SFFA doesn't like the Asian American %

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wonder how people would feel if admissions was largely based on SAT score and this resulted in classes at top schools heavily skewed towards men and mem are significantly more likely to score higher on the SAT than women

As overall students, women are better than men, and it’d be interesting to see what these colleges’ classes would look like if they stopped their 50/50 gender policies and went blind.

STEM (except stuff that can get you into medical school) would be vastly more male, most other majors would be vastly more female.

Which is a cultural issue that should be fixed, not an admissions one. Many other countries have women more represented in all stem subjects, so it comes down to understanding why there’s such a massive gap in the US, and why our standardized exam results in women with worse scores across the board

I think the gap in stem is mostly cultural and not really a big concern considering there are more women in law schools and medical schools than men.

The gap in standardized test scores are at the tails. Women have slightly higher average test scores but there are more men at the very bottom and the very tops of the curve.

I'd prefer our brightest minds in engineering and chem grad schools, not in law school.

No one cares what you'd prefer.

That’s a great way to shut down our society from discourse bozo. No one asked for your opinion on my comment either.

You offered your opinion with little more and they offered their opinion with little more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wonder how people would feel if admissions was largely based on SAT score and this resulted in classes at top schools heavily skewed towards men and mem are significantly more likely to score higher on the SAT than women

As overall students, women are better than men, and it’d be interesting to see what these colleges’ classes would look like if they stopped their 50/50 gender policies and went blind.

STEM (except stuff that can get you into medical school) would be vastly more male, most other majors would be vastly more female.

Which is a cultural issue that should be fixed, not an admissions one. Many other countries have women more represented in all stem subjects, so it comes down to understanding why there’s such a massive gap in the US, and why our standardized exam results in women with worse scores across the board

I think the gap in stem is mostly cultural and not really a big concern considering there are more women in law schools and medical schools than men.

The gap in standardized test scores are at the tails. Women have slightly higher average test scores but there are more men at the very bottom and the very tops of the curve.

Correct about distribution of test scores which is precisely why the poster who keeps insisting that if a school doesn't just auto-admit everyone with above a 1550 on the SAT they are racist is not making sense. Schools know some students have outlier test scores and that is why they tend to view test scores as a threshhold factor instead of a ranking factor. They will look at students who have scores and GPAs above a specific threshhold but once you are in this group they will look at the totality of the application not simply rank the students by scores. And that includes "squishy" factors like whether the student brings a unique perspective or skill set to the school that could benefit the school as a whole. Thus it is generally not in a school's interest to simply admit all the highest scoring students who also often tend to share a lot of the same characteristics -- they lean male and and Asian and tend to have similar backgrounds. Well schools don't want a bunch of identical kids so they recruit kids with lower scores in order ot keep it diverse. This is legal even under the SC ruling and considered beneficial by most people applying to these schools.

By "considered beneficial [for] most people applying to these schools" you mean the people that have sh!tty SAT scores are the ones who like the policy that includes them. Rephrase this as, "people that have superior GPA/SAT scores don't agree with letting dumber people jump in front of them." Or else, why even take classes in high school? Should just spend all that wasted time trying to be holistic.

Holistic is the game you play to win. The nature of the game is that the goalposts move and the rules change so that they get to pick the winners and losers by changing the rules and moving the goalposts.
Meanwhile you try to figure out where the goalposts will be when you kick your ball. But those goalposts are really only trying to avoid asian balls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP. I agree, there should be a similar number of white and asian students at most of these schools except at the MOST selective schools because at the 1550+ level asians outnumber whites by 2::1

Schools are allowed to decide that, above a certain very high score, differences don't matter for admissions purposes.

But they are not allowed to select the white student over the asians student because they want more white kids.

But if the kind of diversity that they're seeking regarding geography or extracurricular activities has the coincidental effect of admitting white over Asian applicants, that's still allowed.

This.

