Anonymous wrote:
There are very very very few kids with a 1000 or even 1200 that think "hey let's go test optional and apply to Harvard because it's the right school for me". Because most kids know they would then struggle once at college and would definately not fit in.
So sure a few might slip thru, but most likely they have an extremely strong resume otherwise to indicate they will do well---they have to be a striver for everything else. And fact is there are not many 3.9+ GPA, taking 5+ APs (and getting 4/5s) who only can manage a 1000 on the SAT. There simply are not many kids that fit that profile.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The irony. My senior --5s on all APs, 36 ACT. The year scores don't matter.

I have a sophomore--hope he is a high test scorer too. lol

Things that could help always seem to change after the fact for us.

Everybody is really missing the point here. The point of reinstating scores is not to let in more high-scoring white kids from upper middleclass suburbs. In fact, it is the opposite. Reinstating required testing will allow the average test scores to go back down to reasonable levels for admission. Understand: these schools do not admit students on a sliding scale, starting with the perfect scores and going down from there. They are simply looking at test scores to ensure that students whose grades and schools do not give a complete picture can submit a test score to indicate whether they are capable of doing the work. For almost every single school in America a 1400 or even a 1350 (gasp) is plenty high. So now, underprileged students can submit those scores. During test optional, they weren't, so they were being left out. This change DOES NOT advantage high test scorers. And that's a good thing!

Spot on and well-articulated post

Yes!!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not applying to Yale obviously, but my ds is a 1350 kid and not having TO will mean he can apply almost no schools.

What? No. Just no.

Anonymous wrote:Not applying to Yale obviously, but my ds is a 1350 kid and not having TO will mean he can apply almost no schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem became kids from underperforming schools who had ridiculously high GPA's. They were superstars at their schools, but performed poorly on test, mostly because their schools were sub-par. Maybe they had also started a non-profit or a business. Superstars in terms of work-ethic and passion, but not academically prepared (no fault of their own). We are talking about a Henry County Georgia (random example) public school, not a Montgomery County one. So they got to Yale/Dartmouth and were not prepared.[/quote

But so what? So they don't get straight As. Who cares? By year two they are caught up, or not? And they graduate from a top university with a lower GPA than the super stars. What is wrong with that? Their hard work provided them an incredible opportunity to be surrounded by similar peers and for an excellent education. Why should they be denied that over one stupid test?

I don't think anything is wrong with it. I think Dartmouth didn't like it. I also wonder if they did get caught up, or not? If there was concern over graduation rates? I don't know.

Not what Dartmouth said at all. Dartmouth realized that students of color and underprivileged weren't submitting scores because the average admitted score got so high under TO that students were leaving out a very strong 1400 score and not getting in. Dartmouth didn't change in order to keep out lower scorers. They changed it to let more in. Please read, and think.

I read. And I think. And I know that what you read has a large amount of PR infused in to it. So not only do I read, I infuse logic. What Dartmouth “said” is certainly not the full story.