Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The College board needs to release raw scores for the AP tests. That way MIT and Cornell can see whether your 5 on Physics EM was a 98% or a 61%.

We throw away a lot of information that could be useful for everyone in the process.

Sure, if the goal is to assemble a class of kids who test well.

Only dishonest or ignorant people say that standardized tests only measures the ability to take standardized tests

Standardized tests are the best measure we have of cognitive ability. It predicts pretty much everything you would want to predict.

Not all standardized tests are created equal or have wide-reaching predictive value. You'd think someone would be able to do better than the College Board at this point! They haven't done much to earn our trust.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The College board needs to release raw scores for the AP tests. That way MIT and Cornell can see whether your 5 on Physics EM was a 98% or a 61%.

We throw away a lot of information that could be useful for everyone in the process.

Sure, if the goal is to assemble a class of kids who test well.

Only dishonest or ignorant people say that standardized tests only measures the ability to take standardized tests

Standardized tests are the best measure we have of cognitive ability. It predicts pretty much everything you would want to predict.

Most AO would rather see smart kids, who rather than spending $$$$$$ and 50+ hours prepping to take the SAT/ACT multiple times, have something they are passionate about and focus their efforts on, something that enriches their lives beyond just "studying for the test".
My own kid raised their score from 1320 to 1520 with 4 hours of individualized test prep (going over a baseline test). Easy to do in a short time period, especially if you can afford the tutor. If not, it might take you 20 hours to do that individually. So yes, my kid is privileged to not need to spend much time getting to their optimum score (and yes, had they spent another 10 hours focused on Verbal they could have gotten even higher)

So nope, SAT is not a predator of cognitive ability. IQ tests are but not SAT/ACT

You have your anecdote.

I have data and studies.

These two things do not compare.

Here is a study that showed that income does not distort the predictive value of SATs on college grades

https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/SAT_ACT_on_Grades.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1500 has been the marker for many, many years. I believe it still is. I doubt many, if any, admissions officers care about a 1550 vs a 1540. Or a 1530 vs a 1570. All within the same standard deviation to account for those test takers having a good day vs those having a bad day.

Anyone in the 1500+ bucket gets extra attention paid to their ECs and other achievements.

We have data on this and a 1590 has more than twice the admission rate at top 11 schools as a 1500. It might not be worth the extra effort to get the 1590 but AOs are not indifferent to SAT scores above 1500

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-55119-0

The journal Nature published an article about how college admissions is unfair to Asians ... in 2024? This was obvious in 1994

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The College board needs to release raw scores for the AP tests. That way MIT and Cornell can see whether your 5 on Physics EM was a 98% or a 61%.

We throw away a lot of information that could be useful for everyone in the process.

Sure, if the goal is to assemble a class of kids who test well.

Only dishonest or ignorant people say that standardized tests only measures the ability to take standardized tests

Standardized tests are the best measure we have of cognitive ability. It predicts pretty much everything you would want to predict.

Most AO would rather see smart kids, who rather than spending $$$$$$ and 50+ hours prepping to take the SAT/ACT multiple times, have something they are passionate about and focus their efforts on, something that enriches their lives beyond just "studying for the test".
My own kid raised their score from 1320 to 1520 with 4 hours of individualized test prep (going over a baseline test). Easy to do in a short time period, especially if you can afford the tutor. If not, it might take you 20 hours to do that individually. So yes, my kid is privileged to not need to spend much time getting to their optimum score (and yes, had they spent another 10 hours focused on Verbal they could have gotten even higher)

So nope, SAT is not a predator of cognitive ability. IQ tests are but not SAT/ACT

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is wrong. the SAT and GPA are totally inflated from a couple of decades ago so just on the numbers, there are roughly 40,000 test takers scoring 34+/1500+ on the ACT/SAT.

Add to it that schools need enough students for the different majors and departments, so they aren't all going to just take top STEM kids or something. They need/want to round out clubs, theater, sports, etc and their admissions are geared accordingly to ensure their campuses are filled with enriching students of varying backgrounds and contributions to their communities.

