brings. No, if I am having to listen to a person who thinks Obergefell should be overturned, as a queer person, I really don't want to hear them out on a good day, let alone have my institution pay to fly them there and give them a mic to spew hateful law. In a similar vein, I don't want a bunch of communist anti-legal activists coming either. For some people, these ideas are actual material losses that could harm them.

Overall, the schools are still providing the forum. Stanford still is inviting conservative judges every single semester onto campus and students are then labelled radicals for protesting people who do harm to their communities.

Does stanford ever invite any progressive judges? Or is it only conservative judges.

Law school is obsessed with conservative or non political judges.
Undergrad brings in a ton of progressive speakers and thinkers, but more legal theorists than practitioners. You're more likely to see Clarence Thomas than Elena Kagan basically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And there goes the low income students!

My guess is they will also be giving poor students a preference in admissions.
That is what MIT did and their pell grant students went from 20% to 24% of the entering class.

I don't really see why this is any more a fair system. I get that poor people aren't a protected class, but it is ridiculous that we attempt to correct education at the finish line.

This! All resources must be applied at the primary/secondary education levels. Admission to college should be on the same standard for everyone with minor exceptions for culturally ingrained BS like sports and legacy. Subsidize those that can't pay tuition but that shouldn't be a factor in admissions.

I'm a big proponent of required AP/IB and SAT scores. Every time I bring this up, someone responds with "But not all underfunded schools provide AP coursework" 1) Okay and? How many poor students are going to elite colleges in the first place and 2) this is not a good defense as to why we should allow underprepared students into elite schools. They will be surrounded and trampled by students who all do well in standardized exams.

LOL. Tell it to my spouse.

Grew up dirt poor, got good (but not elite) scores on standardized tests, accepted to HYPS.

First in family to attend college. While the spoiled rich kids (like me) were partying, they worked 3 jobs to pay for school and have $$$ to eat/live.

Def did NOT get "trampled by" students who did well on standardized exams.

In fact, they graduated at top of class, went on to top 5 grad school, became a nationally known expert in their field, and was eventually appointed to prominent national leadership position by BO.

I know multiple others from similar backgrounds with similar stories.

Bottom line: a lot of the poor kids are a whole lot smarter and hungrier than the wealthy kids who get it all handed to them on a silver platter.

So he stole a spot from a student who could've gone further with their education. This doesn't impress me like you think it should. Getting into a top 5 grad school from an elite college is a given.

You clearly miss the point. His/her spouse was qualified, did well, was successful, contributed to society and did the school proud. I think some of the folks here need to band together and either start Pompous U. or bombard a less selective university with apps and agree to all attend. Make it their own for their beyond genius off-spring where slots aren't 'stolen' and education isn't sullied by the intellectually inferior.

Their spouse would have done well and been successful regardless of where they went to school.

Also, why don't you run with that great idea of yours? Start a U (don't care what you call it), convince all smart have-nots to attend and turn that into an elite school over time?

This is about the dumbest argument. The exact same thing could be said of the students who spot was “stolen” by PP’s spouse. They would do just as well at any other university. It’s like the RWNJ who claim Obama was only an affirmative action admit to Columbia and HLS. If what they say is true, then that makes him the poster child for exactly why affirmative action should exist in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Princeton
Upenn
Columbia
Duke
Northwestern
UChicago
UCLA
UCB
Vanderbilt
Notre Dame
are the 10 schools left in the T20 that are optional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Princeton
Upenn
Columbia
Duke
Northwestern
UChicago
UCLA
UCB
Vanderbilt
Notre Dame
are the 10 schools left in the T20 that are optional.

Michigan?

[Anonymous]

It will be interesting to see what happens here and at berkeley. I expect the URM population to increase at berkeley.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Princeton
Upenn
Columbia
Duke
Northwestern
UChicago
UCLA
UCB
Vanderbilt
Notre Dame
are the 10 schools left in the T20 that are optional.

Michigan?

T20?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Princeton
Upenn
Columbia
Duke
Northwestern
UChicago
UCLA
UCB
Vanderbilt
Notre Dame
are the 10 schools left in the T20 that are optional.

I think Rice doesn't technically require it, but highly recommends submitting test scores. That's probably the reality for all of them except the UCs. And the UCs are real outliers these days. It's a big state so I guess they don't care. But realistically, a typical applicant is not going to be seriously considered at Rice, Duke, Northwestern and the others without submitting test scores.

[Anonymous]

I think Princeton will be going back to test required for HS class of 2026. That would be a smart move.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Beginning with the 2025–2026 application cycle, Stanford will reinstate its standardized testing requirement. ACT or SAT scores will be required for first-year and transfer students submitting applications for the Fall 2026 entry term.

Meanwhile Stanford has spent the last 20 years running a campaign to destroy K-12 math education and discredit standardized tests.

https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-divider

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Beginning with the 2025–2026 application cycle, Stanford will reinstate its standardized testing requirement. ACT or SAT scores will be required for first-year and transfer students submitting applications for the Fall 2026 entry term.

Meanwhile Stanford has spent the last 20 years running a campaign to destroy K-12 math education and discredit standardized tests.

https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-divider

It's one professor at Stanford.
There are other professors at stanford that accuse her of cooking the books in her research so it's not an institutional thing, it's a Boaler thing.
She is influential primarily because she is giving equity focused California educators an excuse to disregard test scores and eliminate accelerated math in general.
Noone in California public schools gets algebra before 9th grade.
They think this is going to close the achievement gap but it doesn't.
Some kids are going to get outside instruction and others aren't.
Guess which races do this more and which races do this less?