Dartmouth Announces Test Scores Required Starting Next Year

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you really think other schools follow?

No.

[Anonymous]

I agree with the decision, but I think it is a bit late in the cycle to make this announcement. Kids who were planning to go TO will now have to scramble in just a few months.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you really think other schools follow?

No.

Coffin wouldn’t have done this if he didn’t believe other schools would follow. And odds are he’s better connected in the world of elite college admissions than anyone posting here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you really think other schools follow?

No.

I do. Yale was in on the study with Dartmouth. MIT brought them back. They are going to start dropping like flies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A huge blow to the DEI crowd.

Actually not

It is.

Much of the DEI crowd dictates are not based in facts and were anti achievement, hurting minority kids, especially smart minority kids but also lower achieving minority kids because it pushes the idea that they cannot achieve due to factors out of their control, such as the way they look or coming from single parent homes, so why even try.

Moving away from this mindset and towards merit and achievement will help those that DEI claims to benefit.

Signed,
Former poor kid from a minority background

Did you read the article? Dartmouth literally said they will take poor kids from minority backgrounds with lower scores. They’re going back to test-mandatory because they want the 1450 poor kids over the 1250 poor kids. Rich kids still need a 1550.

This is great thing. 1350 rich kids will be eliminated as well ass 1250 poor kids.

[Anonymous]

Some of the responses on here are appalling. "Dumb" 4.0 kids????? Come on, who is dumb--and mean-spirited and self-righteous. It is the test companies serving all you affluent families who pay for your kids' high scores who are laughing all the way to the bank now. I do think the dominos will fall. But what a hell college admissions has made the psyche of you and your kids. I am glad it will help the truly disadvantaged though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the decision, but I think it is a bit late in the cycle to make this announcement. Kids who were planning to go TO will now have to scramble in just a few months.

Agree. But, most kids take the tests...lets get real. Virtually every kid in this area is going to take it at least once. If they completely bomb they might throw in the towel and not put in the work to try to bring it up...but let's not think any kid in the DMV just said : nope, not even going to take it once. It would be an incredibly tiny group.

FWIW, our HS counseling department has always advised kids to take it---submission was a separate thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A huge blow to the DEI crowd.

Actually not

It is.

Much of the DEI crowd dictates are not based in facts and were anti achievement, hurting minority kids, especially smart minority kids but also lower achieving minority kids because it pushes the idea that they cannot achieve due to factors out of their control, such as the way they look or coming from single parent homes, so why even try.

Moving away from this mindset and towards merit and achievement will help those that DEI claims to benefit.

Signed,
Former poor kid from a minority background

Did you read the article? Dartmouth literally said they will take poor kids from minority backgrounds with lower scores. They’re going back to test-mandatory because they want the 1450 poor kids over the 1250 poor kids. Rich kids still need a 1550.

This is great thing. 1350 rich kids will be eliminated as well ass 1250 poor kids.

AS used to be the case!!!!!!!!!! It's why I didn't apply to an Ivy with a 4.0 gpa decades ago. It's fine. That's the way merit based admissions work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A huge blow to the DEI crowd.

Actually not

It is.

Much of the DEI crowd dictates are not based in facts and were anti achievement, hurting minority kids, especially smart minority kids but also lower achieving minority kids because it pushes the idea that they cannot achieve due to factors out of their control, such as the way they look or coming from single parent homes, so why even try.

Moving away from this mindset and towards merit and achievement will help those that DEI claims to benefit.

Signed,
Former poor kid from a minority background

Did you read the article? Dartmouth literally said they will take poor kids from minority backgrounds with lower scores. They’re going back to test-mandatory because they want the 1450 poor kids over the 1250 poor kids. Rich kids still need a 1550.

This is great thing. 1350 rich kids will be eliminated as well ass 1250 poor kids.

AS used to be the case!!!!!!!!!! It's why I didn't apply to an Ivy with a 4.0 gpa decades ago. It's fine. That's the way merit based admissions work.

YES!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you can't even handle that little test, you are not a material for selective schools. Common Sense.

YES!! The ACT/SAT in 2024 are not the tests we remember. Have you all looked at one? They're not tricky and they literally test basic grammar, reading and math. I mean, look at a test when you have a minute. It's all very basic stuff: the proper use of colons, reading a paragraph for content, doing basic geometry, etc. They're not complex questions!!

Those are the things are public school system fails kids. Writing instruction is atrocious. They also tend to accelerate kids in math too quickly and pass them along with inflated grades so there is no strong foundation. We had our kids do a short boot camp with a tutor before their private high school entrance exams in grammar.

Senior knocked ACT out of the park after 4 years with almost no ACT test prep. 36 in verbal and reading. 35 math.