This is vastly underestimated when you consider superscoring.

I would imagine the number of super scored 1500+ is 5x+ that number

Anonymous wrote:He is wrong. the SAT and GPA are totally inflated from a couple of decades ago so just on the numbers, there are roughly 40,000 test takers scoring 34+/1500+ on the ACT/SAT.

Add to it that schools need enough students for the different majors and departments, so they aren't all going to just take top STEM kids or something. They need/want to round out clubs, theater, sports, etc and their admissions are geared accordingly to ensure their campuses are filled with enriching students of varying backgrounds and contributions to their communities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is wrong. the SAT and GPA are totally inflated from a couple of decades ago so just on the numbers, there are roughly 40,000 test takers scoring 34+/1500+ on the ACT/SAT.

Add to it that schools need enough students for the different majors and departments, so they aren't all going to just take top STEM kids or something. They need/want to round out clubs, theater, sports, etc and their admissions are geared accordingly to ensure their campuses are filled with enriching students of varying backgrounds and contributions to their communities.

But the numbers ARE the numbers. The kids who score a 1550+ are the top .05%. The point he is making is that these top schools are not taking the BRIGHTEST students. They are taking interesting/compelling/cool/connected students with much lower stats. So the question is: What defines a top school? It's not because your peers will intellectually challenge you. It's something else, but these should no longer be considered the only top "intellectual" institutions. It's just different.

The UK and other countries still find value in assembling classes with the smartest, brightest kids with high IQs so they can handle the work and challenge each other intellectually. Sure the colleges need dancers, trumpet players, etc., but we have to be honest about what these Ivy League institutions have become.

Only because those 20+ schools realize that the "best & brightest" is no only the kids with 1550+ SAT scores. They smartly realize that 1500 (or whatever number) is enough to say "kid makes the academic cut". they'd rather have a variety of students who excel in different areas than a freshman class of 1580-1600 kids. Look around you in the real world---welcome to life, you will work alongside people who went to colleges you literally have never heard of, yet they are same age or only 5 years older and you might report to them (gasp, the horrors!!!). Go look at the C suite and the next 2 levels down at your company---good chance less than 10% went to an "elite school", yet somehow they are excelling in their careers. Because it's what you do, not where you do it (at least for college---on the job, yes where you work and the connections from that and quality of your experiences will change where your next job might be).

Made the academic cut for Harvard remedial math class?

Enough with the whining about the Harvard remedial math class. There may be a few kids who need it, but most of those undergrads are better at math than 99% of the people on DCUM.

It will go back to being just for the athletic recruits now that they have test required again.

My athletic recruit is far smarter at math than your child so bring it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1500 has been the marker for many, many years. I believe it still is. I doubt many, if any, admissions officers care about a 1550 vs a 1540. Or a 1530 vs a 1570. All within the same standard deviation to account for those test takers having a good day vs those having a bad day.

Anyone in the 1500+ bucket gets extra attention paid to their ECs and other achievements.

We have data on this and a 1590 has more than twice the admission rate at top 11 schools as a 1500. It might not be worth the extra effort to get the 1590 but AOs are not indifferent to SAT scores above 1500

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-55119-0

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is wrong. the SAT and GPA are totally inflated from a couple of decades ago so just on the numbers, there are roughly 40,000 test takers scoring 34+/1500+ on the ACT/SAT.

Add to it that schools need enough students for the different majors and departments, so they aren't all going to just take top STEM kids or something. They need/want to round out clubs, theater, sports, etc and their admissions are geared accordingly to ensure their campuses are filled with enriching students of varying backgrounds and contributions to their communities.

But the numbers ARE the numbers. The kids who score a 1550+ are the top .05%. The point he is making is that these top schools are not taking the BRIGHTEST students. They are taking interesting/compelling/cool/connected students with much lower stats. So the question is: What defines a top school? It's not because your peers will intellectually challenge you. It's something else, but these should no longer be considered the only top "intellectual" institutions. It's just different.

