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!

Woke quota?! Omg I never cease to be amazed by the things that people will actually say (type). Do you assume that the URM students that you see have lower scores? How racist.

I assume the bolded is true because, in fact, this is exactly what Harvard's own data showed in the discovery portion of the SCt case

Not only is the PP is who too short on vocabulary to express what they're trying to say a jerk, but they're also flat-out wrong. In fact, the reinstatement of test scores is so they CAN let in students with lower scores. Maybe 1300 will be a little low, but not, they can see that students with high GPAs from little-known or underperforming schools are capable of doing the work at their universities--and 1400 SAT scores prove that. All this narrative about the highest scores doing "the best" in college really doesn't matter. Students with 1400 scores and high GPAs from their high schools deserve an opportunity to have an excellent education. They don't have to be top students in the Ivy League, they just deserve the chance. Reinstatement of test scores allows that to happen. Again, understand, this is not to put a barrier in front of students with lower scores who were "hiding" them. It is to remove it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Well presumably any kid applying to Harvard has already registered or taken the SAT/ACT.

They just didn’t submit their scores. So now they’ll have to.

Will they have already taken it twice, as many juniors have already who had such plans, thereby giving them a third or fourth sitting to look forward to in June and August? Harvard could have said no superscores for class of 2025 if they insisted on renouncing their established policy so late.

Everyone is in the same boat. The kids who have taken it 2-3 times already are on the ball and will get the advantage (and that's not a bad thing).

“Everyone is in the same boat” whether they took the SATs twice or six times? Interesting boat.

And it’s “not a bad thing” for kids to already be on pace to take the SAT 5X? And these are the kids who are “on the ball” and should be rewarded?
Oh, my.

"Same boat" means everyone just found out Harvard is not TO. I firmly believe that 85-90% of people who actually have a good chance at a lottery ticket for Harvard have already taken the SAT or are schedule for one in May/June. 75%+ of admitted students already submit their scores. I suspect those who dont' have taken the SAT/ACT and are below 50% so don't submit.

Anonymous wrote:You people are insane. Who GAF what Harvard does and whether or not they get the "best" by whatever standard you apply. The vast majority of your kids are not getting into Harvard.

(And no I do not think a test score is indicative of whether you'd do well at any school. There are a lot of factors that play into that.)

It seems like you don’t realize there is a trickle-down effect. Colleges often follow in the footsteps of other institutions. In this case, most colleges will remain TO. Most colleges are struggling with enrollment. They want students, any student.

But for selective colleges, which is mostly what we talk about, then this announcement matters a little more.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Well presumably any kid applying to Harvard has already registered or taken the SAT/ACT.

They just didn’t submit their scores. So now they’ll have to.

Will they have already taken it twice, as many juniors have already who had such plans, thereby giving them a third or fourth sitting to look forward to in June and August? Harvard could have said no superscores for class of 2025 if they insisted on renouncing their established policy so late.

Everyone is in the same boat. The kids who have taken it 2-3 times already are on the ball and will get the advantage (and that's not a bad thing).

“Everyone is in the same boat” whether they took the SATs twice or six times? Interesting boat.

And it’s “not a bad thing” for kids to already be on pace to take the SAT 5X? And these are the kids who are “on the ball” and should be rewarded?
Oh, my.

Thank you for pointing the obvious out. And added hurdle is also the switch to digital. There are only 6 official practice tests. 2 were added after the March test which disappointing in difficulty and grading.

My DD for instance had all bars filled in but one and got a 690 in reading. They took away the option to pay for which questions were missed. The digital test seems to be in its infancy. My DD is a junior in public. Her private school friends told her their counselor pointed out nobody knows about the digital version yet and stressed everybody to get a good paper test.

I feel stupid to have trusted the process.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh please. If Tulane required all students to submit SAT or ACT scores the avg. would be closer to 1228 and 31. Only kids with 1300+ submit SATs and the university says a 'majority' of 2027s did not submit (but what won't say what percent - why?).

Average (recalculated & unweighted) GPA: 3.7
Average SAT: 1448*
Average ACT: 33*

*Submitting SAT or ACT scores is optional at Tulane. For the Class of 2027, a majority of enrolling students did not submit test scores.

The 2023-24 CDS reports that 14% submitted SATs and 31% ACT.

