Swarthmore officially test optional for rising seniors

[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.

How would Swarthmore know its TO applicants' scores? I don't see how a school can "hide" data that it never possessed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The College Board shouldn't have the power in college admissions that it does.

How does it have power in deciding who gets admitted?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How would Swarthmore know its TO applicants' scores? I don't see how a school can "hide" data that it never possessed.

NP. Your score failed to meet the standard, so you wouldn’t submit. As simple as that!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How would Swarthmore know its TO applicants' scores? I don't see how a school can "hide" data that it never possessed.

NP. Your score failed to meet the standard, so you wouldn’t submit. As simple as that!

It sometimes is as simple as that...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How would Swarthmore know its TO applicants' scores? I don't see how a school can "hide" data that it never possessed.

NP. Your score failed to meet the standard, so you wouldn’t submit. As simple as that!

To reiterate, this thread of discussion began when someone who seems to say "duh" a lot criticized Swarthmore's lack of integrity for not reporting the scores of FGLI. I asked if any school published such disaggregated data for different demographics of data. Instead of identifying any such schools, the "duh" poster seems to have revised his or her thesis from "Swarthmore is unethically hiding FGLI scores" into something along the lines of "TO = bad." And on that enlightened note, I'm done with pointless discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The College Board shouldn't have the power in college admissions that it does.

How does it have power in deciding who gets admitted?

CB designs the test questions that are favorable to the wealthy and unfavorable to the poor and URM. As long as the test questions remain unfair, colleges have the option of test optional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The College Board shouldn't have the power in college admissions that it does.

How does it have power in deciding who gets admitted?

CB designs the test questions that are favorable to the wealthy and unfavorable to the poor and URM. As long as the test questions remain unfair, colleges have the option of test optional.

A) Prove it. I find that hard to believe
B) The college board is very transparent in what is on the tests. Take a book out of the library or go online and study. Not that hard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The College Board shouldn't have the power in college admissions that it does.

How does it have power in deciding who gets admitted?

CB designs the test questions that are favorable to the wealthy and unfavorable to the poor and URM. As long as the test questions remain unfair, colleges have the option of test optional.

+1

Aside from the the fact that the SAT has racist origins ( eugenics), it's known that that questions blacks performed well on where thrown out in the past.

With all of the bashing of TO, and the "racialization" of it, I'd be curious as to the stats on which demographic benefits most from TO. You'd be surprised (e.g Vanderbilt).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The College Board shouldn't have the power in college admissions that it does.

How does it have power in deciding who gets admitted?

CB designs the test questions that are favorable to the wealthy and unfavorable to the poor and URM. As long as the test questions remain unfair, colleges have the option of test optional.

For a while, the SAT test included an "adversity score" that gave points to FGLI and URM test takers to make the test more fair. But CB took that away, decided to keep the test racist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The College Board shouldn't have the power in college admissions that it does.

How does it have power in deciding who gets admitted?

CB designs the test questions that are favorable to the wealthy and unfavorable to the poor and URM. As long as the test questions remain unfair, colleges have the option of test optional.

For a while, the SAT test included an "adversity score" that gave points to FGLI and URM test takers to make the test more fair. But CB took that away, decided to keep the test racist.

Prove it is racist. Still waiting.