Harvard will require Test Scores starting next year

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP. I want my 5 minutes back reading up your post.

[Anonymous]

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

Pretty sure they have not been closed the past two years…

That is still no "experiment" anywhere except inside your imagination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Wrong - they don't have an endless pit of one-and-done 1600 / 36 applicants to choose from. You know that, or you should know that, and yet you perpetuate the lie. There are less than 3,000 kids each year who achieve a one-and-done 1600 or a one-and-done 36 (with all 36 subparts). You could barely fill two Ivy League freshman classes with that cohort.

That said, I agree with you that the standardized test score is a data point among other data points. We will, however, disagree as to the weighting that should be afforded the test score in the overall admissions calculus.

[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.

mostly bcs may and June seats are full

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP. I want my 5 minutes back reading up your post.

Then don't read DCUM posts. Simple solution

[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.

Uchicago did it purely to play the rankings game

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:yep.
Whatever will the 4/4.6 1390 poor test-taking children of DCUM do?

ED to Tulane.

Tulane Class of 2027 enrolled students average SAT is 1448 and ACT is 33. Not sure Tulane is happening with a 1390.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Do you even understand the limitations of standardized testing in the area you are alluding to? The kids who crushes a 1600 or 36 on their first attempt doesn't even have access to an assessment that would enable them to distance themselves from the 1520 or 1560 scorers. Don't you understand that? In your mind the forced ceiling on the truly "perfect score" makes a 98th score essentially the same as a 99.9+ percentile score. That's far from the truth.

Imagine evaluating 100 kindergarten students in your local elementary school. The assessment entails asking each of the students to answer math problems appropriate for the third grade curriculum in your district. All of the students answer between 1 - 10 questions correctly, with a cluster of twelve kids answering 6 - 8 questions correctly, one student answering 9 questions correctly, and one student answering all 10 questions correctly. That last student is also able to handle much higher level math, but the assessment doesn't test for that higher level capacity.

In your view of the world, the student answering 9 questions correctly and the student answering all 10 questions correctly are essentially the same. They are not the same, though. Don't you understand that?

[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

How? A kid can still take SAT/ACT in the summer or early fall. And in reality, if your kid had interest in Harvard or any other T20 school, they should have been planning to attempt the SAT in junior year. Very few kids today just say, oh I'm not trying the SAT/ACT and will just apply to T20 schools. Most are at least taking the test, with some test prep. Then they evaluate and decide whether to submit

Um, because some kids did not plan to take the test 4x for superscoring when a one and done 1400+ is fine for the likes of Georgetown, which plays no such silly games?

And, regardless of your approval of an individual students’ TO plan, Harvard announced long ago it was TO not only for this fall’s applicants (class of 2025) but for the year after (2026). No other school made any such announcement and revoked it. Am actually amazed Harvard had the gall to do this at this late stage for fall applicants (as opposed to making it effective with the class of 2026).

The real reason, I suspect: AI loves test scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

How? A kid can still take SAT/ACT in the summer or early fall. And in reality, if your kid had interest in Harvard or any other T20 school, they should have been planning to attempt the SAT in junior year. Very few kids today just say, oh I'm not trying the SAT/ACT and will just apply to T20 schools. Most are at least taking the test, with some test prep. Then they evaluate and decide whether to submit

Um, because some kids did not plan to take the test 4x for superscoring when a one and done 1400+ is fine for the likes of Georgetown, which plays no such silly games?

And, regardless of your approval of an individual students’ TO plan, Harvard announced long ago it was TO not only for this fall’s applicants (class of 2025) but for the year after (2026). No other school made any such announcement and revoked it. Am actually amazed Harvard had the gall to do this at this late stage for fall applicants (as opposed to making it effective with the class of 2026).

The real reason, I suspect: AI loves test scores.

If they claim to be the most elite- wouldn’t it look weird not to require test scores? People would start trash talking when some of the other ivies have already re-instated them.

My Senior had a very high score and this round have helped him—though he did really well and I think schools were looking at then more this year even if it wasn’t official.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Do you even understand the limitations of standardized testing in the area you are alluding to? The kids who crushes a 1600 or 36 on their first attempt doesn't even have access to an assessment that would enable them to distance themselves from the 1520 or 1560 scorers. Don't you understand that? In your mind the forced ceiling on the truly "perfect score" makes a 98th score essentially the same as a 99.9+ percentile score. That's far from the truth.

Imagine evaluating 100 kindergarten students in your local elementary school. The assessment entails asking each of the students to answer math problems appropriate for the third grade curriculum in your district. All of the students answer between 1 - 10 questions correctly, with a cluster of twelve kids answering 6 - 8 questions correctly, one student answering 9 questions correctly, and one student answering all 10 questions correctly. That last student is also able to handle much higher level math, but the assessment doesn't test for that higher level capacity.

In your view of the world, the student answering 9 questions correctly and the student answering all 10 questions correctly are essentially the same. They are not the same, though. Don't you understand that?

NP: Your and the PP's argument is pointless because Harvard will continue to reject and accept 1600 scorers at the same rate it did pre-TO. I think SAT scores are important and valuable data, but let's not be delusional to think that the acceptance rate for high scorers is going to significantly change going forward. Harvard is not embracing true meritocracy. Read their study—they have an agenda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Do you even understand the limitations of standardized testing in the area you are alluding to? The kids who crushes a 1600 or 36 on their first attempt doesn't even have access to an assessment that would enable them to distance themselves from the 1520 or 1560 scorers. Don't you understand that? In your mind the forced ceiling on the truly "perfect score" makes a 98th score essentially the same as a 99.9+ percentile score. That's far from the truth.