I think some posters never contemplated that there are reasons why the super high scoring and high GPA Asian American applicants weren't getting spots at all the top schools that had nothing to do with race. Schools don't actually want classes of super intense heavily "pushed" academic achievers. They want a good mix of high achieving students who are naturally curious and intelligent and have a broad range of strengths and interests and also reflect a broad range of backgrounds and experiences. They used to use race explicitly to accomplish this and now they can't so they use other things but their priorities have not shifted.

Plus a mix of degrees/majors. They can't have 1600 CS majors.

The 1600 CS majors most likely will run laps around the liberal arts majors in their majors. Or else why are LA majors allowed to take dumbed down versions of science and math classes to fulfill requirements? Should science majors be taking phonics classes then?

^Thios. Most STEM majors would do better as a psych major than most psych majors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wonder how people would feel if admissions was largely based on SAT score and this resulted in classes at top schools heavily skewed towards men and mem are significantly more likely to score higher on the SAT than women

As overall students, women are better than men, and it’d be interesting to see what these colleges’ classes would look like if they stopped their 50/50 gender policies and went blind.

STEM (except stuff that can get you into medical school) would be vastly more male, most other majors would be vastly more female.

Which is a cultural issue that should be fixed, not an admissions one. Many other countries have women more represented in all stem subjects, so it comes down to understanding why there’s such a massive gap in the US, and why our standardized exam results in women with worse scores across the board

I think the gap in stem is mostly cultural and not really a big concern considering there are more women in law schools and medical schools than men.

The gap in standardized test scores are at the tails. Women have slightly higher average test scores but there are more men at the very bottom and the very tops of the curve.

Correct about distribution of test scores which is precisely why the poster who keeps insisting that if a school doesn't just auto-admit everyone with above a 1550 on the SAT they are racist is not making sense. Schools know some students have outlier test scores and that is why they tend to view test scores as a threshhold factor instead of a ranking factor. They will look at students who have scores and GPAs above a specific threshhold but once you are in this group they will look at the totality of the application not simply rank the students by scores. And that includes "squishy" factors like whether the student brings a unique perspective or skill set to the school that could benefit the school as a whole. Thus it is generally not in a school's interest to simply admit all the highest scoring students who also often tend to share a lot of the same characteristics -- they lean male and and Asian and tend to have similar backgrounds. Well schools don't want a bunch of identical kids so they recruit kids with lower scores in order ot keep it diverse. This is legal even under the SC ruling and considered beneficial by most people applying to these schools.

By "considered beneficial [for] most people applying to these schools" you mean the people that have sh!tty SAT scores are the ones who like the policy that includes them. Rephrase this as, "people that have superior GPA/SAT scores don't agree with letting dumber people jump in front of them." Or else, why even take classes in high school? Should just spend all that wasted time trying to be holistic.

You’re categorizing a 1540 as a sh!tty score. No college agrees with you. And yes, pretty much all of them will tell a kid who already has a 1540 that he would be better off getting involved in his community than grinding over SAT prep.

There are diminishing returns to SAT scores above 1540 but there are in fact returns and there is a little spike for hit it and quit it 1600s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wonder how people would feel if admissions was largely based on SAT score and this resulted in classes at top schools heavily skewed towards men and mem are significantly more likely to score higher on the SAT than women

As overall students, women are better than men, and it’d be interesting to see what these colleges’ classes would look like if they stopped their 50/50 gender policies and went blind.

STEM (except stuff that can get you into medical school) would be vastly more male, most other majors would be vastly more female.

Which is a cultural issue that should be fixed, not an admissions one. Many other countries have women more represented in all stem subjects, so it comes down to understanding why there’s such a massive gap in the US, and why our standardized exam results in women with worse scores across the board

I think the gap in stem is mostly cultural and not really a big concern considering there are more women in law schools and medical schools than men.

The gap in standardized test scores are at the tails. Women have slightly higher average test scores but there are more men at the very bottom and the very tops of the curve.

