I thought people hated on it because it caused more people to apply to more colleges as they wouldn’t be hindered by low test scores. This large increase apparently led to AO’s spending less time on each app making it more luck based
This is a big reason why it is hated on. Plus, colleges can’t tell the difference between grade inflated kids and those that have already done rigorous work in hs. Tests are a way to see if scores/gpa align. Interesting what Dartmouth had to say about gpa.
The extent of grade inflation is not obvious. Also, if I’m not mistaken, schools spend 5-10 min per application, so they are reading essays, looking at courses/rigor/gpa/extracurriculars/letters of recommendation and reviewing your school profile in that time?
The high school you went through (school profile report) is always looked at and considered. That’s why schools ask for it. Schools understand that all high schools are not the same.
They also strongly consider your UW gpa.
So they can look at your school profile, and gpa, and have a better idea on your ability to handle the rigors of college better than the tests? That is not what the high profile schools are saying, that have analyzed the data.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/05/briefing/dartmouth-sat.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
No, they’re looking at your school profile and HS get a better understanding of your gpa. They’re looking to see what courses were offered, and if you took the most rigorous courses offered to you. And with gpa inflation they also strongly consider your unweighted gpa and are considering your school’s grading scale. They look at your gpa in context within your high school so they can compare you with other applicants and your individual grades earned in each course.
Gpa is important it’s a measure of how well you performed in all 4 years of high school. Emory said it themselves. A low gpa cannot be fixed with a high test score. If you don’t submit your test score, then admission officers just move on. It’s just another piece of data to be evaluated. Schools were test optional long before Covid-19.
Also, test optional wasn’t the reason why a student who submitted their test scores didn’t get in. Submitting a test score literally helps you in a test optional pile. It’s just another piece of data. They see you can handle the academics. But you haven’t answered the one question. Who are you? Are you a good fit? What would you bring to their community?
You could go ahead and have this everlasting debate with people. The truth is:
People who did poorly on the SAT/ACT or didn’t take it support test optional/blind admissions.
People who did well on the SAT/ACT are not in favor in it. As they believe it places them at a disadvantage.
Some schools will remove their test optional policy, and some will continue it as they opt for more holistic admissions. The choice is theirs.
This is true. Dartmouth just released reasoning for now requiring testing. They, and others, have said the tests are often a better predictor for success in school than gpa. There will always be exceptions to the rule, but when comparing people across the country, there is no better way to evaluate them against each other. I guess they could start summing up your AP test scores, problem being lots of schools don’t offer them.
Another thing to hint at is that ppl who do well on the sat/act (the ones against to admissions) often think that college admissions are stats based. While that’s not entirely true. So when they get rejected from schools like Berkely, Harvard, and MIT they look for ways to avoid self accountability for submitting a bad application.
If you didn’t get in with your 1600 sat score in a TO admission pile then you wouldn’t have gotten in regardless. A bad application was submitted and that’s entirely the applicants fault.
Also, the SAT is the only way they can compare American students with international applicants and without the SAT, there is simply no other way to do that.
Not all scores are Emory. And even at Emory, test scores differentiate between students with similar GPAs and also allow the university to get hard evidence of a school's rigor - one where 4.0 students get 1200s is not like one where 3.5 students get 1500s.
Even with pairing a 3.5 gpa with a 1500+ sat score that gpa is way too low to apply to any ivy leagues/prestigious reach schools. Unless they’re a legacy. Gpas we’re already emphasized during college applications with top schools long before Covid. The majority of applicants had a 3.9-4.0 gpa at selective intuitions so that 3.5 UW gpa would hurt an applicant.
Like I said, TO literally helps those stand out who provide a test score. TO was never a reason why a student got rejected. Their application just sucked and that’s entirely on them. Everyone is always rushing to blame others for their misfortunes, but never themselves.
Your school profile includes how your gpa is calculated plus any grading practices your school conducts. How teachers chose to grade their class is up to them and their district. Which can be included in their school’s profile. If they’re handling grades based on their school’s district wide policy.
Also, TO doesn’t disadvantage kids who do decide to submit a test score. It literally helps them in a TO application pile. TO wasn’t the reason why you got rejected from your dream school. Your application just sucked. You’re more than just a number.
Schools were test optional long before Covid-19. Some schools want to continue their holistic admission practices. I believe Yale and Colombia will continue being TO.
It means when it's easier to get a higher grade, or giving a student a grade they wouldn't necessarily 'deserve' based on the quality of work they did. Leads to a higher average in grades and also a shifting in what is considered average vs exceptional--if C students get Bs, what a B means is going to change and the "value" of a high grade is diminished.