The UK and other countries still find value in assembling classes with the smartest, brightest kids with high IQs so they can handle the work and challenge each other intellectually. Sure the colleges need dancers, trumpet players, etc., but we have to be honest about what these Ivy League institutions have become.

Only because those 20+ schools realize that the "best & brightest" is no only the kids with 1550+ SAT scores. They smartly realize that 1500 (or whatever number) is enough to say "kid makes the academic cut". they'd rather have a variety of students who excel in different areas than a freshman class of 1580-1600 kids. Look around you in the real world---welcome to life, you will work alongside people who went to colleges you literally have never heard of, yet they are same age or only 5 years older and you might report to them (gasp, the horrors!!!). Go look at the C suite and the next 2 levels down at your company---good chance less than 10% went to an "elite school", yet somehow they are excelling in their careers. Because it's what you do, not where you do it (at least for college---on the job, yes where you work and the connections from that and quality of your experiences will change where your next job might be).

Made the academic cut for Harvard remedial math class?

Enough with the whining about the Harvard remedial math class. There may be a few kids who need it, but most of those undergrads are better at math than 99% of the people on DCUM.

It will go back to being just for the athletic recruits now that they have test required again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is wrong. the SAT and GPA are totally inflated from a couple of decades ago so just on the numbers, there are roughly 40,000 test takers scoring 34+/1500+ on the ACT/SAT.

Add to it that schools need enough students for the different majors and departments, so they aren't all going to just take top STEM kids or something. They need/want to round out clubs, theater, sports, etc and their admissions are geared accordingly to ensure their campuses are filled with enriching students of varying backgrounds and contributions to their communities.

But the numbers ARE the numbers. The kids who score a 1550+ are the top .05%. The point he is making is that these top schools are not taking the BRIGHTEST students. They are taking interesting/compelling/cool/connected students with much lower stats. So the question is: What defines a top school? It's not because your peers will intellectually challenge you. It's something else, but these should no longer be considered the only top "intellectual" institutions. It's just different.

The UK and other countries still find value in assembling classes with the smartest, brightest kids with high IQs so they can handle the work and challenge each other intellectually. Sure the colleges need dancers, trumpet players, etc., but we have to be honest about what these Ivy League institutions have become.

Only because those 20+ schools realize that the "best & brightest" is no only the kids with 1550+ SAT scores. They smartly realize that 1500 (or whatever number) is enough to say "kid makes the academic cut". they'd rather have a variety of students who excel in different areas than a freshman class of 1580-1600 kids. Look around you in the real world---welcome to life, you will work alongside people who went to colleges you literally have never heard of, yet they are same age or only 5 years older and you might report to them (gasp, the horrors!!!). Go look at the C suite and the next 2 levels down at your company---good chance less than 10% went to an "elite school", yet somehow they are excelling in their careers. Because it's what you do, not where you do it (at least for college---on the job, yes where you work and the connections from that and quality of your experiences will change where your next job might be).

Made the academic cut for Harvard remedial math class?

Enough with the whining about the Harvard remedial math class. There may be a few kids who need it, but most of those undergrads are better at math than 99% of the people on DCUM.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1500 has been the marker for many, many years. I believe it still is. I doubt many, if any, admissions officers care about a 1550 vs a 1540. Or a 1530 vs a 1570. All within the same standard deviation to account for those test takers having a good day vs those having a bad day.

Anyone in the 1500+ bucket gets extra attention paid to their ECs and other achievements.

We have data on this and a 1590 has more than twice the admission rate at top 11 schools as a 1500. It might not be worth the extra effort to get the 1590 but AOs are not indifferent to SAT scores above 1500

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-55119-0

Anonymous wrote:1500 has been the marker for many, many years. I believe it still is. I doubt many, if any, admissions officers care about a 1550 vs a 1540. Or a 1530 vs a 1570. All within the same standard deviation to account for those test takers having a good day vs those having a bad day.

