Anonymous wrote:Colleges like Swarthmore, Middlebury, Conn College just aren't attractive to the high scoring SAT takers so it's a vicious cycle where fewer and fewer of the students even bother to submit an SAT because they scored too low.

Anonymous wrote:And the under resourced kid doing well on a test relative to their circumstances should certainly get credit for it.

That argument does not mean TO makes any sense

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And the under resourced kid doing well on a test relative to their circumstances should certainly get credit for it.

That argument does not mean TO makes any sense

+1

Reward the FGLI student who gets a 31 on the ACT instead of admitting kids who are getting 25 and not reporting. There’s a big difference between scores once you get below 32.

Yep. Swarthmore and other similarly rejective schools aren’t looking for more data points and transparency though. They are instead encouraging applicants to essentially pick and choose which data they want to present, again encouraging a lack of transparency.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Current Swattie parent here. My kid had 4.0 uw GPA and 4.9 w GPA with a 35 ACT. Was deferred ED and accepted RD. Very happy with the diversity, academic rigor, studiousness, and friendliness of the school. It is small, though. I don't think the test scores matter because I think the admissions team is looking to build a diverse class. The FGLI students are a big part of the campus.

+1. Parent of a student another WASP LAC with TO policies. My kid was valedictorian, 35 ACT, 13 APs with strong scores, very strong ECs, admitted to multiple Ivies, etc., etc. The student body is damned impressive as is the community. No complaints about continuing TO policies. (BTW, Swat was my DC's second choice. It's a fantastic school.)

People put way too much emphasis on test scores, which are just one, small part of the criteria that makes an applicant a strong candidate. It just so happens to be a quantifiable one, and so the nuance-challenged among us overly fixate upon it.

I bet the kids who graduate from Swarthmore with physics degrees have really, really high SAT scores. Both math and verbal. It would be interesting to see the numbers. My guess is the test scores are a strong predictor, but okay let’s not put too much emphasis on that little inconvenience.

Perhaps. On the other hand, my DC is a studio art major and still had extremely high stats.

That’s great but does not address the fact that about half the students there are hiding behind TO.

I did not believe you and thought it was hyperbole, but I looked it up. More than half of freshman didn't submit an SAT or ACT score!!!

Believe or not, there are still a LOT of under resourced kids who cannot take tests or have other responsibilities (jobs, care for elderly) that preclude them from preparing for the tests.

The college board makes SAT free for low income students. Also, Khan Academy is completely free. It takes at most a few hours a week for a few weeks to prepare for the SAT. So now all of a sudden underresourced kids can't spare a few hours? This excuse making is nauseating.

The only reason not to submit an SAT score is because you bombed the SAT. Everyone knows this.

My kid didn't submit an SAT score because she aced the ACT and thus never took the SAT. I'd think that someone who prizes standardized tests would understand the logical pitfalls of making sweeping statements based on universal quantifiers.

No offense, but true high scorers will take the SAT to become NMSF. Sorry your daughter couldn't cut it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Current Swattie parent here. My kid had 4.0 uw GPA and 4.9 w GPA with a 35 ACT. Was deferred ED and accepted RD. Very happy with the diversity, academic rigor, studiousness, and friendliness of the school. It is small, though. I don't think the test scores matter because I think the admissions team is looking to build a diverse class. The FGLI students are a big part of the campus.

+1. Parent of a student another WASP LAC with TO policies. My kid was valedictorian, 35 ACT, 13 APs with strong scores, very strong ECs, admitted to multiple Ivies, etc., etc. The student body is damned impressive as is the community. No complaints about continuing TO policies. (BTW, Swat was my DC's second choice. It's a fantastic school.)

People put way too much emphasis on test scores, which are just one, small part of the criteria that makes an applicant a strong candidate. It just so happens to be a quantifiable one, and so the nuance-challenged among us overly fixate upon it.

I bet the kids who graduate from Swarthmore with physics degrees have really, really high SAT scores. Both math and verbal. It would be interesting to see the numbers. My guess is the test scores are a strong predictor, but okay let’s not put too much emphasis on that little inconvenience.

Perhaps. On the other hand, my DC is a studio art major and still had extremely high stats.

That’s great but does not address the fact that about half the students there are hiding behind TO.

I did not believe you and thought it was hyperbole, but I looked it up. More than half of freshman didn't submit an SAT or ACT score!!!

Believe or not, there are still a LOT of under resourced kids who cannot take tests or have other responsibilities (jobs, care for elderly) that preclude them from preparing for the tests.

The college board makes SAT free for low income students. Also, Khan Academy is completely free. It takes at most a few hours a week for a few weeks to prepare for the SAT. So now all of a sudden underresourced kids can't spare a few hours? This excuse making is nauseating.

The only reason not to submit an SAT score is because you bombed the SAT. Everyone knows this.

My kid didn't submit an SAT score because she aced the ACT and thus never took the SAT. I'd think that someone who prizes standardized tests would understand the logical pitfalls of making sweeping statements based on universal quantifiers.

I think when writing that it was clear that SAT and ACT are interchangeable and not exclusive of ACT. Kind of obvious.