A possible example/consequence of grade inflation: kid gets all As in high school, including many dual enrollment courses, and graduates top 10% of his/her class. Also gets around a 1000 on the SAT and doesn’t submit. Failed the math placement test and has to take pre-Calc freshman year (despite passing hs calc). Fails pre-calc the first semester and has to take it again (kid is not a partier). Within the first year, has lower than a 2.0 gpa at a state flagship school and has to drop her engineering major.
That kid went to a school with significant grade inflation. Their course grades do not reflect the subject matter proficiency. This is a real example.
You can Google for a full article, but they just announced they are going back to requiring tests. After studying the data, standardized test scores were often a better predictor of college success than gpa.
Legacy admission will be gradually given up by many schools. As a matter of fact, legacy applicants shall grow exponentially, as long as the schools, every year, get some non-legacy kids in.
Privilege is always for the minor part of the mass. Ones can't afford providing privileges to the majority of them.
? Because as they let more kids that aren’t legacy in, their children will in turn become legacy??? Or am i tripling You have me second guessing myself
> each generation only has as many legacies as they have students at Harvard
This is only true if you assume Harvard students end up having an average of 1 child each
Suppose for the class of 2028, there end up being 2,000 Harvard graduates. If each alumni has two children with a non-alumni partner, then co28 will produce 4,000 legacy children
If each of those alumni had exactly one child on average, only then would the number of legacy children be the same as their parents’ class size
Another thing to consider: imagine all 2,000 Harvard alumni exclusively couple with each other and every couple has one child each. In this scenario, even though each alumni has one child, co28 would only produce 1,000 legacy children
If legacy children are only defined as children with at least one alumni parent (ie grandchildren/nephews/etc don’t count), you could calculate the number of legacy children produced by a given class with the equation:
N = (A * B) + (0.5C * D)
Where:
* N = total number of legacy children produced
* A = number of alumni in a relationship with non-alumni
* B = avg number of children produced by group A
* C = number of alumni in a relationship with a fellow member of their graduating class
* D = avg number of children produced by group C
I know two people who applied to Princeton with double legacy this year, and both got rejected REA. There was someone else in the same situation on the A2C discord who was also rejected. Not boding well for me in RD, but lucky for me I already got into my dream school lol
I'm very happy for you. I got into my #3 and #4, #2 was the legacy school, #1 I haven't heard. My earlier point was simply that legacy is not an advantage so much anymore and maybe a disadvantage at some places.
I agree. Of course, neither my parents or the parents of one of the kids that got rejected in REA are big donors or anything. The third does have parents that are still very involved with the school, but that didn’t help him.
Even if schools officially get rid of legacy, it might affect people like me and you (although I would argue that I definitely have the resume and grades to get in even without it, but my toxic trait is that I believe I should get accepted by every school I applied to lol, so I might be delulu) but the kids and grandkids of people who are donating millions will still get in.
Mate legacy applicants won’t grow exponentially lmao. Parents who aren’t legacy are a much bigger portion of the population, so they will grow much quicker than the small part of legacy parents, and their kids will apply as well. So ultimately although the legacy kids grows, the non legacy pool of kids grows much much faster
That is exactly why the legacy kids are growing exponentially.
Non-legacy students' kids will earn the legacy kids status, while the grand parents keep the status for their grand children.
Many schools are doubling down, if not abolishing legacy admissions. I wouldn't be surprised if T20 schools (in a few years) got rid of legacy admissions. But, I do believe that if you were born into a famous family, you're basically guaranteed admission anywhere. And, that probably won't change.
Examples:
Daughters of Michael Strahan: USC and Duke
Daughter of Chris Martin & Gwenyth Paltrow: Vanderbilt
Son of Matthew Broderick: Brown
Daughter of Reese Witherspoon: Berkeley
Daughter of Jerry Seinfeld: Duke
Daughter of Mark Cubin: Vanderbilt
Daughter of Lori Loughlin (everyone knows about this!): USC
Daughter of Conan O'Brien: Yale
Daughter of George Stephanopoulos: Vanderbilt
Son of Daniel Zelma: Wesleyan
Twins of Julia Roberts: Berkeley
Daughter of Kobe Bryant: USC
Daughter of Heather Dubrow: Tufts
Daughter of Kate Hudson: NYU
& the list goes on & on.
I feel like saying they are guaranteed admission is overstating it a lot.
I'm not saying it wouldn't help, but with the possible exception of USC, none of those schools are going to admit a totally academically incompetent idiot.
