Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I finally read the announcement and wow!!! They actually came out and said that applicants that would have been accepted were instead denied because they did not submit their SAT scores.

After 2-3 years of DCUM advise to not submit good scores - like 1400+

Anybody feel like they've been snookered? As in you applied TO even though you had good scores?

The statement really only applies to URMs. Any privileged white or Asian kid is not helped by submitting a 1450.

Wrong! I took my kid a party this weekend and heard all kinds of stuff from the kids and from parents waiting around to pick up later. There was some very serious second guessing going on.

Your kid with a 3.7UW and a super scored 1540 still isn’t getting in.

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

there are noticeable differences between a 1200 and 1600 test taker but how many classes are curved these days in college? Or what make things competitive? Genuinely curious. Like are 1200s kids committed to treating college like a full-time job without weekend rugby or d3 squash not able to grind out cum laud or magna cum laude at a competitive university if they make sure to take a few less rigorous courses or paper based courses known for easy A-/As to pad the gpa?

The article is fascinating not only with respect to the study findings, but by shedding some additional light on the inner workings of the college admissions process at top schools. Love the use of data to disprove what’s become accepted and commonplace over the last few years.

- Dartmouth alum

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This return to test scores at Dartmouth may indeed be helpful for under resourced students, but with or without it, there aren't a lot of high state URM kids looking at Dartmouth. It doesn't seem to be attractive to large numbers of those students given the size, location, weather, distance to a major US city, the frat bro culture and greater focus on squash, skiing and sailing than football, soccer or basketball. The numbers before Covid weren't impressive so this won't make it more attractive, except perhaps to 1st Gen kids from rural areas. My DD and a few friends participated in a virtual panel and said the students of color were all international.

They've recruited from McKinley and Banneker in recent years so they're probably making inroads elsewhere as well. 11% of the freshman class is Black.

What you may have observed is something common amongst top schools. A lot of first-generation Black Ivy kids are first or second generation Americans.

If anything good comes the Supreme Court decision, it might be that this changes. If colleges want to help disadvantaged students, they should start paying local taxes that support public schools, rather than importing upper middle-class people who "look like America."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

There is no reason a college environment should be competitive.

Did you read the article? It's saying the opposite. Dartmouth wants to find people with SAT scores below 1400, and they were frustrated that their target audience wasn't taking the SAT.

oh yea, so 2.5 GPA should be fine

1350 SAT is 90TH percentile. So in reality, not that far from a 1500. The differences are small.
Especially if that 1350 is from a kid in a disadvantaged area, in a HS where only 25% of kids even go to college and the kid only had 3-4 AP courses offered (or none at all). This kid likely took the SAT once, and with minimal prep. So that shows the kid has what it takes to succeed at Dartmouth, if they also have a high gpa.
That is what they are searching for.

BTW, 2.5 GPA is less than 50th percentile, so no, it "won't be fine". But you knew that

You bring up two other good points...get rid of super-scoring and limit kids to taking the SAT only 2x.

amen to this.

though i will be the first to admit my kid only took the SAT once and his score was his score.

More announcements will likely be made in the near future ... from The Dartmouth…

“Other institutions are also considering a return to test-required admissions, according to Coffin.

“All of our peer schools are studying it, as we just did,” Coffin said. “I think the question is a really straightforward one: Does the college see an opportunity from the inclusion of more data in the application? And if the answer is no, you don’t need the SAT.””

I think test optional did not help my son, a high-scoring student. It will come too late for him but I am so glad Dartmouth (and hopefully many others) go back that route.

FWIW, at a summer tour of Dartmouth I met an economist (none of the 4 who wrote the piece) who said that he had taught for nearly 30 years and his grade distribution had never been quite so erratic as in the TO years. Dartmouth may spin it the way they have in this article, but they will ALSO benefit from keeping out kids of affluent families who snuck in behind TO.

Anonymous wrote:How can colleges see test scores of TO applicants after the admissions process is complete? What about students who never took the test? I don't completely discount their findings but I find some of their methods suspect.

