Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:OP, regarding your point #6, what's the benchmark that you use for students who are bi-racial or multi-racial? For example, if the kid is white and Asian (many in this area), is the kid going to be subject to the benchmark for whites or Asians? BTW, your post is very informative and helpful!
Benchmarks are just benchmarks; we're not going to say no to a multiracial Asian student for having a 1400 on the new SAT. They give a sense of where applicants are within the rest of the nation. Our standards are a little higher than the 95% on average, but of course we admit students who score lower than that (often much lower, given how a 750 is already at the highest end of the score). The Asian and white benchmark are within range to each other.
They become particularly telling when a student is doing much worse or better than the benchmark. Being an Asian student with an 1800 can hurt, but that could be mitigated if you were low-income or an underrepresented Asian minority. We notice when Black students get above a 32 on the ACT. Less than 500 of them do so each year.
Anonymous wrote:Practices are so different by school that an experienced admissions person would never put out that original post without cautioning that this was only how they did things at ONE school.
You don't mention recalculating GPAs at all. That's insane if you are getting apps from DMV.
Are you feeling marginalized at work? Is they why you've come here to invited these people to worship at your alter of knowledge?
Anonymous wrote:Thank you, OP. The SAT chart is very interesting. Do you happen to know where we could find one for the ACT?
Does your school claim to have holistic admissions?
OP - the issues with the concordance tables have been a frequent topic of discussion. There are some people who theorize that the lower new SAT scores can be explained by all the "top" students opting to take the old SAT or the ACT, and diluting the talent pool of students who took the new SAT. Is there anything you've seen in the data that would lend credence to this theory? Can you comment on the relative numbers of students who submitted old SAT vs new SAT vs ACT?
56 with a 16 year old DD. Older mom to say the least. I took the SATs in 1978.
Can someone please give me a quick rundown on current SATs? I thought there were 3 separate tests of 800 points each, totaling 2400 but maybe I am wrong.
DD got an 1150 on her PSATs. Not really sure what that means.
Anyone help an old lady out?
Thanks
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Thanks OP. Helpful.
For the SAT requirement, isn't 1600 a perfect score?
Yes, I was referring to old standards as mentioned in the post. We are still in the process of figuring out the new number for the SAT; it was a 1150 this year. But SAT's concordance tables don't seem very accurate. The New SAT scores we've gotten are noticeably lower than the Old SAT scores.
OP - the issues with the concordance tables have been a frequent topic of discussion. There are some people who theorize that the lower new SAT scores can be explained by all the "top" students opting to take the old SAT or the ACT, and diluting the talent pool of students who took the new SAT. Is there anything you've seen in the data that would lend credence to this theory? Can you comment on the relative numbers of students who submitted old SAT vs new SAT vs ACT?
Anonymous wrote:OP I know you don't want to reveal the college but given the stats you mention in your opener, I'd say it was a bit of a crappy school, maybe 3rd or 4th tier.
I don't know that the admissions office practices of such a place are as helpful as knowing the practices of the more competitive schools, in that you should always aim high and fall on a lower branch, not aim low and fall on the ground.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Thanks OP. Helpful.
For the SAT requirement, isn't 1600 a perfect score?
Yes, I was referring to old standards as mentioned in the post. We are still in the process of figuring out the new number for the SAT; it was a 1150 this year. But SAT's concordance tables don't seem very accurate. The New SAT scores we've gotten are noticeably lower than the Old SAT scores.
Isn't it a little silly to aim for diversity as measured by the census while at the same time claiming to admit the strongest students?
My DD has struggled for many years with anxiety and depression. She is also extremely bright, a terrific writer, and gets excellent grades. She is thriving now, and has written essays on her experience, and I suspect that she may want to write about her anxiety experience in her application essays. Is this a bad idea? Would an admissions office conclude that a student with anxiety & depression would be a poor fit for a rigorous college program? Or would she be viewed favorably as someone who has learned to manage her condition?
Interesting. There are many colleges who provide alumni "interviews" but very few who've ever used the alumni feedback towards admissions. You're saying that at this college the admissions office did use this information in previous years?
How old are you, OP?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:OP, what do you (and those in your office) think about the higher standards being placed on Asian American applicants?
It's a difficult topic. We receive thousands of applications from Asian Americans who score a 2200+ and who have a 4.0 UW or close to it. We know these students have worked immeasurably hard to achieve these goals. The reality is that our purpose is to bring people from all walks of life, and unfortunately, when Asians are already over-represented at campus, it's hard to admit more students without compromising the diversity we aim for. Our white % is already noticeably lower than the US Census; the Hispanic and African-American numbers are a little lower or around the same, but the Asian American number is much higher than the US Census. Most of our international students are Asians as well. I know that sounds hypocritical when our campus is so privileged socioeconomically, but our admit pool is ultimately a microcosm of the larger applicant pool- no matter how many adjustments we try to make- we receive a lot (and I mean a lot) more applications from rich students, we receive more applications from Asians than Blacks or Hispanics and just a few more Caucasian applications than Asian applications.
I see the value of a meritocracy similar to the UC system- admitting students on the basis of their objective measures. My personal stance is that subjectives are as key to bringing the best and brightest. Were we to rely on just numbers, we'd exclude the student who graduated summa cum laude in our college but had only a 1750 SAT from her inner city background (real story, just happened last May). We'd exclude the valedictorian who had to work full time to support their family, and thus didn't have the ability to do test prep. Relying on objectives alone means eliminating the richness and complexity that is part of these students' lived backgrounds and experiences, and we just don't want to do that. We also want to make sure the students ARE capable of handling the work, hence the minimum expectations for GPA, test scores, etc. and a heavy consideration of academic potential by LORs.
Isn't it a little silly to aim for diversity as measured by the census while at the same time claiming to admit the strongest students?
Not OP, but no, it isn't silly when you've got an abundance of highly qualified students and when there are a variety of ways of being a strong student.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Thank you for your post. Is an LD an asset or a liability? If you have two applicants that are similar, both have the stellar grades, ECs, top 10% from rigorous HS, excellent recommendations - the student with the LD has slightly lower SAT in the area of their LD but still in the middle 50% of accepted students....... would you ding the one with an LD or would they have an edge since they overcame a hurdle the other did not?
By the ADA, we are trained to never hold a LD as a liability. Actually, we want students with LDs to tell us they have one, so that if they are admitted, we can start preparing for their consideration process by sending them targeted resources about what their experience will be like and what the college has to help accommodate them. Given the scenario you present, it will absolutely give an edge in our office. We believe all forms of diversity are important- not just socioeconomic and racial. We want our students to meet a great variety of people in their class from all walks of life. The reality is that there are many with LDs. To not include them in our campus would be perpetuating the invisibility many of them face in our society. However, all students have to meet the academic standards. We want our students to graduate on time and contribute to the academic and social vitality of the campus.
Also, feel free to ask questions even if they were not mentioned by the initial post. I know a lot of it is common knowledge, and I could have missed something.