Correct about distribution of test scores which is precisely why the poster who keeps insisting that if a school doesn't just auto-admit everyone with above a 1550 on the SAT they are racist is not making sense. Schools know some students have outlier test scores and that is why they tend to view test scores as a threshhold factor instead of a ranking factor. They will look at students who have scores and GPAs above a specific threshhold but once you are in this group they will look at the totality of the application not simply rank the students by scores. And that includes "squishy" factors like whether the student brings a unique perspective or skill set to the school that could benefit the school as a whole. Thus it is generally not in a school's interest to simply admit all the highest scoring students who also often tend to share a lot of the same characteristics -- they lean male and and Asian and tend to have similar backgrounds. Well schools don't want a bunch of identical kids so they recruit kids with lower scores in order ot keep it diverse. This is legal even under the SC ruling and considered beneficial by most people applying to these schools.

There is no cutoff above which all sat scores are equal. You always want the higher test score but you may value something more than 10 more points on the sat.

The let's get rid of superscoring. It's just another way to give inferior applicants another chance . That 10 point difference may actually have been 100 points since real life doesn't cherry pick outcomes like this.

I'd be cool with that. I remember a time when you had to submit all your test scores and the admissions committee could make what they wanted of it.
But the stress was too much for some kids and they allowed superscoring to widen the tails even more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP. I agree, there should be a similar number of white and asian students at most of these schools except at the MOST selective schools because at the 1550+ level asians outnumber whites by 2::1

Schools are allowed to decide that, above a certain very high score, differences don't matter for admissions purposes.

But they are not allowed to select the white student over the asians student because they want more white kids.

But if the kind of diversity that they're seeking regarding geography or extracurricular activities has the coincidental effect of admitting white over Asian applicants, that's still allowed.

Yes as long as they can't prove you were using geography as an artifice for racial discrimination.

Even then, it’s not like people from New York are a protected class. If Harvard only wants to take students from Miami, no one other than their donors are stopping them

They can be if the reason you are avoiding NY residents is because of the racial composition of new york.
If harvard is only taking students from miami because they specifically want cubans then that is illegal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wonder how people would feel if admissions was largely based on SAT score and this resulted in classes at top schools heavily skewed towards men and mem are significantly more likely to score higher on the SAT than women

As overall students, women are better than men, and it’d be interesting to see what these colleges’ classes would look like if they stopped their 50/50 gender policies and went blind.

STEM (except stuff that can get you into medical school) would be vastly more male, most other majors would be vastly more female.

Which is a cultural issue that should be fixed, not an admissions one. Many other countries have women more represented in all stem subjects, so it comes down to understanding why there’s such a massive gap in the US, and why our standardized exam results in women with worse scores across the board

I think the gap in stem is mostly cultural and not really a big concern considering there are more women in law schools and medical schools than men.

The gap in standardized test scores are at the tails. Women have slightly higher average test scores but there are more men at the very bottom and the very tops of the curve.

Correct about distribution of test scores which is precisely why the poster who keeps insisting that if a school doesn't just auto-admit everyone with above a 1550 on the SAT they are racist is not making sense. Schools know some students have outlier test scores and that is why they tend to view test scores as a threshhold factor instead of a ranking factor. They will look at students who have scores and GPAs above a specific threshhold but once you are in this group they will look at the totality of the application not simply rank the students by scores. And that includes "squishy" factors like whether the student brings a unique perspective or skill set to the school that could benefit the school as a whole. Thus it is generally not in a school's interest to simply admit all the highest scoring students who also often tend to share a lot of the same characteristics -- they lean male and and Asian and tend to have similar backgrounds. Well schools don't want a bunch of identical kids so they recruit kids with lower scores in order ot keep it diverse. This is legal even under the SC ruling and considered beneficial by most people applying to these schools.

There is no cutoff above which all sat scores are equal. You always want the higher test score but you may value something more than 10 more points on the sat.