I thought that was interesting, too. The article said that for kids who took the test but didn’t report, the schools are able to see the scores after the application cycle ends. That was the important analysis and the key findings: many kids didn’t report scores thinking they weren’t high enough to help them, but in fact, those scores would have helped them.
The key insight from the article to me is that Dartmouth isn’t interested in the 1490 vs 1500, they are looking at whether the score meets s much more basic threshold that suggests the ability to handle the work and succeed at it. And it suggests that the vast majority of DCUM kids should be reporting scores that so often are dismissed as unimpressive here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

There is no reason a college environment should be competitive.

Did you read the article? It's saying the opposite. Dartmouth wants to find people with SAT scores below 1400, and they were frustrated that their target audience wasn't taking the SAT.

That’s not what the charts show. They correlate non-reporters with a test level of 1400. And the “crossover point” on admission advantage was 1400. Implying that there were less advantaged students with 1400s who didn’t submit, but would have been admitted if they had. They’re saying they’d take a less advantaged student with a 1400 over an advantaged student with a 1600.

Do you think non reporters would have scores all exactly 1400, or a range of scores above and below, or nearly all above, or nearly al below?

And do you think those scores, if known, would have the same or different correlation to GPA as the reporters?

I can’t copy and paste text for some reason, but pp. 5-7 explains how they identified 1,000+ less advantaged applicants who scored 1400 or more who didn’t submit scores and were not admitted, and submitting scores would have improved their chances of admission.

The report isn’t long and is worth a read.

https://home.dartmouth.edu/sites/home/files/2024-02/sat-undergrad-admissions.pdf

Interesting read indeed.

The 1400 test scorers from the cushy UMC suburban enclaves are in trouble.

If SAT score are the best predictors of success, as some say, then those kids from the UMC enclaves will have no trouble transferring in later after these low scorers fail out. Guess we'll see in a few years how this plays out.

Reading comprehension is apparently not your strong suit.

They aren’t talking about accepting “low scorers.” The opposite, in fact. Getting rid of test optional allows them to exclude the “low scorers.” They identified 1,000+ less advantaged kids with scores over 1400 who would have had a better chance of getting in if they had submitted scores. Their data shows that having a test score of 1400 or above is highly correlated with academic success at Dartmouth. There are qualified less advantaged kids out there and test optional just made them harder to identify.

+1

A good thing Dartmouth did was establish a "qualified" SAT benchmark of 1400. The "but I got a 1450 or 1500...not fair!" types can shut up.

Is Dartmouth really having trouble identifying qualified kids? Or just the right kind?

TO made it difficult for Dartmouth to determine whether a kid had the chops to stick out through four years and thrive. TO allowed kids to gain admission who were not prepared for the rigors and thus needed to draw extra on the school’s resources (tutoring, advising, mental health services, etc) and/or drop out of the school (which is bad for Dartmouth’s ranking, waste of financial aid, and maybe saddling the kid with debt but no degree).

Basically, Dartmouth thinks that going back to the SAT will allow them to better identify under-privileged kids who need less hand-holding.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article shows why Jackson-Reed HS bats way above its weight class when it comes to elite college admissions.

J-R kids getting a high SAT (1450+) when the school average is closer to 1000 and even worse for DCPS overall are sought after by schools like Dartmouth. Now combine that with some very DC-specific opportunities for interning, leadership, etc and you have a very compelling applicant.

Right, the white upper middle class kids get a major admissions bump. but many of them struggle when they're in college. I know a few (a relative and the kid if a good friend) they are both floundering. Others do fine and even great. But 4 years of crap for high school doesn't work for all kids.

Many do not struggle (somehow just mine and the 10 kids my kid knows are doing very well at college, with my own at a Top 5). Just apparently the two you purport to know. You also seem to now have your own research which refutes the entire thesis of this post...that kids with high SAT scores in fact don't do well in college.

Me thinks your kid was rejected from a top school and you are bitter.

