Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Such a horror.

I don’t know. I think colleges want to be able to reject a 1600 scores whose teacher recs say the kid is a cheater.

What about the kid who scores 1600 but has lots of Bs or didn't take any challenging classes? Why should a 3 hour test be more important than 4 years of performance?

Anonymous wrote:Such a horror.

I don’t know. I think colleges want to be able to reject a 1600 scorer whose teacher recs say the kid is a cheater.

Such a horror.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:most top schools are test required. Only a few trying to game admissions (chicago) or shit ones (emory) lag.

You can be test required but still essentially disregard scores in the admissions calculus. Many schools do this by using scores as a bar you have to pass, rather than giving more points for higher scores.

Is OP’s link advocating for higher scores being the primary criteria? So Stanford has to accept all the kids with 1600s before they consider the kids with 1590s?

Yes, the link OP posted compares current holistic policies to an SAT-only approach.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:most top schools are test required. Only a few trying to game admissions (chicago) or shit ones (emory) lag.

Washu, Columbia, Northwestern, Duke, Vanderbilt, Rice, Notre Dame, CMU, Umich, Uva, are TO. UCB and UCLA are blind, but they arent shit schools?

All that keep the policy are trying to overcome location, play games with admissions rates to look more selective, or keep options open for sports recruits.

D1 schools don’t care about test scores other than athletes meet minimum scores (which are very low).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:most top schools are test required. Only a few trying to game admissions (chicago) or shit ones (emory) lag.

You can be test required but still essentially disregard scores in the admissions calculus. Many schools do this by using scores as a bar you have to pass, rather than giving more points for higher scores.

Is OP’s link advocating for higher scores being the primary criteria? So Stanford has to accept all the kids with 1600s before they consider the kids with 1590s?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:most top schools are test required. Only a few trying to game admissions (chicago) or shit ones (emory) lag.

Washu, Columbia, Northwestern, Duke, Vanderbilt, Rice, Notre Dame, CMU, Umich, Uva, are TO. UCB and UCLA are blind, but they arent shit schools?

All that keep the policy are trying to overcome location, play games with admissions rates to look more selective, or keep options open for sports recruits.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:most top schools are test required. Only a few trying to game admissions (chicago) or shit ones (emory) lag.

You can be test required but still essentially disregard scores in the admissions calculus. Many schools do this by using scores as a bar you have to pass, rather than giving more points for higher scores.

A bar to pass is an entirely reasonable way to handle test scores. (DC got a 1570 so no sour grapes here.)

Anonymous wrote:most top schools are test required. Only a few trying to game admissions (chicago) or shit ones (emory) lag.

You can be test required but still essentially disregard scores in the admissions calculus. Many schools do this by using scores as a bar you have to pass, rather than giving more points for higher scores.

Anonymous wrote:most top schools are test required. Only a few trying to game admissions (chicago) or shit ones (emory) lag.

Washu, Columbia, Northwestern, Duke, Vanderbilt, Rice, Notre Dame, CMU, Umich, Uva, are TO. UCB and UCLA are blind, but they arent shit schools?

most top schools are test required. Only a few trying to game admissions (chicago) or shit ones (emory) lag.

Key quote:

“It's 'holistic review' and 'ban SAT' policy that allows the most wealthy and powerful to virtue signal while getting an edge.” for their children’s admission to the top universities (especially private universities).

Anonymous wrote:I’m not clicking your link but isn’t that how it was up until 2020? That’s an honest question, my kids are in HS now so I wasn’t paying attention back then.

No, exceptions were still made for hooked candidates.

I’m not clicking your link but isn’t that how it was up until 2020? That’s an honest question, my kids are in HS now so I wasn’t paying attention back then.

Very interesting study coming out of Harvard. https://x.com/garrytan/status/1958963104462905385?s=61 requiring scores would increase number of middle income students at expense of upper income. And by requiring, not only requiring submission but using the numbers in admission calculus, no exceptions.

We are upper income and I totally support this. Our kids scored 1500 and 1570, but see too many schools playing games.