The let's get rid of superscoring. It's just another way to give inferior applicants another chance . That 10 point difference may actually have been 100 points since real life doesn't cherry pick outcomes like this.

Funny how ignorant people think college admissions is a meritocracy and squabble over "10 point" differences in test scores.

It's a BUSINESS.

Superscoriing puts millions in the College Board's coffers.

It's not going away.

Superscoring was another way to dilute the effect of test scores in college admissions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes as long as they can't prove you were using geography as an artifice for racial discrimination.

Good luck with that legal theory!

Sometimes there is proof. Emails, texts and other preserved communication.

[Anonymous]

Like I said, good luck with that legal theory!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP. I agree, there should be a similar number of white and asian students at most of these schools except at the MOST selective schools because at the 1550+ level asians outnumber whites by 2::1

Schools are allowed to decide that, above a certain very high score, differences don't matter for admissions purposes.

But they are not allowed to select the white student over the asians student because they want more white kids.

But if the kind of diversity that they're seeking regarding geography or extracurricular activities has the coincidental effect of admitting white over Asian applicants, that's still allowed.

Yes as long as they can't prove you were using geography as an artifice for racial discrimination.

Even then, it’s not like people from New York are a protected class. If Harvard only wants to take students from Miami, no one other than their donors are stopping them

+1 Harvard could decided it only wanted rural applicants tomorrow and this would result in a class that was 60% white and 35% black and 4% Native and this would be considered absolutely legal even if not one of those students scored over a 1500 on the SAT.

The PP just cannot conceptualize the idea that a Harvard degree is not a public good that is supposed to be fairly distributed via some kind of government mechanism. It's a private good that Harvard can choose to sell to whomever it wants as long as they don't discriminate based on race. But "not discriminate based on race" does NOT mean only admitting the highest scoring applicants and it never ever will.

As long as harvard takes federal funds and enjoys non-profit status, it is subject to these rules. If they decide to only take rural students in order to exclude asians, then it runs afoul of these rules.
The suspicion is that these schools are bending over backwards to avoid achieve racial diversity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's all relative. I didn't give a cutoff number, that was someone else. Standard deviations exist for a reason and so do percentiles. Let's say there are 5000 people above your 1540 (hypothetical score) and only 1000 spots open, of which some percentage of spots are set aside for athletes or legacy or whomever. Then yes, that "1540" is sh!tty. Go find another school where the "1540" is on the other side of the equation.

No this is false because the only person who would actually rank those 5000 students by SAT score is you. Any sane person would view them all as about equal on SAT score (especially since many of them will be literally equal on score because your range is so narrow) and then look at ALL the other stuff that matters secure in the knowledge that any of the kids you pick have an SAT score that is high enough to justify admission. Perhaps a kid with a 1600 or 1590 gets an edge but so does a kid who started a successful landscaping business in the summer or the one who one an international writing competition.

No one who actually works admissions for any of the top schools would actually view a 1540 as a "sh!tty score" even when compared against people who all have higher scores. They would all tell you that a 1540 is an excellent score and would get you in the door to having your application reviewed for admission at even the most selective school unless you had something else that was an automatic ding (very low grades or you lied on your app or whatever).

Why are you so stuck on 1540? OCD much? I said whatever the number is is arbitrary, but how many applicants above you is not. And activities such as "started your own _______" and writing contest or robotics team or something like that needs to be examined further. Much of it is access and general bs. Some are actually real but how are we to know?Only comps and activities that have a real time competition aspect will show if you actually have and can display the skills, and you did it all yourself--no daddy involvement.

LOL test scores are also absolutely gamed by wealthy families who can pay for extensive test prep and private tutoring. And I'm not even referring to superscoring here -- the advantages that wealthy and privileged students have for standardized testing are huge. Not just money for test prep or access to schools that better prep students for exams like the SAT but also access to medical diagnoses that can get them extra time.

