Swarthmore officially test optional for rising seniors

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Same goes for FGLI admits. It's fine to admit them, but hiding their scores just shows the school lack integrity.

[Anonymous]

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

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

I'm a Swattie who graduated in the mid 90s as well, and I never received this message. I came from a working class family, went to Swarthmore with a Pell Grant, and made spending money as a work study student and babysitting for faculty and families in the 'ville. It's true that many of my friends did pursue PhDs (and FWIW we are *all* miraculously now tenured faculty), but the overarching message was that the life of the mind was a worthy pursuit. It's equally true that many of my friends when to law school and medical school and pursued professional degrees. Only one of my close friends chose not to go to graduate school, and choose a traditional route of getting married young and SAH.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

The dirty little secret is that first-gen kids are the least likely to study humanities; they live and die (for somewhat understandable reasons) for something "practical."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

The dirty little secret is that first-gen kids are the least likely to study humanities; they live and die (for somewhat understandable reasons) for something "practical."

Then why hide the scores?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

The dirty little secret is that first-gen kids are the least likely to study humanities; they live and die (for somewhat understandable reasons) for something "practical."

Then why hide the scores?

I don't think FGLI admits are the problem. I think the school is hypocrite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

I'm a Swattie who graduated in the mid 90s as well, and I never received this message. I came from a working class family, went to Swarthmore with a Pell Grant, and made spending money as a work study student and babysitting for faculty and families in the 'ville. It's true that many of my friends did pursue PhDs (and FWIW we are *all* miraculously now tenured faculty), but the overarching message was that the life of the mind was a worthy pursuit. It's equally true that many of my friends when to law school and medical school and pursued professional degrees. Only one of my close friends chose not to go to graduate school, and choose a traditional route of getting married young and SAH.

On another note, if you’re going to swarthmore, you have a good chance of getting into a top grad school, where getting a position in the humanities on the tenure track is way more likely. Even if you’re permanent visiting faculty, you’re still making $70-80k which is a living, middle class wage in the majority of the country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

I'm a Swattie who graduated in the mid 90s as well, and I never received this message. I came from a working class family, went to Swarthmore with a Pell Grant, and made spending money as a work study student and babysitting for faculty and families in the 'ville. It's true that many of my friends did pursue PhDs (and FWIW we are *all* miraculously now tenured faculty), but the overarching message was that the life of the mind was a worthy pursuit. It's equally true that many of my friends when to law school and medical school and pursued professional degrees. Only one of my close friends chose not to go to graduate school, and choose a traditional route of getting married young and SAH.

On another note, if you’re going to swarthmore, you have a good chance of getting into a top grad school, where getting a position in the humanities on the tenure track is way more likely. Even if you’re permanent visiting faculty, you’re still making $70-80k which is a living, middle class wage in the majority of the country.

Might as well have gone to JMU make more money rookie year 3rd grade teacher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Same goes for FGLI admits. It's fine to admit them, but hiding their scores just shows the school lack integrity.

Please elaborate how you believe Swarthmore is "hiding" such scores? Do other schools separately publish the disaggregated stats of their athletes or FGLI admits?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

The dirty little secret is that first-gen kids are the least likely to study humanities; they live and die (for somewhat understandable reasons) for something "practical."

Then why hide the scores?

The first-gen kids have lower scores. Duh. It is almost 1 in 3 admits…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Same goes for FGLI admits. It's fine to admit them, but hiding their scores just shows the school lack integrity.

Please elaborate how you believe Swarthmore is "hiding" such scores? Do other schools separately publish the disaggregated stats of their athletes or FGLI admits?

I don't understand either. Go look at their CDS, no one is stopping them from getting access to academic success at Swarthmore.

[Anonymous]

I'm so upset my upper middle-class kid--who went to Montessori K-8, a prestigious private high school with 40 different AP offerings, and received personal tutoring on each of their three SAT exams--had to go to Davidson instead of Swarthmore because of all those FGLI admits. It's so unfair!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm so upset my upper middle-class kid--who went to Montessori K-8, a prestigious private high school with 40 different AP offerings, and received personal tutoring on each of their three SAT exams--had to go to Davidson instead of Swarthmore because of all those FGLI admits. It's so unfair!!!

If you are implying Davidson is easier to get into for your upper middle class kid, you are wrong. Davidson is as elite and takes in many FGLI.

You'd better go down to Colgate or Colorado for your upper middle class kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Same goes for FGLI admits. It's fine to admit them, but hiding their scores just shows the school lack integrity.

Please elaborate how you believe Swarthmore is "hiding" such scores? Do other schools separately publish the disaggregated stats of their athletes or FGLI admits?

By going TO, duh! So the school conveniently doesn’t need to report their scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Same goes for FGLI admits. It's fine to admit them, but hiding their scores just shows the school lack integrity.

Please elaborate how you believe Swarthmore is "hiding" such scores? Do other schools separately publish the disaggregated stats of their athletes or FGLI admits?

By going TO, duh! So the school conveniently doesn’t need to report their scores.

Umm, your DC doesn't have to apply or attend if admitted. It sounds like this school isn't for them (you)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm so upset my upper middle-class kid--who went to Montessori K-8, a prestigious private high school with 40 different AP offerings, and received personal tutoring on each of their three SAT exams--had to go to Davidson instead of Swarthmore because of all those FGLI admits. It's so unfair!!!

If you are implying Davidson is easier to get into for your upper middle class kid, you are wrong. Davidson is as elite and takes in many FGLI.

You'd better go down to Colgate or Colorado for your upper middle class kid.

I think the previous post was sarcasm....