How can colleges see their scores if they don't send to that school?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heard an admissions director say recently that they were hearing from kids who were refusing to submit scores as a protest against standardized testing. Pretty brave, considering that those same kids turned out to have good scores.

How could admissions know the kids had good scores if they applied without them?

My senior was pretty upset about the whole standardized testing controversy back when he was a sophomore. Thought it was some conspiracy against the disadvantaged. He ended up with a high score, National Merit, and admission to a T10. Would that admission have happened test optional? Possible, but seems unlikely, with only about a quarter of the enrolled class having applied test optional and the particular high school not well established.

After kids are admitted and when they enroll the schools can see their scores. He made this comment as part of a larger discussion and just mentioned briefly that it was just one additional consideration in their decisions about whether to bring back the test score mandate.

Anonymous wrote:I think the majority of people are ok with affirmative action based on SES as you described it. The problem is, when they look into it, the vast majority of poor but high scoring kids are rural white kids (~70% in the studies I saw). That’s the absolute last demographic that most selective colleges want to help.

I hate to "well, actually" you, but, well, actually, a number of esteemed colleges have been pretty aggressive in seeking rural students (75% of whom are white), which represents a significantly underrepresented demographic at most elite colleges which overflow with suburban and city kids. Dartmouth indicated that it was one of their institutional priorities this year (i.e., a hook) and other schools like WashU have expressed a similar sentiment. Check out the STARS College Network: https://starscollegenetwork.org/.

Anonymous wrote:I heard an admissions director say recently that they were hearing from kids who were refusing to submit scores as a protest against standardized testing. Pretty brave, considering that those same kids turned out to have good scores.

What exactly are these kids protesting?
The test is one piece of information among many pieces of information.
FWIW, I don't think that the argument about the test being biased against black and Hispanic kids holds much water, especially for the math section. You either know the math, or you don't. If you have poor immigrant ESL Asian kids who can score 700+ on the math section, how is that biased against disadvantaged kids?
I get that verbal sections would be tough for ESL kids or kids who grew up without educated parents, but again, this part can be explained.

Anonymous wrote:I heard an admissions director say recently that they were hearing from kids who were refusing to submit scores as a protest against standardized testing. Pretty brave, considering that those same kids turned out to have good scores.

How could admissions know the kids had good scores if they applied without them?

My senior was pretty upset about the whole standardized testing controversy back when he was a sophomore. Thought it was some conspiracy against the disadvantaged. He ended up with a high score, National Merit, and admission to a T10. Would that admission have happened test optional? Possible, but seems unlikely, with only about a quarter of the enrolled class having applied test optional and the particular high school not well established.

I heard an admissions director say recently that they were hearing from kids who were refusing to submit scores as a protest against standardized testing. Pretty brave, considering that those same kids turned out to have good scores.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Read the article - it suggests 1400 AND being from an inner city high school or school lacking resources would get in. But NOT an upper middle class DCUM DS or DD with a 1400. Point being if you managed a 1400 without out all the resources and benefits you probably have the grit and intellect to hold your own.

So go to a crap high school and get a middling score will be the new playbook?

1400 is not a middling score.

Do you people know anything about standardized tests?

+1

95th percentile isn't middling.

It's lower than middlling for highly selective schools like Dartmouth.

1,400 is well below the 25th percentile for Dartmouth.

It's a high score for JMU

95th percentile is just that.

Dartmouth states that one can do the work @1400. Remember, admissions are still holistic. Other factors in admissions.

95 percentile doesn't mean anything.
It's 0-25 percentile for Dartmouth, and it's mostly reserved for athletes, legacy, URM, big donation, celebrities, etc.

People love to throw URM into the mix, but it's not true. Roland Fryer who is a Harvard economist actually did an analysis on the URM population at Harvard and it is actually wealthier with same or better test scores than the average Harvard student.

He was arguing that AA policies were actually nonsense...that Harvard wasn't finding the gem from Anacostia HS, but rather accepting the child of the Nigerian diplomat or wealthy doctor at Sidwell.

Sure, there are some Questbridge kids in there, but it's not the profile of the Ivy league URM on average.

100% this. I think nobody has a problem helping kids out of poverty or with no advantages. Hell, that's what happened to my dad. White kid in government housing, salvation army donations, that was found to be incredibly bright by the nuns and sent to prep school and then feeder university on a full ride. My dad was incredibly brilliant and without that financial aid, he never would have made it out. My husband is a pell grant recipient that made it so he could attend a T10. I 100% support that no matter the race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. I think what most people don't like or can't accept is wealthy kids with all the advantages (often more than the non-urm) being awarded special status.

I was talking with an HYP alum who holds a very influential non-employee position with the person’s alma mater, and he/she also agrees 100% with Fryer.