The percent of kids who score abouve a 1500 on the SAT with no parental help to get them there is very small. Even when we aren't talking about a Varsity Blues-type scandal where parents are actually just trying to purchase higher scores wealthy parents absolutely go to great lengths to ensure their kids score higher.

I'm sure there are cases like this and I suspect that this is mostly white families trying to get their kid from a 1100 to a 1300 or 1400.
I am also sure that at the top colleges and universities, test scores predict academic performance without regard to wealth.
If what you were saying was a significant factor, you would expect wealthy students to underperform their SAT score and poorer students to overperform and yet this is not what happens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP. I agree, there should be a similar number of white and asian students at most of these schools except at the MOST selective schools because at the 1550+ level asians outnumber whites by 2::1

Schools are allowed to decide that, above a certain very high score, differences don't matter for admissions purposes.

But they are not allowed to select the white student over the asians student because they want more white kids.

But if the kind of diversity that they're seeking regarding geography or extracurricular activities has the coincidental effect of admitting white over Asian applicants, that's still allowed.

Yes as long as they can't prove you were using geography as an artifice for racial discrimination.

Even then, it’s not like people from New York are a protected class. If Harvard only wants to take students from Miami, no one other than their donors are stopping them

+1 Harvard could decided it only wanted rural applicants tomorrow and this would result in a class that was 60% white and 35% black and 4% Native and this would be considered absolutely legal even if not one of those students scored over a 1500 on the SAT.

The PP just cannot conceptualize the idea that a Harvard degree is not a public good that is supposed to be fairly distributed via some kind of government mechanism. It's a private good that Harvard can choose to sell to whomever it wants as long as they don't discriminate based on race. But "not discriminate based on race" does NOT mean only admitting the highest scoring applicants and it never ever will.

Well said. Thank you. PLEASE let the annoying poster on this thread see this and understand.

No one wants a school of only high test scores ,same interests, same race.

Until you said race, there wasn't a problem with your post but once you say you want to restrict having too many of one race, that makes you a racist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The suspicion is that these schools are bending over backwards to avoid achieve racial diversity.

I dare you to bring a lawsuit challenging geographic diversity or first generation college student as an admissions factor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP. I agree, there should be a similar number of white and asian students at most of these schools except at the MOST selective schools because at the 1550+ level asians outnumber whites by 2::1

Schools are allowed to decide that, above a certain very high score, differences don't matter for admissions purposes.

But they are not allowed to select the white student over the asians student because they want more white kids.

But if the kind of diversity that they're seeking regarding geography or extracurricular activities has the coincidental effect of admitting white over Asian applicants, that's still allowed.

Yes as long as they can't prove you were using geography as an artifice for racial discrimination.

Even then, it’s not like people from New York are a protected class. If Harvard only wants to take students from Miami, no one other than their donors are stopping them

+1 Harvard could decided it only wanted rural applicants tomorrow and this would result in a class that was 60% white and 35% black and 4% Native and this would be considered absolutely legal even if not one of those students scored over a 1500 on the SAT.

The PP just cannot conceptualize the idea that a Harvard degree is not a public good that is supposed to be fairly distributed via some kind of government mechanism. It's a private good that Harvard can choose to sell to whomever it wants as long as they don't discriminate based on race. But "not discriminate based on race" does NOT mean only admitting the highest scoring applicants and it never ever will.

As long as harvard takes federal funds and enjoys non-profit status, it is subject to these rules. If they decide to only take rural students in order to exclude asians, then it runs afoul of these rules.
The suspicion is that these schools are bending over backwards to avoid achieve racial diversity.

Here is the problem with this entire conversation:

You think that anything a school would do to promote any group of people that is NOT asian students is being done to "exclude asians." So a school focusing on rural students or trying to promote first gen students or recruiting from inner city schools is always doing these things for the express purpose of excluding asians from admissions and there is no other justifiable reason a school would do any of these things.

