is there a nationally known US university that just admits on test scores?

[Anonymous]

Carnegie Mellon especially their CD or engineering programs. If the student doesn’t have the chops, he or she won’t make it through the curricular. CMU tends to admit based on high school performance, gpa and test scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Almost every school admits by scores if you are clearly above that school's 75%ile.

But some schools have 75%ile so high that you can't be clearly above it.

I so hope there is truth to this….

It’s true as far as it goes, I suspect, but there are some caveats. First, test optional has disconnected that 75% figure from reality. At one nationally-prestigious university we toured, the test-optional percentage was 40%, so that 75th percentile was calculated from the top 60% of the admitted students. The specifics depend on what you assume about the distribution of scores, but it all cashes out to this: yes, if your scores are higher than 90% of the admitted student body, your chances are reasonably good. Second, the elite SLACs in particular are a crap shoot no matter your scores due to very small class sizes and a perversely subjective admissions process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure why you would want a school that used grades and test scores alone. Test scores are objective measures, but measures of what? There is raw ability, but then there is what you do with it. Colleges want to see that you get things done. There are plenty of cab drivers in Mensa.

Because if you have a 17 year old with high grades and test scores, it’s nice to think that at least one university in this country might offer them at least a chance at an education. Even if they can’t play lacrosse.

Both Michigan State (#51) and University of Minnesota TC (#54) had straightforward requirements with no extra essays and rolling admissions. My kid got into both and heard back in a matter of weeks. He is high stats and we considered these safeties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure why you would want a school that used grades and test scores alone. Test scores are objective measures, but measures of what? There is raw ability, but then there is what you do with it. Colleges want to see that you get things done. There are plenty of cab drivers in Mensa.

Colleges don’t actually have the ability to “see that you get things done.” They don’t actually spend that long considering any particular application based on everything I have heard from people familiar with the process, and they certainly can’t and don’t look beyond the paperwork submitted. So they pick those who can best optimize how things look on paper. This is different than evaluating real accomplishment, especially as it stretches into more subjective areas, and IMO their attempt to do so mostly just adds noise and randomness to the process, although it admittedly allows the colleges to be smug about the whole thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alabama. The high scores are tied in with their generous merit aid and an effort to improve their profile.

They are also nationally "known" but for what, beyond this policy, is anyone's guess.

I define "nationally known" that if you show up to any job interview with basically anyone at the company, nobody has to spend 5 minutes asking you to explain where the college you attended is located or really what it is. Everyone knows what the University of Alabama is (honestly, everyone will also basically know what the University of Wyoming is as well...though if you are originally from say CA, they will wonder why you attended perhaps).

You think that but man, people are dumb. I went to a "U of X" and a screener for an early job was like "Never heard of that school" and it's one of the better regarded state flagships. I knew I didn't want to work at that company after that. This was for one of my first jobs.

With state schools, "never heard of it" is code for "I only care about Ivy and 'Ivy+' schools." It's a flex (I guess).

When I was applying for jobs out of my tip ranked law school, one law firm partner interviewing me looked at my undergrad in my resume (state flagship from large state, graduated with honors in one of its most competitive majors) and said "isn't that a party school?" I just rolled my eyes. I don't want to work with people like that.

I can see that but this was a very low level HR screener and i think she was just that dumb.

No she was a partner. You don't go through low level HR screeners when you apply to firms out of top schools -- first interview will be with at least a senior associate, often a counsel or partner. Screening is conducted by the law school itself, which helps determine which students a firm will interview based on the firm's stated GPA requirement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Carnegie Mellon especially their CD or engineering programs. If the student doesn’t have the chops, he or she won’t make it through the curricular. CMU tends to admit based on high school performance, gpa and test scores.

This isn’t what OP means. CMU doesn’t just take their applicants and then sort by test scores and grades and merely accept the kids on that basis.

If they did, they wouldn’t make you write an essay beyond the common statement and would only have 1 AO for engineering because it would be a simple process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Carnegie Mellon especially their CD or engineering programs. If the student doesn’t have the chops, he or she won’t make it through the curricular. CMU tends to admit based on high school performance, gpa and test scores.

This isn’t what OP means. CMU doesn’t just take their applicants and then sort by test scores and grades and merely accept the kids on that basis.