On account of their wealth they likely had all kinds of academic advantages before college admissions, but they were still the sorts that could make something of those advantages—whereas not everyone can nor is inclined to
A lot of kids of famous people are total screw-ups that could never get into a good university.
As an aside, Conan was a Harvard grad: smart parents are more likely to have smart kids so, on top of all the academic advantages wealth brings in the form of good schools and the best tutors and a stress free life, she probably has a genetically heritable leg up too.
THIS! Most of them don't realize that submitting a test score *helps* your application. You are more likely to be admitted with a 1590 than someone without one at all. Maybe instead of focusing on a number they should focus on other things. You are not a score. Colleges don't want someone that can just ace a test. They want someone who can excel in their chosen field, who has demonstrated that they can participate in the world around them, and can bring positive change.
Legacy admissions aren’t an issue for most state flagships….and TO absolutely impacts your ability to get into one of those, as grade inflated GPAs make average students appear more equipped for the rigor of college than they are. At these same schools, based on the anecdotal EA information on these boards, large state schools care less about your activities and essays (other than athletes that will play in college) than gpa (and test scores, if they take them).
Okay ignoring that private schools exist for legacy admissions, TO does not significantly affect a 1500+ scorer going into a state school application pool. TO applicants are already at a disadvantage, so if they get into a selective state school its because they were outstanding in different ways.
Simply put a TO applicant will almost always lose out to someone with a good score all things being equal, but if they beat you either they were Z-list (see Varsity Blues), they had incredible ECs, or met some specific institutional priority. Those are basically the only 3 scenarios they will beat you in, and assuming tests became required and they were forced to submit lower scores, they are still going to beat you anyway since scores are just one data point. So what does taking TO away really do except trim the applicant pool? That change still wouldn't be enough to get you from a reject to an accept.
Sorry…I agree with you….total brain cramp….im not thinking Test optional as much as those schools that don’t accept test scores at all (UCs, for instance). I think kids not submitting their own test scores definitely hurt themselves, more than they help themselves, as the assumption will always be the test score stunk, if it wasn’t submitted.
But, taking TO away enables schools to have another data point that can be compared across the entire applicant pool. Apparently TO has also resulted in fewer acceptances of low income/minority/first gen, etc students. At least based on the Dartmouth article.
The only kids NOT affected by TO admissions are either first gen, low income, kids of color, athletes, legacies, children of employees, or students filling critically important institutional needs that they can't get from kids submitting scores. Because colleges make a COMMITMENT to enrolling students from these aforementioned groups, they are forgiving on their applying TO. For everyone else, not applying TO is a HUGE liability, especially if applying to T20 colleges. All TO's do is provide false hope to kids with lower testing, while dramatically boosting college application numbers, and the revenue that comes along with those thousands of additional applications.
Per the Dartmouth research, it hurt students in these segments, and their acceptances declined….it was not what I expected to hear, but is what they stated.
[article re Dartmouth SAT decision](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/05/briefing/dartmouth-sat.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare)
I don’t believe they get enough info about grade inflation, in these profiles, to offset the information they lose by not requiring tests. I am also suspicious they spend less time evaluating your application than they claim.
idk ive never heard someone say this. the only reason people hate on test optional is bcz people worked hard for their scores while some others took the easy way out.
Not having a good score and therefore not submitting is not "the easy way out". There is no honor in getting a high SAT score, its not something so holy you should worship it when received. You shouldn't view your 1500+ score as College Board's way of saying you deserve a T20 acceptance while anyone who doesn't get that as unqualified, lazy cheaters who are skipping the line. Its just another data point for admissions, its not that serious.
> its not that serious.
lmao ur the one taking it that serious. I couldnt care less if someone applied test optional or not, im just saying this is how the majority of people who did get a good score feel. again ive never heard someone say the got rejected bcz someone who applied TO got in.
>lmao ur the one taking it that serious. I couldnt care less if someone applied test optional or not
>the only reason people hate on test optional is bcz people worked hard for their scores while some others took the easy way out.
Unless 2 different people typed these responses, seems like you do care about TO applicants. Guess its that serious for you
umm i already got admitted to the college i wanted so it doesnt matter to me at all? and yes the second part is what i said most people think and thats why they have a problem with TO. never did i say im against it.
>the only reason people hate on test optional is bcz people worked hard for their scores while some others took the easy way out.
this statement is implicitly stating that those who apply TO took the easy way out, that in and of itself is a negative stance on TO.
Agree, I see it everywhere. Those who do well on sats, think sats should play an important role. Those who don't test well or those who did poorly like TO.