DP
public school booster mom:
Methinks your kid did tons of enrichment activities, attended summer camps, traveled, read independently, had test prep + writing tutors, college admissions counseling (applied ED, too), & most importantly, has full-pay parents…

Uh...no enrichment activities (are the clubs at school with leadership enrichment activities?), no summer camps (other than actually working at a STEM camp)...I don't understand traveling...did some test prep...absolutely no writing tutors (what's the point? for a STEM major)...no college admissions counseling...yes ED, so full pay.

But what is your point? PP was saying JR kids struggle at college, so I guess you are trying to imply we spent thousands on outside resources? Absolutely not the case, and usually not the case for any of the top JR kids.

You have spent thousands on college tuition. You’ll be spending around $250-300K. Not an easy thing for any FGLI student & your kid is an example of the upper middle class students getting an admissions bump b/c JR as PP stated.

I commend you for admitting that you are a full-pay ED family. Most DCUMers like to fib.

PP was implying JR kids struggle at college…my kid actually scored a 1550, so maybe if from JR that made my kid almost a sure admit, but not a low score.

I actually don’t deny we may be benefiting from JR’s overall low scores, but that doesn’t mean kids are struggling at top colleges.

What you may have observed is something common amongst top schools. A lot of first-generation Black Ivy kids are first or second generation Americans.

That may be true, but these kids introduced themselves and they were not from the US. I wouldn't be surprised if Dartmouth double counts to boost their numbers. Also, when did the terms URM or students of color become code only for black students? I'm sure you didn't mean anything negative - just making you aware.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

There is no reason a college environment should be competitive.

Did you read the article? It's saying the opposite. Dartmouth wants to find people with SAT scores below 1400, and they were frustrated that their target audience wasn't taking the SAT.

That’s not what the charts show. They correlate non-reporters with a test level of 1400. And the “crossover point” on admission advantage was 1400. Implying that there were less advantaged students with 1400s who didn’t submit, but would have been admitted if they had. They’re saying they’d take a less advantaged student with a 1400 over an advantaged student with a 1600.

Do you think non reporters would have scores all exactly 1400, or a range of scores above and below, or nearly all above, or nearly al below?

And do you think those scores, if known, would have the same or different correlation to GPA as the reporters?

I can’t copy and paste text for some reason, but pp. 5-7 explains how they identified 1,000+ less advantaged applicants who scored 1400 or more who didn’t submit scores and were not admitted, and submitting scores would have improved their chances of admission.

The report isn’t long and is worth a read.

https://home.dartmouth.edu/sites/home/files/2024-02/sat-undergrad-admissions.pdf

Interesting read indeed.

The 1400 test scorers from the cushy UMC suburban enclaves are in trouble.

If SAT score are the best predictors of success, as some say, then those kids from the UMC enclaves will have no trouble transferring in later after these low scorers fail out. Guess we'll see in a few years how this plays out.

Reading comprehension is apparently not your strong suit.

They aren’t talking about accepting “low scorers.” The opposite, in fact. Getting rid of test optional allows them to exclude the “low scorers.” They identified 1,000+ less advantaged kids with scores over 1400 who would have had a better chance of getting in if they had submitted scores. Their data shows that having a test score of 1400 or above is highly correlated with academic success at Dartmouth. There are qualified less advantaged kids out there and test optional just made them harder to identify.

+1

A good thing Dartmouth did was establish a "qualified" SAT benchmark of 1400. The "but I got a 1450 or 1500...not fair!" types can shut up.

Is Dartmouth really having trouble identifying qualified kids? Or just the right kind?

Anonymous wrote:This return to test scores at Dartmouth may indeed be helpful for under resourced students, but with or without it, there aren't a lot of high state URM kids looking at Dartmouth. It doesn't seem to be attractive to large numbers of those students given the size, location, weather, distance to a major US city, the frat bro culture and greater focus on squash, skiing and sailing than football, soccer or basketball. The numbers before Covid weren't impressive so this won't make it more attractive, except perhaps to 1st Gen kids from rural areas. My DD and a few friends participated in a virtual panel and said the students of color were all international.