As said above they are not saying they will let in tons of kids with 1400, they are affirming that a SAT ( or ACT) score in context can predict academic success at Dartmouth.
They expect higher scores from affluent kids to match their high gpa and rigorous course load. And if an applicant is from a low income area or school where a smaller number of kids go to college, then their high gpa, combined with taking a rigorous course load based on what is available at their school then combined with solid very good score like 1400 ( at a school where many kids score under 1200) can help predict that that the student can handle the Dartmouth ( or similar school) academically.
When everyone is test optional, a high gpa has less meaning for both the affluent and other candidates, especially when a lot of schools tend to allow re- takes of tests etc and there is a lot of grade inflation.
The test score is another piece of the picture in holistic admissions and studies are showing that for some colleges is was helpful and without it some students are getting admitted to schools that are not the right place for them.
Years ago, if you didn’t have a certain type of score, you knew that certain schools were not on your radar, and that was ok for a long time until test optional became so widespread.

I predict all of the ivys and similarly academically challenging schools will bring back test requirements or at least go test preferred where you would have explain why you are not submitting scores.
There are already some schools doing that.
We came across one as my son was applying. There was a question where you had to explain why you were not submitting scores if you chose not to.
2 years ago the answer might have been that their test center cancelled testing several times due to Covid ( which was happening often in 2020-2021, even 2022 a little). Now that is rare and I wonder what explanations are used when it’s clear that such a school would prefer a score so you wouldn’t have to answer this question.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Read the article - it suggests 1400 AND being from an inner city high school or school lacking resources would get in. But NOT an upper middle class DCUM DS or DD with a 1400. Point being if you managed a 1400 without out all the resources and benefits you probably have the grit and intellect to hold your own.

So go to a crap high school and get a middling score will be the new playbook?

1400 is not a middling score.

Do you people know anything about standardized tests?

It's a middling score for selective schools.
It's probably high score for 3000+ other schools.
Do you know anything about college admissions?

No it isn’t. Historically that was a score that a number of admits had, or around that score. A 1400 is 95th percentile. A 1500 is 98 percentile, fyi. A 95 percentile score shows you can likely manage the work at an Ivy.

Nope sorry.
1,400 is well below the 25th percentile for Dartmouth and other Ivies and highly selective schools.
It's not even middling. It's a low score for highly selective scores probably from athletes, URMs, legacies, etc.

think that many people on this board seem to have a highly inflated view of kids at Ivies and what it takes to graduate from one. There are, undoubtedly, some brilliant kids at Ivies. There are also, undoubtedly, some above average kids who get in for a variety of reasons and then do just fine. Someone who scores in the 95th percentile in the country is not too dumb to succeed at an Ivy or other selective school. I think the mystique is misleading, and anyone who has been to one or knows a lot of people who went to Ivies would say the same if they’re being honest.

What are you babbling about??
We have numbers. The fact is 1,400 is well below the 25th percentile for Dartmouth and other Ivies and highly selective schools.

I'm sure they are not too dumb, but not good enough for highly selective schools as there are plenty of 1500+ kids to choose from.

DP. What are *you* babbling about? Any kid with a high gpa and 1400+ on the SAT is “good enough” for an Ivy and the Dartmouth study shows the data. Is a 1500 kid from Greenwich who went to Phillips Exeter even really “better” than a 1400 kid from an inner city school or Appalachia? They’re probably not even smarter and they’re much less likely to have the ambition and grit of the disadvantaged kid. I believe that these decisions should not be based purely on race, but I have no issue at all with schools taking into account how far kids have come considering their resources (or lack thereof).

I think the majority of people are ok with affirmative action based on SES as you described it. The problem is, when they look into it, the vast majority of poor but high scoring kids are rural white kids (~70% in the studies I saw). That’s the absolute last demographic that most selective colleges want to help.

The absolute last demographic that most selective colleges want to help is UMC suburban Asian Americans.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting that Dartmouth and Georgetown, the two elite schools that have seen their prestige erode the most recently, are both using an allegiance to standardized testing to try to differentiate and gain back some lost relevance.

Telling that Dartmouth laundered the announcement through David Leonhardt rather than a journalist. Leonhardt's poor reputation rests on his willingness to spread pandemic-era disinformation to huge audiences. A journalist would ask inconvenient questions about things like how the shift to a digital SAT makes Dartmouth's data useless.

Also revealing that Dartmouth's new president has been looking for ways to mollify right-wing trolls scalp-hunting for Ivy leaders. The WSJ duly trumpeted the SAT mandate (however, without quite realizing that Dartmouth couched it in strong pro-DEI terms).

Can't just take Coffin at his word, unfortunately.

I've probably missed something, but how have Dartmouth and Georgetown had "their prestige erode the most"?

Also, I'm no Leonhardt fan--can't stand the guy--but the Washington Post had an article on this, too. I think Dartmouth must have put out a press release, and some newspapers picked it up. It doesn't look like they sent it to Leonhardt specifically.