At the same time you continually advocate for admissions policies that would explicitly benefit asian applicants and -- you believe -- lead to much larger percentages of asian students at top schools. You want schools to admit students based purely on test scores or to focus on hard science applicants over liberal arts and your express reason for this is to promote and advance asian students.

You assume that everyone else is doing the same thing for their "favorite" race and as a result you think all admissions strategies and decisions that don't result in overwhelmingly asian classes must be de facto prejudiced against asians since (according to you) asian students are obviously the most qualified and deserving and therefore should be filling the classes of all the top colleges. Every black or hispanic or white student who gets a spot at these schools is stealing it from a more deserving asian applicant.

What you will never understand is that a lot of us don't view races as teams in this way and genuinely prefer diverse academic environments for a variety of reasons even if placing value on diversity necessarily means that qualified applicants of some races will lose spots to (also qualified!) applicants of underrepresented races. It's not discrimination. It's the choice to preference diversity of thought and experience over other factors. But you're never going to understand this. I am certain you will reply to what I just said with "if it excludes asian applicants in any way it's racist and violates the law." That's not true but there's no way to convince you of that so I guess we are at an impasse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's all relative. I didn't give a cutoff number, that was someone else. Standard deviations exist for a reason and so do percentiles. Let's say there are 5000 people above your 1540 (hypothetical score) and only 1000 spots open, of which some percentage of spots are set aside for athletes or legacy or whomever. Then yes, that "1540" is sh!tty. Go find another school where the "1540" is on the other side of the equation.

No this is false because the only person who would actually rank those 5000 students by SAT score is you. Any sane person would view them all as about equal on SAT score (especially since many of them will be literally equal on score because your range is so narrow) and then look at ALL the other stuff that matters secure in the knowledge that any of the kids you pick have an SAT score that is high enough to justify admission. Perhaps a kid with a 1600 or 1590 gets an edge but so does a kid who started a successful landscaping business in the summer or the one who one an international writing competition.

No one who actually works admissions for any of the top schools would actually view a 1540 as a "sh!tty score" even when compared against people who all have higher scores. They would all tell you that a 1540 is an excellent score and would get you in the door to having your application reviewed for admission at even the most selective school unless you had something else that was an automatic ding (very low grades or you lied on your app or whatever).

Why are you so stuck on 1540? OCD much? I said whatever the number is is arbitrary, but how many applicants above you is not. And activities such as "started your own _______" and writing contest or robotics team or something like that needs to be examined further. Much of it is access and general bs. Some are actually real but how are we to know?Only comps and activities that have a real time competition aspect will show if you actually have and can display the skills, and you did it all yourself--no daddy involvement.

LOL test scores are also absolutely gamed by wealthy families who can pay for extensive test prep and private tutoring. And I'm not even referring to superscoring here -- the advantages that wealthy and privileged students have for standardized testing are huge. Not just money for test prep or access to schools that better prep students for exams like the SAT but also access to medical diagnoses that can get them extra time.

The percent of kids who score abouve a 1500 on the SAT with no parental help to get them there is very small. Even when we aren't talking about a Varsity Blues-type scandal where parents are actually just trying to purchase higher scores wealthy parents absolutely go to great lengths to ensure their kids score higher.

I'm sure there are cases like this and I suspect that this is mostly white families trying to get their kid from a 1100 to a 1300 or 1400.
I am also sure that at the top colleges and universities, test scores predict academic performance without regard to wealth.
If what you were saying was a significant factor, you would expect wealthy students to underperform their SAT score and poorer students to overperform and yet this is not what happens.

You think only white families engage in test prep and tutoring in order to game admissions testing. Hmm okay. So students scoring 1560 or 1590 are just walking into the SAT at age 17 and acing it with absolutely no prep whatsoever and not *years* of pushing from parents to prep for the exam or enrollment in schools with curriculums geared toward standardized tests and no use of test prep agencies or tutors. Interesting.