Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This allows Dartmouth to better differentiate among students from low-performing, under-resourced high schools. But they're not going to admit white/asian strivers instead of those students. No way. So it's not what the standardized test absolutists were hoping for. In fact, it's worse for them than test optional.

No, it is much better that test optional or race based weighting, because it puts kids from a similar school/socioeconomic background on a level footing.

The race system hypothetically creates a system where an obama girl, with all her wealth, resources, privileges and oppotunities from the top private school in the country, to get admitted into an elote college with a far lower SAT than her asian classmate, or even an asian male immigrant from a failing urban public school with an SAT hundreds of points above her SAT, but 50 points below the expected score for asian males.

The test optional system allows an affluent classmate who cheated through high school to get high grades or paid someone to write their application, who scored a 1200 or 1000 SAT to get accepted over a classmate with similar grades, stats, activities and a 1530 SAT, and with the supreme court decision and no race consideration, even more smart minorities are losing out over mediocre rich kids.

Returning to tests required after the supreme court decision means that all those affluent and middle class students are going to be on a more equal playing field as all their affluent or middle class peers, regardless of race. The African-American math geek with the 1570 SAT is not going to get shut out by the white leadership girl with inflated grades and an 1100 SAT who submitted test optional with great extracurriculars. They will no longer be targeting the same schools. It also means that those brilliant kids from failing schools (disproportionately minority) will now get caught up and noticed since they will submit their scores once again.

This is moving back towards merit and opportunity.

To the PP with whom I have been going back-and-forth...this proves my point. I assume whoever wrote this post is not native-born. Notice how in their scenario, their kid is losing out to the AA with a 1570. Notice how the AA to whom they are losing out did not score a 1300 from Baltimore public schools.

Really sucks for us if they go back to test required.

DC SAT score 1580, applied to college last year. So many colleges were TO. DC got rejected to T15. I do wonder if TO hurt DC.

DC#2 is a sophomore, not as high achieving and will probably have an SAT score around 1300 mark. TO would be great for this DC.

I know life is unfair, but this really stinks for my kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm going to take it further. I think they should rank SAT like they do class rank. Shoud show top % in 3% increments. That way colleges can very much see context and would be a huge boost for kids who are able to overcome in horrible school districts.

A kid who scores 1200 in a Baltimore school where the average is 892 has "overcome disadvantage" but is still not qualified for Ivy League work.

Sure.

But a disadvantaged kid from one of those schools with a 1400 likely is.

+100. And in the right environment with resources and support from an ivy like Dartmouth, they would close the gap quickly and maybe exceed their peers.

Anonymous wrote:Fantastic!
Goodbye to the "bad at test taking" dopes with their grade inflated 4.0s.

Only bad at taking tests on Saturday mornings, apparently. 🤣😂😭

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm going to take it further. I think they should rank SAT like they do class rank. Shoud show top % in 3% increments. That way colleges can very much see context and would be a huge boost for kids who are able to overcome in horrible school districts.

A kid who scores 1200 in a Baltimore school where the average is 892 has "overcome disadvantage" but is still not qualified for Ivy League work.

we don’t know that, that would
be up to the schools to decide. I highly doubt any of us posting here are data analysts for any of these schools. Just a bunch of over bearing helicopter parents going at it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm going to take it further. I think they should rank SAT like they do class rank. Shoud show top % in 3% increments. That way colleges can very much see context and would be a huge boost for kids who are able to overcome in horrible school districts.

A kid who scores 1200 in a Baltimore school where the average is 892 has "overcome disadvantage" but is still not qualified for Ivy League work.

Sure.

But a disadvantaged kid from one of those schools with a 1400 likely is.

Anonymous wrote:This allows Dartmouth to better differentiate among students from low-performing, under-resourced high schools. But they're not going to admit white/asian strivers instead of those students. No way. So it's not what the standardized test absolutists were hoping for. In fact, it's worse for them than test optional.

No, it is much better that test optional or race based weighting, because it puts kids from a similar school/socioeconomic background on a level footing.

The race system hypothetically creates a system where an obama girl, with all her wealth, resources, privileges and oppotunities from the top private school in the country, to get admitted into an elote college with a far lower SAT than her asian classmate, or even an asian male immigrant from a failing urban public school with an SAT hundreds of points above her SAT, but 50 points below the expected score for asian males.