Leonhardt broke the story several weeks ago. Made a big deal about it. Presumably because Coffin contacted him.

Georgetown had Duke-like cachet not too long ago. But it became too difficult to apply to. it's also known for rat infestations and flooded dorms as a result of a popular Instagram account. It's at the level of Emory now, not Penn. Just talking about brand equity and nothing to do with the actual quality of a Georgetown education. Still elite for banking and foreign affairs. Dartmouth is small and remote and viewed by strivers as a "low-tier Ivy" along with Cornell, which some view as a state school. The shifting preferences of second-generation Asian-American students now determine which elite schools are prestigious and which aren't, and Georgetown and Dartmouth aren't on their radar.

So Emory is more prestigious than Georgetown and Dartmouth, because Asians seem to love the school?!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Read the article - it suggests 1400 AND being from an inner city high school or school lacking resources would get in. But NOT an upper middle class DCUM DS or DD with a 1400. Point being if you managed a 1400 without out all the resources and benefits you probably have the grit and intellect to hold your own.

So go to a crap high school and get a middling score will be the new playbook?

1400 is not a middling score.

Do you people know anything about standardized tests?

It's a middling score for selective schools.
It's probably high score for 3000+ other schools.
Do you know anything about college admissions?

No it isn’t. Historically that was a score that a number of admits had, or around that score. A 1400 is 95th percentile. A 1500 is 98 percentile, fyi. A 95 percentile score shows you can likely manage the work at an Ivy.

Nope sorry.
1,400 is well below the 25th percentile for Dartmouth and other Ivies and highly selective schools.
It's not even middling. It's a low score for highly selective scores probably from athletes, URMs, legacies, etc.

think that many people on this board seem to have a highly inflated view of kids at Ivies and what it takes to graduate from one. There are, undoubtedly, some brilliant kids at Ivies. There are also, undoubtedly, some above average kids who get in for a variety of reasons and then do just fine. Someone who scores in the 95th percentile in the country is not too dumb to succeed at an Ivy or other selective school. I think the mystique is misleading, and anyone who has been to one or knows a lot of people who went to Ivies would say the same if they’re being honest.

What are you babbling about??
We have numbers. The fact is 1,400 is well below the 25th percentile for Dartmouth and other Ivies and highly selective schools.

I'm sure they are not too dumb, but not good enough for highly selective schools as there are plenty of 1500+ kids to choose from.

DP. What are *you* babbling about? Any kid with a high gpa and 1400+ on the SAT is “good enough” for an Ivy and the Dartmouth study shows the data. Is a 1500 kid from Greenwich who went to Phillips Exeter even really “better” than a 1400 kid from an inner city school or Appalachia? They’re probably not even smarter and they’re much less likely to have the ambition and grit of the disadvantaged kid. I believe that these decisions should not be based purely on race, but I have no issue at all with schools taking into account how far kids have come considering their resources (or lack thereof).

I think the majority of people are ok with affirmative action based on SES as you described it. The problem is, when they look into it, the vast majority of poor but high scoring kids are rural white kids (~70% in the studies I saw). That’s the absolute last demographic that most selective colleges want to help.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Read the article - it suggests 1400 AND being from an inner city high school or school lacking resources would get in. But NOT an upper middle class DCUM DS or DD with a 1400. Point being if you managed a 1400 without out all the resources and benefits you probably have the grit and intellect to hold your own.

So go to a crap high school and get a middling score will be the new playbook?

1400 is not a middling score.

Do you people know anything about standardized tests?

It's a middling score for selective schools.
It's probably high score for 3000+ other schools.
Do you know anything about college admissions?

No it isn’t. Historically that was a score that a number of admits had, or around that score. A 1400 is 95th percentile. A 1500 is 98 percentile, fyi. A 95 percentile score shows you can likely manage the work at an Ivy.

Nope sorry.
1,400 is well below the 25th percentile for Dartmouth and other Ivies and highly selective schools.
It's not even middling. It's a low score for highly selective scores probably from athletes, URMs, legacies, etc.

think that many people on this board seem to have a highly inflated view of kids at Ivies and what it takes to graduate from one. There are, undoubtedly, some brilliant kids at Ivies. There are also, undoubtedly, some above average kids who get in for a variety of reasons and then do just fine. Someone who scores in the 95th percentile in the country is not too dumb to succeed at an Ivy or other selective school. I think the mystique is misleading, and anyone who has been to one or knows a lot of people who went to Ivies would say the same if they’re being honest.

What are you babbling about??
We have numbers. The fact is 1,400 is well below the 25th percentile for Dartmouth and other Ivies and highly selective schools.

I'm sure they are not too dumb, but not good enough for highly selective schools as there are plenty of 1500+ kids to choose from.