If they did, they wouldn’t make you write an essay beyond the common statement and would only have 1 AO for engineering because it would be a simple process.

The issue with CMU, as with most "nationally known" schools, is that they get too many qualified applicants (applicants with test scores and GPA above a certain high threshold). That's why schools turn to qualitative measures. It's not that they think qualitative measures are inherently better, it's that they become the only way to distinguish between applicants.

Schools in other countries that admit based purely on test scores can do so because they do not have such a huge pool of UMC, well-educated, high scoring applicants as in the US. India can have schools that award spots based purely on one exam because the exam results will not be bunched up at the top with too many people scoring in the top to guarantee admission to all of them. In the US, with test prep and UMC and wealthy parents willing to spend money on tutors and other advantages, these schools with just a few hundred seats available will always have way more qualified applicants than spots.

This is also why state flagships are better able to admit based purely on scores -- they have more spots available and often have fewer applicants because they are largely drawing from their state or region with few applicants outside that circle. Thus -- not really nationally known.

The handful of state flagships that have truly national reputations (Michigan, some of the Cal schools, maybe UVA) also get more qualified applicants than they have spots even with their size. So they separate in-state and out of state applicants and do two processes. Both involve some qualitative elements, though there will be more qualitative elements for out of state. They will generally reserve a certain number of spots for in-state students.

Schools that truly admit just on test scores in the US are generally not that selective. They can also change the cut off for test scores every year depending on the number of applicants and the average scores.

[Anonymous]

Kind of. I don’t think there are that many kids that superscore to 1600 and then of course they would all have to apply to CMU.

If CMU didn’t accept superstores, then it would be fairly easy if that’s the way they wanted to do it.

Maybe only the final 10% would be tied and then they could figure out a tie breaker or even just make it clear it would be literal lottery picks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure why you would want a school that used grades and test scores alone. Test scores are objective measures, but measures of what? There is raw ability, but then there is what you do with it. Colleges want to see that you get things done. There are plenty of cab drivers in Mensa.

Because if you have a 17 year old with high grades and test scores, it’s nice to think that at least one university in this country might offer them at least a chance at an education. Even if they can’t play lacrosse.

There are 3000 colleges and universities in the US. Your kid will get a college education.

You don't need to play lacrosse. If you are editing the school newspaper, starting a food drive for the local foodbank, or playing piano at the liocal senior center, you are getting stuff done.

If you don't like how these universities choose their students, why would you send your kid there? Students get half of their education from their classmates. Exposure to different kinds of people is an important part of your education. If you can't function in a diverse team, a lot of the good jobs are off limits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure why you would want a school that used grades and test scores alone. Test scores are objective measures, but measures of what? There is raw ability, but then there is what you do with it. Colleges want to see that you get things done. There are plenty of cab drivers in Mensa.

Because if you have a 17 year old with high grades and test scores, it’s nice to think that at least one university in this country might offer them at least a chance at an education. Even if they can’t play lacrosse.

There are 3000 colleges and universities in the US. Your kid will get a college education.

You don't need to play lacrosse. If you are editing the school newspaper, starting a food drive for the local foodbank, or playing piano at the liocal senior center, you are getting stuff done.

If you don't like how these universities choose their students, why would you send your kid there? Students get half of their education from their classmates. Exposure to different kinds of people is an important part of your education. If you can't function in a diverse team, a lot of the good jobs are off limits.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody wants your boring kid

are smart kids always boring? as opposed to the packaged passion project paid research AND plays violin for the elderly 4 times a year (only for 9-11th grade, natch) kid?

Great answer. The whole extra-curricular show us what a fascinating leader you are contest is such a load of xxxx.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kid added Iowa since they have rolling admissions and was accepted in a matter of days.

Iowa City is a great college town.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Which raises another point: most people live in the same general area their whole lives and most jobs are regional too, so most people don't need a "nationally known" school anyway.

And who really cares what college a person went to? How well do they interview?

Could you imagine treating a candidate differently because they went to some small college you haven't heard of six states away?

[Anonymous]

Kansas
Mizzou
Alabama

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Carnegie Mellon especially their CD or engineering programs. If the student doesn’t have the chops, he or she won’t make it through the curricular. CMU tends to admit based on high school performance, gpa and test scores.

A 4.0 UW with max rigor and a 36 and no ECs or special awards will be rejected from CMU.