They've recruited from McKinley and Banneker in recent years so they're probably making inroads elsewhere as well. 11% of the freshman class is Black.

What you may have observed is something common amongst top schools. A lot of first-generation Black Ivy kids are first or second generation Americans.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article shows why Jackson-Reed HS bats way above its weight class when it comes to elite college admissions.

J-R kids getting a high SAT (1450+) when the school average is closer to 1000 and even worse for DCPS overall are sought after by schools like Dartmouth. Now combine that with some very DC-specific opportunities for interning, leadership, etc and you have a very compelling applicant.

Right, the white upper middle class kids get a major admissions bump. but many of them struggle when they're in college. I know a few (a relative and the kid if a good friend) they are both floundering. Others do fine and even great. But 4 years of crap for high school doesn't work for all kids.

Many do not struggle (somehow just mine and the 10 kids my kid knows are doing very well at college, with my own at a Top 5). Just apparently the two you purport to know. You also seem to now have your own research which refutes the entire thesis of this post...that kids with high SAT scores in fact don't do well in college.

Me thinks your kid was rejected from a top school and you are bitter.

DP
public school booster mom:
Methinks your kid did tons of enrichment activities, attended summer camps, traveled, read independently, had test prep + writing tutors, college admissions counseling (applied ED, too), & most importantly, has full-pay parents…

Uh...no enrichment activities (are the clubs at school with leadership enrichment activities?), no summer camps (other than actually working at a STEM camp)...I don't understand traveling...did some test prep...absolutely no writing tutors (what's the point? for a STEM major)...no college admissions counseling...yes ED, so full pay.

But what is your point? PP was saying JR kids struggle at college, so I guess you are trying to imply we spent thousands on outside resources? Absolutely not the case, and usually not the case for any of the top JR kids.

You have spent thousands on college tuition. You’ll be spending around $250-300K. Not an easy thing for any FGLI student & your kid is an example of the upper middle class students getting an admissions bump b/c JR as PP stated.

I commend you for admitting that you are a full-pay ED family. Most DCUMers like to fib.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

There is no reason a college environment should be competitive.

Did you read the article? It's saying the opposite. Dartmouth wants to find people with SAT scores below 1400, and they were frustrated that their target audience wasn't taking the SAT.

That’s not what the charts show. They correlate non-reporters with a test level of 1400. And the “crossover point” on admission advantage was 1400. Implying that there were less advantaged students with 1400s who didn’t submit, but would have been admitted if they had. They’re saying they’d take a less advantaged student with a 1400 over an advantaged student with a 1600.

Do you think non reporters would have scores all exactly 1400, or a range of scores above and below, or nearly all above, or nearly al below?

And do you think those scores, if known, would have the same or different correlation to GPA as the reporters?

I can’t copy and paste text for some reason, but pp. 5-7 explains how they identified 1,000+ less advantaged applicants who scored 1400 or more who didn’t submit scores and were not admitted, and submitting scores would have improved their chances of admission.

The report isn’t long and is worth a read.

https://home.dartmouth.edu/sites/home/files/2024-02/sat-undergrad-admissions.pdf

Interesting read indeed.

The 1400 test scorers from the cushy UMC suburban enclaves are in trouble.

If SAT score are the best predictors of success, as some say, then those kids from the UMC enclaves will have no trouble transferring in later after these low scorers fail out. Guess we'll see in a few years how this plays out.

Reading comprehension is apparently not your strong suit.

They aren’t talking about accepting “low scorers.” The opposite, in fact. Getting rid of test optional allows them to exclude the “low scorers.” They identified 1,000+ less advantaged kids with scores over 1400 who would have had a better chance of getting in if they had submitted scores. Their data shows that having a test score of 1400 or above is highly correlated with academic success at Dartmouth. There are qualified less advantaged kids out there and test optional just made them harder to identify.

+1

A good thing Dartmouth did was establish a "qualified" SAT benchmark of 1400. The "but I got a 1450 or 1500...not fair!" types can shut up.