Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. It's all about the bottom line. An unweighted 4.0 beats a 3.8 or 3.9 every time.

No it doesn’t. Not when the 4.0 kid’s sat is the low (pretty common scenario) or not rigorous classes or a host of other reasons. Or the high school, like many, is on a 100% scale and has to be converted. It’s not that simple.

Sorry I didn't make it clear: All things being equal (including SAT scores, obvi), a 4.0 beats a 3.8 or 3.9 every time. You're in denial if you think colleges and admissions reps who make $39,000 a year give a damn about rigor or "prior performance" of old alums. It's all bottom line numbers driven.

No.

AP CS at TJ tests college 200 level data structure, whereas base high schools only teach 100 level CS materials. The academic rigor is very different among high schools. Colleges should absolutely consider the rigor of each high school and prior performance.

TJ kids are compared with other TJ kids. If you are in the top group you are in great shape. If there is some daylight there, colleges have evidence that you are not in the top group. It is unfortunately unfair in the admissions game to some excellent students.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. It's all about the bottom line. An unweighted 4.0 beats a 3.8 or 3.9 every time.

No it doesn’t. Not when the 4.0 kid’s sat is the low (pretty common scenario) or not rigorous classes or a host of other reasons. Or the high school, like many, is on a 100% scale and has to be converted. It’s not that simple.

Sorry I didn't make it clear: All things being equal (including SAT scores, obvi), a 4.0 beats a 3.8 or 3.9 every time. You're in denial if you think colleges and admissions reps who make $39,000 a year give a damn about rigor or "prior performance" of old alums. It's all bottom line numbers driven.

No.

AP CS at TJ tests college 200 level data structure, whereas base high schools only teach 100 level CS materials. The academic rigor is very different among high schools. Colleges should absolutely consider the rigor of each high school and prior performance.

Maybe TJ shouldn’t do that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. It's all about the bottom line. An unweighted 4.0 beats a 3.8 or 3.9 every time.

No it doesn’t. Not when the 4.0 kid’s sat is the low (pretty common scenario) or not rigorous classes or a host of other reasons. Or the high school, like many, is on a 100% scale and has to be converted. It’s not that simple.

Sorry I didn't make it clear: All things being equal (including SAT scores, obvi), a 4.0 beats a 3.8 or 3.9 every time. You're in denial if you think colleges and admissions reps who make $39,000 a year give a damn about rigor or "prior performance" of old alums. It's all bottom line numbers driven.

No.

AP CS at TJ tests college 200 level data structure, whereas base high schools only teach 100 level CS materials. The academic rigor is very different among high schools. Colleges should absolutely consider the rigor of each high school and prior performance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. It's all about the bottom line. An unweighted 4.0 beats a 3.8 or 3.9 every time.

No it doesn’t. Not when the 4.0 kid’s sat is the low (pretty common scenario) or not rigorous classes or a host of other reasons. Or the high school, like many, is on a 100% scale and has to be converted. It’s not that simple.

Sorry I didn't make it clear: All things being equal (including SAT scores, obvi), a 4.0 beats a 3.8 or 3.9 every time. You're in denial if you think colleges and admissions reps who make $39,000 a year give a damn about rigor or "prior performance" of old alums. It's all bottom line numbers driven.

You should stop typing. You CLEARLY don't know anyone in admissions, or know anything about how they do their job.

It's really funny that you don't because all you need to do is read one book or talk to one adcom.

But stop with this idea that they sort by numbers and pick easily based on that because they are underpaid (they are) and therefore disinterested (they aren't). It's ridiculous. No one reading this thread should believe this person, and if you doubt me: Just talk to one adcom or read one book by one (there are many).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the top high schools—public magnets and prep schools—the colleges are familiar with how previous students from those schools have done, and that influences how they view new applicants.

Colleges absolutely know my high school and they have confidence that graduates from my school do well at their institutions. That’s one of the reasons why so many kids from my high school go to top colleges.

That’s nice for you.

I was just answering the question. Some high schools are absolutely known.

Well no sh*t. But there are tens of thousands of high schools in this country. If we rely only on “popular high schools” the top colleges will be 100% white and Asian. Which is the opposite effect of removing the sat!

NP here. Top PP did not say "popular high schools," she said "top high schools," btw. I disagree with your implication that these high schools are all white and Asian. My kids go to a top high school in Los Angeles, and there is a large amount of diversity and POC. Also, socioeconomic diversity--I think it's 40% of the kids get 100% financial aid which includes tuition and all extras, including trips abroad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. It's all about the bottom line. An unweighted 4.0 beats a 3.8 or 3.9 every time.

No it doesn’t. Not when the 4.0 kid’s sat is the low (pretty common scenario) or not rigorous classes or a host of other reasons. Or the high school, like many, is on a 100% scale and has to be converted. It’s not that simple.

Sorry I didn't make it clear: All things being equal (including SAT scores, obvi), a 4.0 beats a 3.8 or 3.9 every time. You're in denial if you think colleges and admissions reps who make $39,000 a year give a damn about rigor or "prior performance" of old alums. It's all bottom line numbers driven.

And no it doesn’t. There is no “all things being equal.” Extracurriculars, essays, and recs matter more once you’ve crossed the academic threshold.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. It's all about the bottom line. An unweighted 4.0 beats a 3.8 or 3.9 every time.

No it doesn’t. Not when the 4.0 kid’s sat is the low (pretty common scenario) or not rigorous classes or a host of other reasons. Or the high school, like many, is on a 100% scale and has to be converted. It’s not that simple.

Sorry I didn't make it clear: All things being equal (including SAT scores, obvi), a 4.0 beats a 3.8 or 3.9 every time. You're in denial if you think colleges and admissions reps who make $39,000 a year give a damn about rigor or "prior performance" of old alums. It's all bottom line numbers driven.