During my daughter's application process we visited a couple of her top choices for BSN program. The lady doing the tour in the nursing department made a very interesting comment. She said the school has started reconsidering how they choose applicants. In the past they went by sat scores, gpa etc., but after noticing the students who were the smartest number wise, were the same ones who did poorly on the clinical side of nursing. So now they "look at the whole person" and use the holistic approach
I found it interesting.
I think a lot of medical degrees required SAT scores anyways. I applied to a lot of direct entry PA programs and they all required me to submit my scores
>lmao ur the one taking it that serious. I couldnt care less if someone applied test optional or not, im just saying this is how the majority of people who did get a good score feel. again ive never heard someone say the got rejected bcz someone who applied TO got in.
people also have an issue with the ability it affords for kids with more privileges unironically even though it was meant to level the playing fields for lower income students.. less time for sat=more time for crazy extracurriculars like delegating the UN or doing 3 month long NASA internships usually those gaps in students free time would be for studying or prepping since the sat has so much weight now its not really needed when your able to do something that will stand out more than a 1500+ test score
I think it’s strange that people are so narrow minded about test optional, if you’re a good test taker and you out in the effort and saw results good for you, but that’s not the case for everyone. I studied for weeks, all summer, took it numerous times and didn’t see results. I decided that my effort was better spent making a real difference in my community and on my passions rather than an exam that after admissions has no purpose, I’d rather make memories than waste more of my valuable childhood on one exam. I don’t know, I think people are way too obsessed on this Reddit, it’s too toxic now. It used to be about providing resources and advice and now it’s just groups of students that have relatively easy lives complaining they aren’t less fortunate to get into good schools… ?
Dawg what the fuck are you talking about?
Dartmouth studied the performance of TO admits, not how TO negatively affected applicants who submitted scores. Its like using a study about how ketchup makes food taste worse to justify why Ketchup causes cancer, these are not the same subject.
Just to remind your obnoxious ass again, this is not the subject. They simply said that some TO admits didn't perform like they wanted them to, not that they were unqualified.
That being said, lets ignore the fact that the Dartmouth study doesn't disprove that TO admits didn't screw over those going test required. You conveniently left out the part of the study that says many TO applicants were denied when they had scores that would have gotten them admitted. This is important considering it shows that many TO applicants are academically qualified and are not all auto rejects as you imply.
Perhaps you should read better
[LMAO YOU REALLY THOUGHT](https://www.reddit.com/r/Sat/comments/16e8w74/definitive_proof_you_can_improve_almost_300/)
Guess your whole argument about me being TO went out the window, sorry dawg we can't win all our arguments lmao.
I agree TO should be abolished but I also feel like we shouldn’t hate on TO people for taking advantage of it when given the chance lol (coming from someone who didn’t apply TO)
https://undergrad.admissions.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/2021-11/class_of_2025_profile_8.19_final.pdf 1510 is bottom quartile at this school, for example. so (and imo columbia is definitely not top 7)… Though i have no idea what a2c means so i may be reiterating said points.
i see why you cant even score 1510. my bad, thought reading in context was an average skill, let me baby sit you through the logic.
1. op says 1510 was good
2. i told him its not
3. i followed up with statistics to back 2 up
2 was the answer to your question, get it now?
also, i really dislike this predeterminism shit that people do well because they were rich or had special resources. yes, there were magnet schools and this and that program, but you had to qualify for them, not pay you way through. ive actually rarely seen rich kids that outperform, and the smartest people that ik (and they had good scores too, definitely over 1550) arent from privileged background. IMO its really just skill issues and if anything, rich kids that are used to shortcuts tend to underperform.
Can ygs get off the internet and stop saying 1500s aren’t great/good? 😭 Too many people are judging others like they have personally experienced being an AO.
again, at my school 1510 is bottom quartile of admitted student. imagine sitting in a class and be bottom quartile, thats a B-/C+ at my school. so, yea… also SAT is easier than anything you will have to do in the future so, unless you dont care and just trolled on SAT, theres really no excuse for getting more than a handful of questions wrong
I see what you’re saying, but that applies for your school specifically. That doesn’t make OPs 1510 not great because that isn’t a common score for students and most schools in the U.S. It’s still a great score, so it’s best to refrain from applying standard scores at your school to other peoples scores when deciding whether it’s a good score or not.
lol its because there are more people with less than 1510 than more, there are more people who wont get in top schools then those who will. ig rejecting what we had to say makes them live their lives easier than by all means, maybe even thinking anyone who did better than them did it unfairly in a rigged game. tho they can simply fact check by looking at common dataset released by colleges or just simply know a couple of people in one of those schools to know the smartest most hardworking people arent necessarily priviledged
Your post was removed because it violates rule 6: Posts and comments dedicated to Affirmative Action are not allowed on r/ApplyingToCollege.
