Harvard will require Test Scores starting next year

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you get to take Plagiarism 101 with Claudine Gay once you're accepted?

Harvard is so mockable these days

Claudine Gay is but not Harvard.

Ms. Gay was made a scapegoat. She's still employed at Harvard and still making good money (without the stress).

And your kid will still get rejected.

She was not a scapegoat. She was a sloppy researcher and plagiarist. Unfortunately she handed DEI opponents a proverbial loaded gun.

Christopher Rufo, is that you?

No, just an academic who takes these matters seriously. Also a progressive btw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:this is for current Juniors? my kid has no interest in Harvard, but this seems really really late to make this call for this class

why is this late? the SAT is a test of the most basic English and Math skills. If you need months and months of prep on topics you should have already mastered, you probably have bigger problems than the application deadlines next fall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, obviously. The test optional thing was a weird experiment and there is no evidence that it accomplished anything useful, and some evidence it was genuinely detrimental. Good riddance.

Being good at taking tests is not the most important thing in life and everyone should remind themselves of that. But it turns out that people who do test well, and are able to get very high scores on college preparedness tests, tend to also do best in college, where they will also be expected to regularly take tests. It's okay that not everyone goes to an Ivy, or becomes a lawyer or doctor or academic or MBA or whatever. It's not the only option in life.

Just realize that Harvard isn't going to accept your kids with a 1580 over one with a 1500 based on the SAT alone. They will consider them "the same"/made the cut, and then look at everything else. I don't think requiring tests will have the effect most "high stats" parents want.
Fact is T20 schools only want to see your kid meet a baseline for the testing, then they still want to look at everything else. A 1600 doesn't differentiate your kid from a 1520 kid really.
These schools will still be highly rejective.

I think everyone knows this. What they object to is a 1300 SAT kid who hides that score, goes TO and gets in on some 'woke' quota. Hopefully this fixes that!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:test optional was a failed experiment

it wasn't an experiment it was due to testing centers closing during the pandemic

CA schools didn't go TO because of covid.

Am genuinely curious how the UC's are going to respond to the changes. UCLA had almost 145k applicants this year! Cal Berkeley had 125k applicants. Those numbers are... wild.

From what I've read, UC admissions policies are heavily based on their own research and not the whims of politicians. They found they didn't need the SAT after studying the issue.

UChicago has similarly not let politics drive the decision. They went TO in 2018.

UC's own study indicates that standardized tests is a better predictor of success in first year college students than GPA alone.

https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/underreview/sttf-report.pdf

How well do UC’s current standardized testing practices assess entering high school students for UC
readiness? How well do UC current standardized testing practices predict student success in the context
of its comprehensive review process?

The STTF found that standardized test scores aid in predicting important aspects of student success,
including undergraduate grade point average (UGPA), retention, and completion. At UC, test scores are
currently better predictors of first-year GPA than high school grade point average (HSGPA), and about as
good at predicting first-year retention, UGPA, and graduation.3 For students within any given (HSGPA)
band, higher standardized test scores correlate with a higher freshman UGPA, a higher graduation UGPA
and higher likelihood of graduating within either four years (for transfers) or seven years (for freshmen).
Further, the amount of variance in student outcomes explained by test scores has increased since 2007,
while variance explained by high school grades has decreased, although altogether does not exceed 26%.
Test scores are predictive for all demographic groups and disciplines, even after controlling for HSGPA.
In fact, test scores are better predictors of success for students who are Underrepresented Minority
students (URMs), who are first-generation, or whose families are low-income..


The Task Force considered, but does not recommend, the following possibilities.
7) The Task Force does not recommend that UC make standardized tests optional for applicants at this time

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, obviously. The test optional thing was a weird experiment and there is no evidence that it accomplished anything useful, and some evidence it was genuinely detrimental. Good riddance.

Being good at taking tests is not the most important thing in life and everyone should remind themselves of that. But it turns out that people who do test well, and are able to get very high scores on college preparedness tests, tend to also do best in college, where they will also be expected to regularly take tests. It's okay that not everyone goes to an Ivy, or becomes a lawyer or doctor or academic or MBA or whatever. It's not the only option in life.

Just realize that Harvard isn't going to accept your kids with a 1580 over one with a 1500 based on the SAT alone. They will consider them "the same"/made the cut, and then look at everything else. I don't think requiring tests will have the effect most "high stats" parents want.
Fact is T20 schools only want to see your kid meet a baseline for the testing, then they still want to look at everything else. A 1600 doesn't differentiate your kid from a 1520 kid really.
These schools will still be highly rejective.

I think everyone knows this. What they object to is a 1300 SAT kid who hides that score, goes TO and gets in on some 'woke' quota. Hopefully this fixes that!