Anonymous wrote:No. It's all about the bottom line. An unweighted 4.0 beats a 3.8 or 3.9 every time.

No it doesn’t. Not when the 4.0 kid’s sat is the low (pretty common scenario) or not rigorous classes or a host of other reasons. Or the high school, like many, is on a 100% scale and has to be converted. It’s not that simple.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With possible exceptions like the state flagship, which would have a lot of data, most selective colleges do not have sufficient sample sizes from a particular high school.

This is false.

Anonymous wrote:The performance of one or two or five students per year from a high school, in a variety of majors, should in no way reflect what a new high school senior's potential is.

And yet it is, because that's how data works.

Anonymous wrote:
I'm not saying colleges don't try to make such comparisons - I wouldn't know.

You have demonstrated that quite well.

What do you propose would be a statistically-significant sample size from a high school class of 400? How many students per year enrolled at the college x looking back how many yrs?

Over a number of years? It's easy. And remember this is not making the decision in a vacuum - it is a single data point assisting the decision process. Any amount of data is valuable and mine-able. Doesn't need to be only the state flagship. You don't think Yale does this? Or Williams? Or CMU? Or Colgate? This is how they assess college preparedness levels from different HS. It's a MUCH better predictor than a single test score.

I'll reverse the question on you: how little is NOT enough?

NP. I say, GIGO, for Garbage In, Garbage Out. You, my friend, know no statistics.

Lol, that’s not a proper use of GIGO. You’re a troll. And you continue to be wrong and without evidence supporting you. I’ll stop now, point made and won.

Is your arm long enough to pat your back properly? Then pat yourself once gently. You certainly proved you know no statistics. You may not know much math either.

Thought so. Not much substance between your ears.

No. It's all about the bottom line. An unweighted 4.0 beats a 3.8 or 3.9 every time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With possible exceptions like the state flagship, which would have a lot of data, most selective colleges do not have sufficient sample sizes from a particular high school.

This is false.

Anonymous wrote:The performance of one or two or five students per year from a high school, in a variety of majors, should in no way reflect what a new high school senior's potential is.

And yet it is, because that's how data works.

Anonymous wrote:
I'm not saying colleges don't try to make such comparisons - I wouldn't know.

You have demonstrated that quite well.

What do you propose would be a statistically-significant sample size from a high school class of 400? How many students per year enrolled at the college x looking back how many yrs?

Over a number of years? It's easy. And remember this is not making the decision in a vacuum - it is a single data point assisting the decision process. Any amount of data is valuable and mine-able. Doesn't need to be only the state flagship. You don't think Yale does this? Or Williams? Or CMU? Or Colgate? This is how they assess college preparedness levels from different HS. It's a MUCH better predictor than a single test score.

I'll reverse the question on you: how little is NOT enough?

NP. I say, GIGO, for Garbage In, Garbage Out. You, my friend, know no statistics.

Lol, that’s not a proper use of GIGO. You’re a troll. And you continue to be wrong and without evidence supporting you. I’ll stop now, point made and won.

Is your arm long enough to pat your back properly? Then pat yourself once gently. You certainly proved you know no statistics. You may not know much math either.

Actually, I do, and apparently, I know grammar better than you as well. Your usage is a no-no.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With possible exceptions like the state flagship, which would have a lot of data, most selective colleges do not have sufficient sample sizes from a particular high school.

This is false.

Anonymous wrote:The performance of one or two or five students per year from a high school, in a variety of majors, should in no way reflect what a new high school senior's potential is.

And yet it is, because that's how data works.

Anonymous wrote:
I'm not saying colleges don't try to make such comparisons - I wouldn't know.

You have demonstrated that quite well.

What do you propose would be a statistically-significant sample size from a high school class of 400? How many students per year enrolled at the college x looking back how many yrs?

Over a number of years? It's easy. And remember this is not making the decision in a vacuum - it is a single data point assisting the decision process. Any amount of data is valuable and mine-able. Doesn't need to be only the state flagship. You don't think Yale does this? Or Williams? Or CMU? Or Colgate? This is how they assess college preparedness levels from different HS. It's a MUCH better predictor than a single test score.

I'll reverse the question on you: how little is NOT enough?

NP. I say, GIGO, for Garbage In, Garbage Out. You, my friend, know no statistics.

Lol, that’s not a proper use of GIGO. You’re a troll. And you continue to be wrong and without evidence supporting you. I’ll stop now, point made and won.

Is your arm long enough to pat your back properly? Then pat yourself once gently. You certainly proved you know no statistics. You may not know much math either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With possible exceptions like the state flagship, which would have a lot of data, most selective colleges do not have sufficient sample sizes from a particular high school.

This is false.

Anonymous wrote:The performance of one or two or five students per year from a high school, in a variety of majors, should in no way reflect what a new high school senior's potential is.

And yet it is, because that's how data works.

Anonymous wrote:
I'm not saying colleges don't try to make such comparisons - I wouldn't know.

You have demonstrated that quite well.

What do you propose would be a statistically-significant sample size from a high school class of 400? How many students per year enrolled at the college x looking back how many yrs?

Over a number of years? It's easy. And remember this is not making the decision in a vacuum - it is a single data point assisting the decision process. Any amount of data is valuable and mine-able. Doesn't need to be only the state flagship. You don't think Yale does this? Or Williams? Or CMU? Or Colgate? This is how they assess college preparedness levels from different HS. It's a MUCH better predictor than a single test score.

I'll reverse the question on you: how little is NOT enough?

NP. I say, GIGO, for Garbage In, Garbage Out. You, my friend, know no statistics.

Lol, that’s not a proper use of GIGO. You’re a troll. And you continue to be wrong and without evidence supporting you. I’ll stop now, point made and won.