Meh. my public school kid went though Clac 3 in public school and has to take Linear Algebra his senior year at George Mason. He got an A. Actually the highest grade in his class and was often preventing a curve. That was last semester. he’s now taking Theory of Differential Equations. He will not need to take another math class at VT. LCPS prepared him extremely well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A huge blow to the DEI crowd.

And with legacy beginning to be pulled as well at many colleges...hopefully, we can enter a 'merit-based' admissions era.

I feel like people aren’t reading the article.

Dartmouth is basically saying we will take lots of kids with SAT scores in the 1300s and 1400s coming from disadvantaged schools.

I don’t see how that will help the 1580 Asian kid from TJ. Those parents will be crying louder than ever.

That is not at all what the article said.

Ok, what did it say...here is a direct quote:

“We’re looking for the kids who are excelling in their environment. We know society is unequal,” Beilock said. “Kids that are excelling in their environment, we think, are a good bet to excel at Dartmouth and out in the world.” The admissions office will judge an applicant’s environment partly by comparing his or her test score with the score distribution at the applicant’s high schools, Coffin said. In some cases, even an SAT score well below 1,400 can help an application.

No,

You are misreading.

The article said that kids at those lower performing schools (such as a school where most kids graduate at a 3rd grade reading level or no one takes calculus) with scores in that range (1400+/-) are kids who have proven they can succeed at a school like Dartmouth. In contrast, a kid from a wealthy school with every resource at thier disposal who still only has a middling SAT score but high GPA will struggle.

That statement is talking about the potential to resources ratio. It is not a statement about a hard cut off of test scores.

You are completely misreading the entire article.

My comment was in response to someone claiming that now schools will admit purely on merit. Dartmouth's policy will now accept plenty of kids with a 1300 or 1400 from an under-resourced school vs. the TJ kid with a 1580. It's not even about a wealthy school vs. non-wealthy school (at least from the perspective of student-body wealth).

The TJ parents will continue to cry that the world is biased against them because their 1580 kid was rejected by Dartmouth while some 1300 kid from Harlem public schools was admitted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A huge blow to the DEI crowd.

And with legacy beginning to be pulled as well at many colleges...hopefully, we can enter a 'merit-based' admissions era.

I feel like people aren’t reading the article.

Dartmouth is basically saying we will take lots of kids with SAT scores in the 1300s and 1400s coming from disadvantaged schools.

I don’t see how that will help the 1580 Asian kid from TJ. Those parents will be crying louder than ever.

That is not at all what the article said.

Ok, what did it say...here is a direct quote:

“We’re looking for the kids who are excelling in their environment. We know society is unequal,” Beilock said. “Kids that are excelling in their environment, we think, are a good bet to excel at Dartmouth and out in the world.” The admissions office will judge an applicant’s environment partly by comparing his or her test score with the score distribution at the applicant’s high schools, Coffin said. In some cases, even an SAT score well below 1,400 can help an application.

No,

You are misreading.

The article said that kids at those lower performing schools (such as a school where most kids graduate at a 3rd grade reading level or no one takes calculus) with scores in that range (1400+/-) are kids who have proven they can succeed at a school like Dartmouth. In contrast, a kid from a wealthy school with every resource at thier disposal who still only has a middling SAT score but high GPA will struggle.

That statement is talking about the potential to resources ratio. It is not a statement about a hard cut off of test scores.

You are completely misreading the entire article.

My comment was in response to someone claiming that now schools will admit purely on merit. Dartmouth's policy will now accept plenty of kids with a 1300 or 1400 from an under-resourced school vs. the TJ kid with a 1580. It's not even about a wealthy school vs. non-wealthy school (at least from the perspective of student-body wealth).

The TJ parents will continue to cry that the world is biased against them because their 1580 kid was rejected by Dartmouth while some 1300 kid from Harlem public schools was admitted.

As they should! Our country has backwards priorities regarding innovation and the USA’s place in the world. No other country does college admissions the way the USA does, and eventually we are going to be behind the curve with China and others leading the way.

[Anonymous]

There will be no test optional selective schools by 2028-ish. Read the article; the data are totally convincing. Tests both better predict success and better find disadvantaged kids who can do the work. The idea that standardized tests were "racist" was always foolish; test optional helped dumb rich kids, not smart poor kids. Sanity prevailing, finally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There will be no test optional selective schools by 2028-ish. Read the article; the data are totally convincing. Tests both better predict success and better find disadvantaged kids who can do the work. The idea that standardized tests were "racist" was always foolish; test optional helped dumb rich kids, not smart poor kids. Sanity prevailing, finally.

100%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There will be no test optional selective schools by 2028-ish. Read the article; the data are totally convincing. Tests both better predict success and better find disadvantaged kids who can do the work. The idea that standardized tests were "racist" was always foolish; test optional helped dumb rich kids, not smart poor kids. Sanity prevailing, finally.

I agree. I applaud this decision.
-signed mom of 2 good kids but not geniuses, one of which didn’t do great on SAT/ACT