DP. What are *you* babbling about? Any kid with a high gpa and 1400+ on the SAT is “good enough” for an Ivy and the Dartmouth study shows the data. Is a 1500 kid from Greenwich who went to Phillips Exeter even really “better” than a 1400 kid from an inner city school or Appalachia? They’re probably not even smarter and they’re much less likely to have the ambition and grit of the disadvantaged kid. I believe that these decisions should not be based purely on race, but I have no issue at all with schools taking into account how far kids have come considering their resources (or lack thereof).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Read the article - it suggests 1400 AND being from an inner city high school or school lacking resources would get in. But NOT an upper middle class DCUM DS or DD with a 1400. Point being if you managed a 1400 without out all the resources and benefits you probably have the grit and intellect to hold your own.

So go to a crap high school and get a middling score will be the new playbook?

1400 is not a middling score.

Do you people know anything about standardized tests?

+1

95th percentile isn't middling.

It's lower than middlling for highly selective schools like Dartmouth.

1,400 is well below the 25th percentile for Dartmouth.

It's a high score for JMU

95th percentile is just that.

Dartmouth states that one can do the work @1400. Remember, admissions are still holistic. Other factors in admissions.

95 percentile doesn't mean anything.
It's 0-25 percentile for Dartmouth, and it's mostly reserved for athletes, legacy, URM, big donation, celebrities, etc.

It does to Dartmouth. They have made it clear. Feel free to read their findings.

Now, YOU might not like it, but that's ok.

It means to you if your kid got 1400.
Read it. it means to Dartmouth only if it's from some kids from places like Harlem.
And also for athletes, legacy, ig donation, celebrities, etc.

Legacy kids aren’t getting in with a 1400 either unless they fit one of the other categories, like big donor. I’m not defending legacy preference - but legacy admits without another category generally have strong scores.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Read the article - it suggests 1400 AND being from an inner city high school or school lacking resources would get in. But NOT an upper middle class DCUM DS or DD with a 1400. Point being if you managed a 1400 without out all the resources and benefits you probably have the grit and intellect to hold your own.

So go to a crap high school and get a middling score will be the new playbook?

1400 is not a middling score.

Do you people know anything about standardized tests?

+1

95th percentile isn't middling.

It's lower than middlling for highly selective schools like Dartmouth.

1,400 is well below the 25th percentile for Dartmouth.

It's a high score for JMU

95th percentile is just that.

Dartmouth states that one can do the work @1400. Remember, admissions are still holistic. Other factors in admissions.

95 percentile doesn't mean anything.
It's 0-25 percentile for Dartmouth, and it's mostly reserved for athletes, legacy, URM, big donation, celebrities, etc.

People love to throw URM into the mix, but it's not true. Roland Fryer who is a Harvard economist actually did an analysis on the URM population at Harvard and it is actually wealthier with same or better test scores than the average Harvard student.

He was arguing that AA policies were actually nonsense...that Harvard wasn't finding the gem from Anacostia HS, but rather accepting the child of the Nigerian diplomat or wealthy doctor at Sidwell.

Sure, there are some Questbridge kids in there, but it's not the profile of the Ivy league URM on average.

100% this. I think nobody has a problem helping kids out of poverty or with no advantages. Hell, that's what happened to my dad. White kid in government housing, salvation army donations, that was found to be incredibly bright by the nuns and sent to prep school and then feeder university on a full ride. My dad was incredibly brilliant and without that financial aid, he never would have made it out. My husband is a pell grant recipient that made it so he could attend a T10. I 100% support that no matter the race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. I think what most people don't like or can't accept is wealthy kids with all the advantages (often more than the non-urm) being awarded special status.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Read the article - it suggests 1400 AND being from an inner city high school or school lacking resources would get in. But NOT an upper middle class DCUM DS or DD with a 1400. Point being if you managed a 1400 without out all the resources and benefits you probably have the grit and intellect to hold your own.

So go to a crap high school and get a middling score will be the new playbook?

1400 is not a middling score.

Do you people know anything about standardized tests?

+1

95th percentile isn't middling.

It's lower than middlling for highly selective schools like Dartmouth.

1,400 is well below the 25th percentile for Dartmouth.

It's a high score for JMU

95th percentile is just that.

Dartmouth states that one can do the work @1400. Remember, admissions are still holistic. Other factors in admissions.

95 percentile doesn't mean anything.
It's 0-25 percentile for Dartmouth, and it's mostly reserved for athletes, legacy, URM, big donation, celebrities, etc.

It does to Dartmouth. They have made it clear. Feel free to read their findings.

Now, YOU might not like it, but that's ok.

It means to you if your kid got 1400.
Read it. it means to Dartmouth only if it's from some kids from places like Harlem.
And also for athletes, legacy, ig donation, celebrities, etc.