Imagine evaluating 100 kindergarten students in your local elementary school. The assessment entails asking each of the students to answer math problems appropriate for the third grade curriculum in your district. All of the students answer between 1 - 10 questions correctly, with a cluster of twelve kids answering 6 - 8 questions correctly, one student answering 9 questions correctly, and one student answering all 10 questions correctly. That last student is also able to handle much higher level math, but the assessment doesn't test for that higher level capacity.

In your view of the world, the student answering 9 questions correctly and the student answering all 10 questions correctly are essentially the same. They are not the same, though. Don't you understand that?

NP: Your and the PP's argument is pointless because Harvard will continue to reject and accept 1600 scorers at the same rate it did pre-TO. I think SAT scores are important and valuable data, but let's not be delusional to think that the acceptance rate for high scorers is going to significantly change going forward. Harvard is not embracing true meritocracy. Read their study—they have an agenda.

Agreed re: Harvard's intentions and planned policy shift. The separate point was that the "there's no discernible difference between a 1520 or 1560 and a 1600" is ludicrous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

How? A kid can still take SAT/ACT in the summer or early fall. And in reality, if your kid had interest in Harvard or any other T20 school, they should have been planning to attempt the SAT in junior year. Very few kids today just say, oh I'm not trying the SAT/ACT and will just apply to T20 schools. Most are at least taking the test, with some test prep. Then they evaluate and decide whether to submit

Um, because some kids did not plan to take the test 4x for superscoring when a one and done 1400+ is fine for the likes of Georgetown, which plays no such silly games?

And, regardless of your approval of an individual students’ TO plan, Harvard announced long ago it was TO not only for this fall’s applicants (class of 2025) but for the year after (2026). No other school made any such announcement and revoked it. Am actually amazed Harvard had the gall to do this at this late stage for fall applicants (as opposed to making it effective with the class of 2026).

The real reason, I suspect: AI loves test scores.

If they claim to be the most elite- wouldn’t it look weird not to require test scores? People would start trash talking when some of the other ivies have already re-instated them.

My Senior had a very high score and this round have helped him—though he did really well and I think schools were looking at then more this year even if it wasn’t official.

Certainly it does not look most elite when it is reacting to — rather than driving — admissions policy changes of other, “lesser” schools. What’s worse, doing so at this late stage smacks of desperation; it evinces weakness rather than strength.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Do you even understand the limitations of standardized testing in the area you are alluding to? The kids who crushes a 1600 or 36 on their first attempt doesn't even have access to an assessment that would enable them to distance themselves from the 1520 or 1560 scorers. Don't you understand that? In your mind the forced ceiling on the truly "perfect score" makes a 98th score essentially the same as a 99.9+ percentile score. That's far from the truth.

Imagine evaluating 100 kindergarten students in your local elementary school. The assessment entails asking each of the students to answer math problems appropriate for the third grade curriculum in your district. All of the students answer between 1 - 10 questions correctly, with a cluster of twelve kids answering 6 - 8 questions correctly, one student answering 9 questions correctly, and one student answering all 10 questions correctly. That last student is also able to handle much higher level math, but the assessment doesn't test for that higher level capacity.

In your view of the world, the student answering 9 questions correctly and the student answering all 10 questions correctly are essentially the same. They are not the same, though. Don't you understand that?

Yes, the one student is technically "smarter" at math than the others. But for determining "is this student the best one for Harvard" the answer is No it doesn't matter. All are really smart, some at things other than just taking a standardized test. That is where essays, recommendations, ECs and interviews set one apart from the others.

And the ones answering 9 correctly might just be smarter and a better college student than the 10 correct student in 2 years. because people grow and it's the effort they put forth to develop themselves that matters. That is what holistic evaluation is about---determining who those candidates are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

How? A kid can still take SAT/ACT in the summer or early fall. And in reality, if your kid had interest in Harvard or any other T20 school, they should have been planning to attempt the SAT in junior year. Very few kids today just say, oh I'm not trying the SAT/ACT and will just apply to T20 schools. Most are at least taking the test, with some test prep. Then they evaluate and decide whether to submit

Um, because some kids did not plan to take the test 4x for superscoring when a one and done 1400+ is fine for the likes of Georgetown, which plays no such silly games?

And, regardless of your approval of an individual students’ TO plan, Harvard announced long ago it was TO not only for this fall’s applicants (class of 2025) but for the year after (2026). No other school made any such announcement and revoked it. Am actually amazed Harvard had the gall to do this at this late stage for fall applicants (as opposed to making it effective with the class of 2026).

The real reason, I suspect: AI loves test scores.

If they claim to be the most elite- wouldn’t it look weird not to require test scores? People would start trash talking when some of the other ivies have already re-instated them.

My Senior had a very high score and this round have helped him—though he did really well and I think schools were looking at then more this year even if it wasn’t official.

Certainly it does not look most elite when it is reacting to — rather than driving — admissions policy changes of other, “lesser” schools. What’s worse, doing so at this late stage smacks of desperation; it evinces weakness rather than strength.

Oh no- I’m with you! Harvard took a beating of its own doing with the SC case and then hiring Claudine, then the protests and the way they handled that quagmire. It’s why applications were down this year.

Many of these schools have started digging their own graves —I’m looking at you too Hopkins with your DEI and reverse discrimination.