There are no "woke" quotas. SMH.
You just want to inflate the importance of test scores. They are 1 data point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, obviously. The test optional thing was a weird experiment and there is no evidence that it accomplished anything useful, and some evidence it was genuinely detrimental. Good riddance.

Being good at taking tests is not the most important thing in life and everyone should remind themselves of that. But it turns out that people who do test well, and are able to get very high scores on college preparedness tests, tend to also do best in college, where they will also be expected to regularly take tests. It's okay that not everyone goes to an Ivy, or becomes a lawyer or doctor or academic or MBA or whatever. It's not the only option in life.

Just realize that Harvard isn't going to accept your kids with a 1580 over one with a 1500 based on the SAT alone. They will consider them "the same"/made the cut, and then look at everything else. I don't think requiring tests will have the effect most "high stats" parents want.
Fact is T20 schools only want to see your kid meet a baseline for the testing, then they still want to look at everything else. A 1600 doesn't differentiate your kid from a 1520 kid really.
These schools will still be highly rejective.

Here we go with the backstop position, now that TO is being blown sky high.

In fact, there’s meaningful differentiation between a kid with a 1600 / 36 and another kid with a 1520 / 34. Especially when multiple re-takes and super scoring are involved in the latter.

Yeah go ahead and believe that 98/99 to 99+ percentile means a "meaningful differentiation". The fact is most T20 (including Harvard) don't use it to differentiate that way. They can (and most likely will) still take a 1520 kid over your 1600 kid. Why? Because they look at the whole picture. They want a certain level of SAT score, based on where you live/attend school (if you are in a school with no APs in the middle of Wyoming, your threshold might be a bit lower), but once you meet that level, they look at everything else. They don't just put all the 1600 kids in a pile and then pick from that. If they did, then Harvard (and many T20s) would be 50%+ kids with 1600. And it was NEVER like that, even pre covid.

Fact is they want to use SAT as part of the overall decision making process, but it's still not the be all end all determinator that you want it to be. T20 schools are looking for kids that make a difference and will be natural leaders. They recognize that the difference between 96 and 99th percentile on a standardized test is really not that much different. The Essays, ECs, recommendations, and course rigor along with GPA will matter more once you make a basic level for testing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2024/04/11/harvard-reinstates-sat-act-admissions-requirement/

Harvard is joining the list of school requiring test scores for applications.

I had great test scores, and my son had great test scores.

In my opinion, one way to make this more fair would be to bring back the SAT subject tests and use those in place of the aptitude test tests.

That way, students who aren’t great at SAT-type thinking but who learn a lot in regular high school courses can get credit for their knowledge and hard work.

It seems unfair to limit students to sending in dubious grades, scores measuring alleged raw aptitude, and tests measuring knowledge of college-level content that’s taught well at very few schools.

Bringing back and celebrating the regular SAT subject students would reward students who work hard and do well in widely available, age-appropriate classes.

[Anonymous]

Love everyone being so relieved by this news. As if your kid's going to benefit from it. LOL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I still think they should require parents SAT scores.

You’re a lunatic

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, obviously. The test optional thing was a weird experiment and there is no evidence that it accomplished anything useful, and some evidence it was genuinely detrimental. Good riddance.

Being good at taking tests is not the most important thing in life and everyone should remind themselves of that. But it turns out that people who do test well, and are able to get very high scores on college preparedness tests, tend to also do best in college, where they will also be expected to regularly take tests. It's okay that not everyone goes to an Ivy, or becomes a lawyer or doctor or academic or MBA or whatever. It's not the only option in life.

Just realize that Harvard isn't going to accept your kids with a 1580 over one with a 1500 based on the SAT alone. They will consider them "the same"/made the cut, and then look at everything else. I don't think requiring tests will have the effect most "high stats" parents want.
Fact is T20 schools only want to see your kid meet a baseline for the testing, then they still want to look at everything else. A 1600 doesn't differentiate your kid from a 1520 kid really.
These schools will still be highly rejective.

This. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, obviously. The test optional thing was a weird experiment and there is no evidence that it accomplished anything useful, and some evidence it was genuinely detrimental. Good riddance.

Being good at taking tests is not the most important thing in life and everyone should remind themselves of that. But it turns out that people who do test well, and are able to get very high scores on college preparedness tests, tend to also do best in college, where they will also be expected to regularly take tests. It's okay that not everyone goes to an Ivy, or becomes a lawyer or doctor or academic or MBA or whatever. It's not the only option in life.