Anyone in the 1500+ bucket gets extra attention paid to their ECs and other achievements.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work in higher ed, have lived in Asia, and visit universities and high schools in China, Japan, and Vietnam annually. My opinion is that holistic admissions are imperfect, but they are a hell of a lot better than purely grade- and test-centric admissions, which corrupt not only the colleges that rely on them but also the high schools that teach to them.

the EC centered holistic admissions are more likely to confer advantages on the wealthy

The wealthy have an advantage in nearly everything, including testing and grades. We may never have a complete meritocracy, but most AOs are trained to recognize such disparities. So the kid who does a month of volunteering in Palau on his parent's dime may not have an advantage over the kid who spends 20 hours a week at a parttime job or looking after younger siblings.

a students income does not change the correlation between test scores and college performance. A 1550 rich kids in average does as well as a1550 poor kid.

Does it take into account that the 1550 poor kid might be their first and only sitting without any prep, and the 1550 rich kid might have taken it 3+ times with private tutoring?

Yeah. thats what I thought.

Why are you assuming that it's the rich kid who needs to take it 3+ times with private tutoring and the poor kid who took it in one sitting without any prep? Innately smart kids exist from both high and low income. I'd definitely be more impressed by the first-sitting high score with no prep, regardless of the background, but there is really no way for colleges to tell the difference on an application. I know plenty of motivated and hard working fgli kids who self-study diligently until they can get 1500+. Sure they didn't benefit from private tutors because their families couldn't afford it, but the mechanics of improving your score is the same. The resources, tips, strategies are all online for free these days for those who want to make use of it. There is no "magic secret formula" that only test prep companies know. Plus, no amount of tutoring or self-study is going to bring some kids up to a very high score. For those who are capable of a high score with preparation, it then mostly depends on motivation and focus.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work in higher ed, have lived in Asia, and visit universities and high schools in China, Japan, and Vietnam annually. My opinion is that holistic admissions are imperfect, but they are a hell of a lot better than purely grade- and test-centric admissions, which corrupt not only the colleges that rely on them but also the high schools that teach to them.

the EC centered holistic admissions are more likely to confer advantages on the wealthy

The wealthy have an advantage in nearly everything, including testing and grades. We may never have a complete meritocracy, but most AOs are trained to recognize such disparities. So the kid who does a month of volunteering in Palau on his parent's dime may not have an advantage over the kid who spends 20 hours a week at a parttime job or looking after younger siblings.

a students income does not change the correlation between test scores and college performance. A 1550 rich kids in average does as well as a1550 poor kid.

Does it take into account that the 1550 poor kid might be their first and only sitting without any prep, and the 1550 rich kid might have taken it 3+ times with private tutoring?

Yeah. thats what I thought.

So the rich kid has a family that care and can support him vs the poor one? There are many free sat prep options for the poors so how do you know both didn't get prepped. The word prep is so stupid it's like complaining that kids studied before a test vs free balling it. By this logic no one should do homework or study for anything.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work in higher ed, have lived in Asia, and visit universities and high schools in China, Japan, and Vietnam annually. My opinion is that holistic admissions are imperfect, but they are a hell of a lot better than purely grade- and test-centric admissions, which corrupt not only the colleges that rely on them but also the high schools that teach to them.

the EC centered holistic admissions are more likely to confer advantages on the wealthy

The wealthy have an advantage in nearly everything, including testing and grades. We may never have a complete meritocracy, but most AOs are trained to recognize such disparities. So the kid who does a month of volunteering in Palau on his parent's dime may not have an advantage over the kid who spends 20 hours a week at a parttime job or looking after younger siblings.

a students income does not change the correlation between test scores and college performance. A 1550 rich kids in average does as well as a1550 poor kid.

Does it take into account that the 1550 poor kid might be their first and only sitting without any prep, and the 1550 rich kid might have taken it 3+ times with private tutoring?

Yeah. thats what I thought.

So the rich kid has a family that care and can support him vs the poor one? There are many free sat prep options for the poors so how do you know both didn't get prepped. The word prep is so stupid it's like complaining that kids studied before a test vs free balling it. By this logic no one should do homework or study for anything.