The test optional system allows an affluent classmate who cheated through high school to get high grades or paid someone to write their application, who scored a 1200 or 1000 SAT to get accepted over a classmate with similar grades, stats, activities and a 1530 SAT, and with the supreme court decision and no race consideration, even more smart minorities are losing out over mediocre rich kids.

Returning to tests required after the supreme court decision means that all those affluent and middle class students are going to be on a more equal playing field as all their affluent or middle class peers, regardless of race. The African-American math geek with the 1570 SAT is not going to get shut out by the white leadership girl with inflated grades and an 1100 SAT who submitted test optional with great extracurriculars. They will no longer be targeting the same schools. It also means that those brilliant kids from failing schools (disproportionately minority) will now get caught up and noticed since they will submit their scores once again.

This is moving back towards merit and opportunity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm going to take it further. I think they should rank SAT like they do class rank. Shoud show top % in 3% increments. That way colleges can very much see context and would be a huge boost for kids who are able to overcome in horrible school districts.

Don't the SATs already give a school/district rating on the scores? Or am I mistaken?

I do like this idea

kinda. they give your schools average on the school profile. I think ranking would be best. i’d like to see both the math and english ranked as separate ranks and then a combined. Would be very interesting data alongside GPA in a world of grade inflation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm going to take it further. I think they should rank SAT like they do class rank. Shoud show top % in 3% increments. That way colleges can very much see context and would be a huge boost for kids who are able to overcome in horrible school districts.

A kid who scores 1200 in a Baltimore school where the average is 892 has "overcome disadvantage" but is still not qualified for Ivy League work.

It doesn’t have to be one or the other. In fact it sounds like Dartmouth uses both: they have an absolute SAT minimum, but if that minimum is 1450 the Baltimore kid with a 1450 will fare better in admissions than the Whitman kid with a 1450. (This is similar to how schools consider both absolute GPA and GPA in context, aka class rank.)

Anonymous wrote:My two high stats kids graduated HS in 21 and 23. One got in their ED (aimed low based on what they saw sibling go thru), other is at a safety. Didn't get in at 2 targets (not reach schools, where they were WL and never got in), and I 100% believe it was due to TO. Kid is fine: happy, well adjusted, etc., but the network won't be the same.

But had all students had to submit test scores, that kid would be in school elsewhere. I hope all schools go back to requiring test scores

+1. My 2021 kid with a 1500 is also attending a safety. What a mess that year was for admissions. My 2024 kid with a 1550 is in at a T10 after applying ED, though it's hard to read much into that.

Anonymous wrote:I'm going to take it further. I think they should rank SAT like they do class rank. Shoud show top % in 3% increments. That way colleges can very much see context and would be a huge boost for kids who are able to overcome in horrible school districts.

A kid who scores 1200 in a Baltimore school where the average is 892 has "overcome disadvantage" but is still not qualified for Ivy League work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm going to take it further. I think they should rank SAT like they do class rank. Shoud show top % in 3% increments. That way colleges can very much see context and would be a huge boost for kids who are able to overcome in horrible school districts.

Don't the SATs already give a school/district rating on the scores? Or am I mistaken?

I do like this idea

I don't know. SAT attempted to give scores a "hardship" bump for poor schools. So the kid from Baltimore public scores may have a raw 1350, but with the SAT "hardship" factor, they would be awarded a 1500.

This was meant to level the playing field. It was announced and then quickly abandoned. Not sure why. Then COVID hit.

Anonymous wrote:This allows Dartmouth to better differentiate among students from low-performing, under-resourced high schools. But they're not going to admit white/asian strivers instead of those students. No way. So it's not what the standardized test absolutists were hoping for. In fact, it's worse for them than test optional.

NP. Disagree. This helps keep high scoring applicants from being displaced by low scoring advantaged students. A return to sanity.

Anonymous wrote:Nothingburger.. Schools are already weighing test scores heavily in their admission process while take your test optional kids' application money.

You do not seem familiar with the current test optional college application process.

Anonymous wrote:I'm going to take it further. I think they should rank SAT like they do class rank. Shoud show top % in 3% increments. That way colleges can very much see context and would be a huge boost for kids who are able to overcome in horrible school districts.

Don't the SATs already give a school/district rating on the scores? Or am I mistaken?

I do like this idea