Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people care a lot about the SAT, while others think the extracurriculars are what count. What do you think?

40 point scale

ACT or SAT - required, max. two attempts (two total, not two ACT and two SAT), no superscoring, max. 10 points.

ACT:
36: 10 points
34 - 35: 8 points
31 - 33: 6 points
26 - 30: 4 points
20 - 25: 2 points
18 - 20: 1 point
Below 20: 0 points

SAT:
1580 - 1600: 10 points
1500 - 1570: 8 points
1400 - 1490: 6 points
1200 - 1390: 4 points
1000 - 1190: 2 points
900 - 990: 1 point
Below 900: 0 points

GPA - unweighted, max. 10 points.

GPA:
3.90 - 4.00: 10 points
3.70 - 3.89: 8 points
3.55 - 3.69: 6 points
3.40 - 3.54: 4 points
3.25 - 3.39: 2 points
3.00 - 3.24: 1 point
Below 3.00: 0 points

Rigor: AP classes, IB classes, DE classes.
(I know nothing of IB and DE enrollment classes, so an equivalency would need to be created).

11+ AP tests with min. 4: 10 points
8 - 10 with min. 3: 7 points
5 - 7 with min. 3: 5 points
3 - 4 with min. 3: 2 points
1 - 2 with min. 3: 1 point

Essays: 0 - 10 points (subjective)

Varsity sport(s), min. 2 years: 4 points
Paid job, min. 2 years: 3 points
Club officer, min. 2 years: 2 points
Volunteer hours, min. 25: 1 point

Tally it up.

45 - 50: Top 10
40 - 45: 11 - 25
35 - 40: 26 - 50
30 - 35: 51 - 100
25 - 30: 100 - 200
20 - 25: 200 - 350
15 - 20: Community College

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people care a lot about the SAT, while others think the extracurriculars are what count. What do you think?

It's not either or. With elite colleges, the academic profile is the the baseline and everyone meets and exceeds that threshold. ECs are differentiators. With lower level schools, ECs don't matter. They just pretend it does.

This. Students at the elite schools have the academic chops AND the ECs. Thus idea that a 1590 somehow ranks someone's IQ above a 1540 is nonsense. I taught SAT prep, and they are coachable tests, not some IQ determinant. This obsession is ridiculous and just offbase. It's not an either/or. It's yes, and...

Yes, SAT/ACT are "teachable"/coachable. My kid went from 1320 to 1520 with 4 hours of "test prep", targeted to their issues. Once they learned the tricks, every practice test was around 1520. Had they wanted to do 15-20 hours of prep, they likely could have gotten to 1580+. But we smartly chose not to waste their life doing test prep

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one's educational experience is enhanced by a class of drones. That being said, for highly selective schools I'd want to see the stress on class rigor and being challenged, GPA, SAT/ACT test scores, interesting ECs that really demonstrate some passion and talent, teacher recommendations, and can they write a compelling essay.

I'd get rid of legacy, significant wealth, and nearly all admissions advantages for athletes. If Duke wants a competitive basketball team, fine. I understand that's a special thing. Same with Notre Dame football. But crew and tennis and lacrosse and soccer and Columbia football are pretty ridiculous. The SLACs are usually appalling with this. Nearly half of Williams and Amherst are "athletes."

I'd also put way less emphasis on race even in the post SC era. Context always matters, but have seen way too many mediocre private school students getting spots solely because they check a box. It's never the brilliant kid from SE or the immigrant in Gaithersburg with the 1300 that gets into a T20. I would, however, really like to find the first generation and low income smart kids. That's a special group of students.

I'd also limit the international admits for undergrad. Grad school is a different story. But for undergrad, no student has ever said all that's missing from my college experience is more wealthy students from mainland China and the Persian Gulf.

Basically, less class. More talent.

Those international students at undergrad are typically Full Pay (OOS prices for state schools). Those students help keep your in-state costs down.

And at private schools, why shouldn't the schools get to choose who to select? they are private schools and have no obligation to select only USA students or VA or MD residence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SAT needs to go back to being an IQ test and should be the basis of admission along with gpa. No more extracurriculars! They are turning high schoolers into freaks who can do research but can barely process information.

God no. That's the last thing these schools want. Talk about a class of freaks, a bunch of kids with great SATs and perfect GPAs and zero going on outside of that

It’s funny, I work with tons of people with super high GPA and test scores and they’re generally interesting people with lots of different hobbies. Massively different personalities too. Not sure why you think high grades and scores necessarily mean deficits in other areas.

Anonymous wrote:No one's educational experience is enhanced by a class of drones. That being said, for highly selective schools I'd want to see the stress on class rigor and being challenged, GPA, SAT/ACT test scores, interesting ECs that really demonstrate some passion and talent, teacher recommendations, and can they write a compelling essay.

