When is the standardized craze gonna hit the LACs?

[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.

[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.

Amherst 2028 is 3% black.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No bias, test required would have done noting but benefit my kids given the lowest scoring one had a 1560. I'm in favor of testing but the idea that TO is somehow letting in a huge number of 'unqualified' kids is just wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Amherst 2028 is 3% black.

That was a blip. Class of 2029 is diverse, per DC. It’s why admissions expanded FGLI to the highest level ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Football is still school based. It also has the largest team of any sport.

[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.

+1
Everyone knows you need to submit test scores if you’re not an institutional priority. My kid did.

100x yes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Amherst 2028 is 3% black.

That was a blip. Class of 2029 is diverse, per DC. It’s why admissions expanded FGLI to the highest level ever.

Class of 2027: 18.5% Pell grant recipient, 11% black
Class of 2028: 20% Pell grant recipient, 3% black
Increasing FGLI doesn't immediately mean more URMs. It might sound crazy but there are actually more poor white people in this country and many asian students are poor.

This isn't some blip. Amherst had a drop much more severe than its competition. It's clear that URM students were fully being boosted into the institution and were not actually qualified for admission.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No bias, test required would have done noting but benefit my kids given the lowest scoring one had a 1560. I'm in favor of testing but the idea that TO is somehow letting in a huge number of 'unqualified' kids is just wrong.

+1, test optional holds the students who were the schools previous 25-50 percentile band. People completely miss that TO changed average scores so much that some schools are seeing their previous 50th percentile scores land lower than their current 25th percentile.

[Anonymous]

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.

So only non-URM, middle and upper class applicants are “required” to submit test scores. That’s quite a double standard! Don’t like Trump but hope he takes a wrecking ball to LACs like he’s doing with the big boys.

What a strange response to not agreeing with how a college chooses to legally admit its students.

[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.

+1
Everyone knows you need to submit test scores if you’re not an institutional priority. My kid did.

100x yes

Yep, if you’re unhooked need to show yours top of the heap academically.

[Anonymous]

According to my kid, the only students who think the colleges are diverse are the ones who went to largely white high schools. My kids never went to a school that was 50% white so Amherst feels pretty white