So top 14% of students at Tulane score 1450 on their SATs. That's a far cry from the average Tulane student scoring 1450. When mandatory test scores are required colleges & universities outside the Top 25 are going to see their SAT numbers plummet. Before the pandemic, the average SAT was 1060 and 90th percentile was 1340. If a school only admits 5% (Ivies, Stanford, MIT, etc),then 90th percentile is not good enough. But for most schools, scoring in 90th percentile will help get you in.

My own kids are not applying to Harvard, but as a professor of mostly undergraduate students I applaud this. It's one data point that is, like ACTs and APs, scaled nationally. Grades are hyper inflated at many high schools and rigor varies too much across schools to be helpful to an admissions committee who is comparing students across the country, indeed even internationally.
Also, my unpopular opinion is that SATs are not racially biased. The scores are a reflection of reality -Black and Hispanic kids don't do well because they are relatively impoverished compared to other populations. Also, straight math problems (not word problems) logically cannot indicate bias.

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

Any student considering applying to Harvard has already tested.

Not really. My DD got a letter with brochure a month ago from Harvard because of her psat score I would guess.

It explicitly said TO is an option. Odd to say the least to have such a short notice.

I don’t think we will get a letter saying sorry actually it’s back to testing?

NP, DD received an email with this information yesterday. She is on the email list due to marketing efforts, not expressed interest.

You people are insane. Who GAF what Harvard does and whether or not they get the "best" by whatever standard you apply. The vast majority of your kids are not getting into Harvard.

(And no I do not think a test score is indicative of whether you'd do well at any school. There are a lot of factors that play into that.)

My kid took them last fall twice. Ended up w a high score, but somewhere btw 25-50% for Harvard. Could they have gotten an extra 20 points if they took them every month after for the next year? After they had another year of math? Probably. Would they have lost out on other commitments on Saturdays which also look good on a resume (and bring them joy)? Certainly.

Do I wish these tests were like every other test, one and done? Classroom tests, state exams, AP tests, the shsat, the psat? Yes.

But taking tests twice instead of 10 times isn’t always being at a disadvantage. And there’s time to take it twice

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Well presumably any kid applying to Harvard has already registered or taken the SAT/ACT.

They just didn’t submit their scores. So now they’ll have to.

Will they have already taken it twice, as many juniors have already who had such plans, thereby giving them a third or fourth sitting to look forward to in June and August? Harvard could have said no superscores for class of 2025 if they insisted on renouncing their established policy so late.

Everyone is in the same boat. The kids who have taken it 2-3 times already are on the ball and will get the advantage (and that's not a bad thing).

“Everyone is in the same boat” whether they took the SATs twice or six times? Interesting boat.

And it’s “not a bad thing” for kids to already be on pace to take the SAT 5X? And these are the kids who are “on the ball” and should be rewarded?
Oh, my.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh please. If Tulane required all students to submit SAT or ACT scores the avg. would be closer to 1228 and 31. Only kids with 1300+ submit SATs and the university says a 'majority' of 2027s did not submit (but what won't say what percent - why?).

Average (recalculated & unweighted) GPA: 3.7
Average SAT: 1448*
Average ACT: 33*

*Submitting SAT or ACT scores is optional at Tulane. For the Class of 2027, a majority of enrolling students did not submit test scores.

The 2023-24 CDS reports that 14% submitted SATs and 31% ACT.

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!

Woke quota?! Omg I never cease to be amazed by the things that people will actually say (type). Do you assume that the URM students that you see have lower scores? How racist.

I assume the bolded is true because, in fact, this is exactly what Harvard's own data showed in the discovery portion of the SCt case

But the comment was referring to the admits they’re seeing this year….post SC case.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do we think is the new 25% of range?
I think it is 1490 with TO. How far does it come down?

Just look at 2019 numbers.

2018-2019
SAT ebr. 720-780
SAT math 740-800

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!

Woke quota?! Omg I never cease to be amazed by the things that people will actually say (type). Do you assume that the URM students that you see have lower scores? How racist.

I assume the bolded is true because, in fact, this is exactly what Harvard's own data showed in the discovery portion of the SCt case

Anonymous wrote:I mean, this just makes a ton of sense. I’m Asian but didn’t have an especially good SAT score and didn’t prep (in the 90s). It makes zero sense to lower every barrier to entry to our most elite schools. Do they want the best and brightest, or just a random sampling?

This ^