I'd get rid of legacy, significant wealth, and nearly all admissions advantages for athletes. If Duke wants a competitive basketball team, fine. I understand that's a special thing. Same with Notre Dame football. But crew and tennis and lacrosse and soccer and Columbia football are pretty ridiculous. The SLACs are usually appalling with this. Nearly half of Williams and Amherst are "athletes."

I'd also put way less emphasis on race even in the post SC era. Context always matters, but have seen way too many mediocre private school students getting spots solely because they check a box. It's never the brilliant kid from SE or the immigrant in Gaithersburg with the 1300 that gets into a T20. I would, however, really like to find the first generation and low income smart kids. That's a special group of students.

I'd also limit the international admits for undergrad. Grad school is a different story. But for undergrad, no student has ever said all that's missing from my college experience is more wealthy students from mainland China and the Persian Gulf.

Basically, less class. More talent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one's educational experience is enhanced by a class of drones. That being said, for highly selective schools I'd want to see the stress on class rigor and being challenged, GPA, SAT/ACT test scores, interesting ECs that really demonstrate some passion and talent, teacher recommendations, and can they write a compelling essay.

I'd get rid of legacy, significant wealth, and nearly all admissions advantages for athletes. If Duke wants a competitive basketball team, fine. I understand that's a special thing. Same with Notre Dame football. But crew and tennis and lacrosse and soccer and Columbia football are pretty ridiculous. The SLACs are usually appalling with this. Nearly half of Williams and Amherst are "athletes."

I'd also put way less emphasis on race even in the post SC era. Context always matters, but have seen way too many mediocre private school students getting spots solely because they check a box. It's never the brilliant kid from SE or the immigrant in Gaithersburg with the 1300 that gets into a T20. I would, however, really like to find the first generation and low income smart kids. That's a special group of students.

I'd also limit the international admits for undergrad. Grad school is a different story. But for undergrad, no student has ever said all that's missing from my college experience is more wealthy students from mainland China and the Persian Gulf.

Basically, less class. More talent.

You want "talent" but you kept ranting about athletes. You do know that athletic performance requires talent, right? So much so that as a general rule only about 7% of high school athletes have the talent to compete at any level in college.

And Amherst and Williams athletes are, in fact, genuine athletes not "athletes" in skeptical quotes as you put it.

I'm sorry your kid got cut from the 8th grade club team but why haven't you gotten over it by now?

Hate this disingenuous crap. Stop trying to degrade the person and just make your point. For most non-athletes, the athlete draw is an unfair process that shouldn't mean they can just walk into an elite institution. Especially at LACs, golf should not allow you to waltz into a campus. No one is going to the softball games, so why are we subsidizing them? Sure, these are genuine athletes, but lacrosse and crew should give the same EC boost as drawing or writing, not recruit you to the institution.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SAT needs to go back to being an IQ test and should be the basis of admission along with gpa. No more extracurriculars! They are turning high schoolers into freaks who can do research but can barely process information.

God no. That's the last thing these schools want. Talk about a class of freaks, a bunch of kids with great SATs and perfect GPAs and zero going on outside of that

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people care a lot about the SAT, while others think the extracurriculars are what count. What do you think?

It's not either or. With elite colleges, the academic profile is the the baseline and everyone meets and exceeds that threshold. ECs are differentiators. With lower level schools, ECs don't matter. They just pretend it does.

This. Students at the elite schools have the academic chops AND the ECs. Thus idea that a 1590 somehow ranks someone's IQ above a 1540 is nonsense. I taught SAT prep, and they are coachable tests, not some IQ determinant. This obsession is ridiculous and just offbase. It's not an either/or. It's yes, and...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No recruited athletes - sports as just another EC. No legacy. Standardized test required as part of admissions decisions. One application deadline - no ED/EA/REA. Schools can only have one supplemental essay and one LOC that must be from a teacher.

Admissions staff say they care about the mental and emotional well-being of the students but the system they are part is f is almost abusive.

It is honestly shocking colleges can get as many applications as they do, making students run in circles with different deadlines, admissions types, hidden admissions practices with relatively vague advice that lead students to pick up rigorous classes, many different "impactful" extracurriculars (but not too many of course, because that is bad for some reason), etc. It's all a game that is genuinely detrimental to highschool students and needs to have some standardization.

Anonymous wrote:No one's educational experience is enhanced by a class of drones. That being said, for highly selective schools I'd want to see the stress on class rigor and being challenged, GPA, SAT/ACT test scores, interesting ECs that really demonstrate some passion and talent, teacher recommendations, and can they write a compelling essay.

I'd get rid of legacy, significant wealth, and nearly all admissions advantages for athletes. If Duke wants a competitive basketball team, fine. I understand that's a special thing. Same with Notre Dame football. But crew and tennis and lacrosse and soccer and Columbia football are pretty ridiculous. The SLACs are usually appalling with this. Nearly half of Williams and Amherst are "athletes."