Just realize that Harvard isn't going to accept your kids with a 1580 over one with a 1500 based on the SAT alone. They will consider them "the same"/made the cut, and then look at everything else. I don't think requiring tests will have the effect most "high stats" parents want.
Fact is T20 schools only want to see your kid meet a baseline for the testing, then they still want to look at everything else. A 1600 doesn't differentiate your kid from a 1520 kid really.
These schools will still be highly rejective.

I think everyone knows this. What they object to is a 1300 SAT kid who hides that score, goes TO and gets in on some 'woke' quota. Hopefully this fixes that!

Then those (like you) who are so upset about TO must be smart enough to realize that this means only a few spots will switch who they are given to with Test required. Not that many kids were getting into Harvard with a 1300 and not succeeding (ie didn't belong).

55% of applicants submitted SAT, 28% submitted ACT (for 2022/23). Lets assume a little overlap of say 5% (because most people pick their higher score and submit that, very few people take both that have a 35 or a 1580+ on one, if you score lower, you take both and submit the higher one). So that means 78% of students submitted test scores (approximately) that enrolled at Harvard.

There were 1644 freshman. So ~360 did not submit test scores. 61K students applied. Avg SAT was 760 (verbal) and 790 Math (1550) and 35ACT. 25% was 1490 and 34. So logically, most kids with a sub 1550 and Sub 35 are not going to submit when TO is a thing.
No hard Data, but it's not hard to think that at least 75% of those 360 TO admits were1490+scores, possibly even more.
The amount of kids getting into Harvard with sub 1490 scores is likely incredibly small.
However the number turned away with 1490+ scores is huge, likely over 45K. So your chances of rejection are still incredibly high.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2024/04/11/harvard-reinstates-sat-act-admissions-requirement/

Harvard is joining the list of school requiring test scores for applications.

I had great test scores, and my son had great test scores.

In my opinion, one way to make this more fair would be to bring back the SAT subject tests and use those in place of the aptitude test tests.

That way, students who aren’t great at SAT-type thinking but who learn a lot in regular high school courses can get credit for their knowledge and hard work.

It seems unfair to limit students to sending in dubious grades, scores measuring alleged raw aptitude, and tests measuring knowledge of college-level content that’s taught well at very few schools.

Bringing back and celebrating the regular SAT subject students would reward students who work hard and do well in widely available, age-appropriate classes.

We have AP and IB tests for that now. Most schools are happy with that, hence why the SAT subject tests disappeared

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, obviously. The test optional thing was a weird experiment and there is no evidence that it accomplished anything useful, and some evidence it was genuinely detrimental. Good riddance.

Being good at taking tests is not the most important thing in life and everyone should remind themselves of that. But it turns out that people who do test well, and are able to get very high scores on college preparedness tests, tend to also do best in college, where they will also be expected to regularly take tests. It's okay that not everyone goes to an Ivy, or becomes a lawyer or doctor or academic or MBA or whatever. It's not the only option in life.

Just realize that Harvard isn't going to accept your kids with a 1580 over one with a 1500 based on the SAT alone. They will consider them "the same"/made the cut, and then look at everything else. I don't think requiring tests will have the effect most "high stats" parents want.
Fact is T20 schools only want to see your kid meet a baseline for the testing, then they still want to look at everything else. A 1600 doesn't differentiate your kid from a 1520 kid really.
These schools will still be highly rejective.

I think everyone knows this. What they object to is a 1300 SAT kid who hides that score, goes TO and gets in on some 'woke' quota. Hopefully this fixes that!

Woke quota?! Omg I never cease to be amazed by the things that people will actually say (type). Do you assume that the URM students that you see have lower scores? How racist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2024/04/11/harvard-reinstates-sat-act-admissions-requirement/

Harvard is joining the list of school requiring test scores for applications.

I had great test scores, and my son had great test scores.

In my opinion, one way to make this more fair would be to bring back the SAT subject tests and use those in place of the aptitude test tests.

That way, students who aren’t great at SAT-type thinking but who learn a lot in regular high school courses can get credit for their knowledge and hard work.

It seems unfair to limit students to sending in dubious grades, scores measuring alleged raw aptitude, and tests measuring knowledge of college-level content that’s taught well at very few schools.

Bringing back and celebrating the regular SAT subject students would reward students who work hard and do well in widely available, age-appropriate classes.

SAT's don't measure aptitude let alone "raw" aptitude. That notion was debunked decades ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this is for current Juniors? my kid has no interest in Harvard, but this seems really really late to make this call for this class

why is this late? the SAT is a test of the most basic English and Math skills. If you need months and months of prep on topics you should have already mastered, you probably have bigger problems than the application deadlines next fall.

It’s not and you know that. Hence why only 1% of test takers have above a 1500 (and that’s even superscored).