Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. There may not be much difference between at 1500 and a 1600, but a 1200 does speak to the ability of a kid with a great GPA to succeed in a competitive college environment

It really doesn't. My kid -who has not tested yet- has a fantastic GPA. Going in cold to an SAT or ACT - who knows what score will be obtained? But one thing I know for sure, we don't have the money for a fancy prep (yes, we'll do Khan, etc. but that's not personalized like a one-on-one tutor is). And with the expected AP courseload, plus ECs/Sports, and working, there is not a lot of time left over in the day as it is. So those scores represent an "extra" and ability to prepare for the test, not ability.

I have sat for multiple standardized tests in my day: HS, grad school, professional license. And the ones I did best on were the ones where I took courses, had time to prepare, etc. There is a direct correlation between those things and outcomes. If you don't have the time/money for the former, you're not going to do as well on the latter.

Oh BS. Your child's previous school-administered tests would give you an indicator of how your kid will perform. A kid who has scored in the 95-99th percentile their whole life isn't scoring a1250 on the SAT.

Anonymous wrote:Good. There may not be much difference between at 1500 and a 1600, but a 1200 does speak to the ability of a kid with a great GPA to succeed in a competitive college environment

It really doesn't. My kid -who has not tested yet- has a fantastic GPA. Going in cold to an SAT or ACT - who knows what score will be obtained? But one thing I know for sure, we don't have the money for a fancy prep (yes, we'll do Khan, etc. but that's not personalized like a one-on-one tutor is). And with the expected AP courseload, plus ECs/Sports, and working, there is not a lot of time left over in the day as it is. So those scores represent an "extra" and ability to prepare for the test, not ability.

I have sat for multiple standardized tests in my day: HS, grad school, professional license. And the ones I did best on were the ones where I took courses, had time to prepare, etc. There is a direct correlation between those things and outcomes. If you don't have the time/money for the former, you're not going to do as well on the latter.

Anonymous wrote:There has to be a limit to number of applications per student.

Under test optional, high stats kids have to apply to a ton of places. My kid applied to a bunch of safeties and some reaches with a high GPA and above 1500 SAT, very good essays and recommendations, with multiple state level accolades, great extracurriculars, sustained volunteering, eagle scout, leadership, activities, etc. Most of the results are not coming back as acceptances. Several classmates with much lower scores submitted test optional and were accepted.

Test optional has turned the safety schools for high stat kids into a coin toss.

I think out of close to 20 applications at schools where my kids stats fall into the upper 25% range, including state schools, my kid is going to end up with maybe 2 acceptances.

It wasn't like this pre test optional for a kid with my kid's stats.

Until test optional goes away, high stat kids are going to have to apply to a lot of schools to get a handful of acceptances.

Applying to more than 20 schools feeds to admission insanity.

My kids only applied to about a dozen schools each. You just have to do a little research to know what you want and capable of and can afford.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There are plenty of disadvantaged URM kids at expensive private schools. What about them? They always get in anyway.

I know several current seniors that didn't (2 with 4.3 GPAs, bio and chain supply majors, rejected at VT, one rejected at UVA, and others at Yale, Northwestern, Notre Dame and UNC), but by all means, don't let facts get in the way of your racist mindset.

This is SC ruling. They are now getting rejected with those stats just like the whites and Asians always have.

This happened even before the SC ruling.

I hope other schools T25 follow suit. It's the only way the insane application numbers will come down. We need to get this back to some sanity.

Anonymous wrote:This will stop the madness. The kid with an overinflated GPA and a test of 1310 from UMC/affluent zip code is not going to apply anymore, whereas they likely did in these recent years because 'why not' I have a chance.

Yes.

That is what the person harping about TJ parents doesn't get.

There has to be a limit to number of applications per student.

Athletics is a more sure shot way to get admitted to an academic institution.

This will stop the madness. The kid with an overinflated GPA and a test of 1310 from UMC/affluent zip code is not going to apply anymore, whereas they likely did in these recent years because 'why not' I have a chance.

Academics don't have as much value as people paint them to be.

Anonymous wrote:Respect.
More and more selective schools will join.

Many have already

Anonymous wrote:So many amazing candidates with perfect scores and high grades in rigorous courses, volunteering and dedicated extracurriculars don't get admitted so no guarantees there.

It’s always been that way, even when scores were required. We have holistic admissions in the US and class composition balancing.

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.

What about the 1580 white kid from TJ? Or the 1580 black kid from TJ? You like them, though, right? Your prejudice is so glaringly obvious. Take your jealousy and racism, and shove it!