I'd also put way less emphasis on race even in the post SC era. Context always matters, but have seen way too many mediocre private school students getting spots solely because they check a box. It's never the brilliant kid from SE or the immigrant in Gaithersburg with the 1300 that gets into a T20. I would, however, really like to find the first generation and low income smart kids. That's a special group of students.

I'd also limit the international admits for undergrad. Grad school is a different story. But for undergrad, no student has ever said all that's missing from my college experience is more wealthy students from mainland China and the Persian Gulf.

Basically, less class. More talent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SAT needs to go back to being an IQ test and should be the basis of admission along with gpa. No more extracurriculars! They are turning high schoolers into freaks who can do research but can barely process information.

Not the American way. The culture of college in the US is academics plus social life/athletics/clubs/etc.

It was the American way for most of America. This shift is relatively recent and has become poisonous to our institutions who've had to reduce the quality of te education to keep up with the test optional dummies and the 1520, which now means nothing. We need smart people back in our top colleges.

Anonymous wrote:No recruited athletes - sports as just another EC. No legacy. Standardized test required as part of admissions decisions. One application deadline - no ED/EA/REA. Schools can only have one supplemental essay and one LOC that must be from a teacher.

Admissions staff say they care about the mental and emotional well-being of the students but the system they are part is f is almost abusive.

Anonymous wrote:The SAT needs to go back to being an IQ test and should be the basis of admission along with gpa. No more extracurriculars! They are turning high schoolers into freaks who can do research but can barely process information.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people care a lot about the SAT, while others think the extracurriculars are what count. What do you think?

40 point scale

ACT or SAT - required, max. two attempts (two total, not two ACT and two SAT), no superscoring, max. 10 points.

ACT:
36: 10 points
34 - 35: 8 points
31 - 33: 6 points
26 - 30: 4 points
20 - 25: 2 points
18 - 20: 1 point
Below 20: 0 points

SAT:
1580 - 1600: 10 points
1500 - 1570: 8 points
1400 - 1490: 6 points
1200 - 1390: 4 points
1000 - 1190: 2 points
900 - 990: 1 point
Below 900: 0 points

GPA - unweighted, max. 10 points.

GPA:
3.90 - 4.00: 10 points
3.70 - 3.89: 8 points
3.55 - 3.69: 6 points
3.40 - 3.54: 4 points
3.25 - 3.39: 2 points
3.00 - 3.24: 1 point
Below 3.00: 0 points

Rigor: AP classes, IB classes, DE classes.
(I know nothing of IB and DE enrollment classes, so an equivalency would need to be created).

11+ AP tests with min. 4: 10 points
8 - 10 with min. 3: 7 points
5 - 7 with min. 3: 5 points
3 - 4 with min. 3: 2 points
1 - 2 with min. 3: 1 point

Essays: 0 - 10 points (subjective)

Varsity sport(s), min. 2 years: 4 points
Paid job, min. 2 years: 3 points
Club officer, min. 2 years: 2 points
Volunteer hours, min. 25: 1 point

Tally it up.

45 - 50: Top 10
40 - 45: 11 - 25
35 - 40: 26 - 50
30 - 35: 51 - 100
25 - 30: 100 - 200
20 - 25: 200 - 350
15 - 20: Community College

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one's educational experience is enhanced by a class of drones. That being said, for highly selective schools I'd want to see the stress on class rigor and being challenged, GPA, SAT/ACT test scores, interesting ECs that really demonstrate some passion and talent, teacher recommendations, and can they write a compelling essay.

I'd get rid of legacy, significant wealth, and nearly all admissions advantages for athletes. If Duke wants a competitive basketball team, fine. I understand that's a special thing. Same with Notre Dame football. But crew and tennis and lacrosse and soccer and Columbia football are pretty ridiculous. The SLACs are usually appalling with this. Nearly half of Williams and Amherst are "athletes."

I'd also put way less emphasis on race even in the post SC era. Context always matters, but have seen way too many mediocre private school students getting spots solely because they check a box. It's never the brilliant kid from SE or the immigrant in Gaithersburg with the 1300 that gets into a T20. I would, however, really like to find the first generation and low income smart kids. That's a special group of students.

I'd also limit the international admits for undergrad. Grad school is a different story. But for undergrad, no student has ever said all that's missing from my college experience is more wealthy students from mainland China and the Persian Gulf.

Basically, less class. More talent.

You want "talent" but you kept ranting about athletes. You do know that athletic performance requires talent, right? So much so that as a general rule only about 7% of high school athletes have the talent to compete at any level in college.

And Amherst and Williams athletes are, in fact, genuine athletes not "athletes" in skeptical quotes as you put it.

I'm sorry your kid got cut from the 8th grade club team but why haven't you gotten over it by now?

Actually, both kids are at T20s. And they are both very athletic. States, varsity, etc. One recruited by D3 schools. But they chose D1 schools for the education. [Sure, Jan. 🙄]

But I still think it's a waste of space for tiny little D3 schools like Amherst and Williams to devote nearly half their spots to "athletes."