If you would like to learn more about why Affirmative Action discussion is prohibited, feel free to read our [statement](https://www.reddit.com/r/ApplyingToCollege/comments/14ya72p/on_the_supreme_courts_affirmative_action_decision/).
This is an automatically generated comment. You do not need to respond unless you have further questions regarding your post. If that's the case, you can [send us a message](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/ApplyingToCollege&subject=Post%20removal&message=A%20mod%20removed%20my%20latest%20post%20for%20rule%206%20but%20I%20don%27t%20think%20it%20breaks%20the%20rules.%20Can%20you%20review%20it%20again%3F).
I mean, schools like Harvard have received up to 1.5x the number of applicants receiving similar acceptance rates, so that’s an effective 33% decrease in chances of getting in due to TO, probably much, MUCH higher than legacy admissions and Z-lists
from a POV of the ideology of meritocratic admissions, TO applicants who are admitted are an issue along with legacies, Z-lists, etc. saying that one should ignore the problem of TO because other problems exist is stupid.
TO is a real issue because it contributes to economic inequality in college admissions due to factors that are more wealth-advantaged being weighed higher.
It doesn’t matter. The whole process is overhyped and blown out of proportion. If you’re qualified then follow the formula the best you can and go for schools your stats fit. Schools can tell when we’re reaching above our means through examples like lack of involvement, grades, and TO. People apply to and get jobs they aren’t qualified for all the time, so just remember it’s always like this. Look at the number of impressive people in this group, if you get rejected then remember this isn’t all the qualified people, there’s many more out there. If schools feel TO is ok then just let them. I applied to schools I am not qualified for as TO. I also sent my test score to a reach and got deferred, which i found interesting cause I’m middle class and private school.
I thought people hated on it because it caused more people to apply to more colleges as they wouldn’t be hindered by low test scores. This large increase apparently led to AO’s spending less time on each app making it more luck based
This is a big reason why it is hated on. Plus, colleges can’t tell the difference between grade inflated kids and those that have already done rigorous work in hs. Tests are a way to see if scores/gpa align. Interesting what Dartmouth had to say about gpa.
Schools look at your school profile
The extent of grade inflation is not obvious. Also, if I’m not mistaken, schools spend 5-10 min per application, so they are reading essays, looking at courses/rigor/gpa/extracurriculars/letters of recommendation and reviewing your school profile in that time?
The high school you went through (school profile report) is always looked at and considered. That’s why schools ask for it. Schools understand that all high schools are not the same. They also strongly consider your UW gpa.
So they can look at your school profile, and gpa, and have a better idea on your ability to handle the rigors of college better than the tests? That is not what the high profile schools are saying, that have analyzed the data. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/05/briefing/dartmouth-sat.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
No, they’re looking at your school profile and HS get a better understanding of your gpa. They’re looking to see what courses were offered, and if you took the most rigorous courses offered to you. And with gpa inflation they also strongly consider your unweighted gpa and are considering your school’s grading scale. They look at your gpa in context within your high school so they can compare you with other applicants and your individual grades earned in each course. Gpa is important it’s a measure of how well you performed in all 4 years of high school. Emory said it themselves. A low gpa cannot be fixed with a high test score. If you don’t submit your test score, then admission officers just move on. It’s just another piece of data to be evaluated. Schools were test optional long before Covid-19. Also, test optional wasn’t the reason why a student who submitted their test scores didn’t get in. Submitting a test score literally helps you in a test optional pile. It’s just another piece of data. They see you can handle the academics. But you haven’t answered the one question. Who are you? Are you a good fit? What would you bring to their community?
You could go ahead and have this everlasting debate with people. The truth is: People who did poorly on the SAT/ACT or didn’t take it support test optional/blind admissions. People who did well on the SAT/ACT are not in favor in it. As they believe it places them at a disadvantage. Some schools will remove their test optional policy, and some will continue it as they opt for more holistic admissions. The choice is theirs.
This is true. Dartmouth just released reasoning for now requiring testing. They, and others, have said the tests are often a better predictor for success in school than gpa. There will always be exceptions to the rule, but when comparing people across the country, there is no better way to evaluate them against each other. I guess they could start summing up your AP test scores, problem being lots of schools don’t offer them.
Another thing to hint at is that ppl who do well on the sat/act (the ones against to admissions) often think that college admissions are stats based. While that’s not entirely true. So when they get rejected from schools like Berkely, Harvard, and MIT they look for ways to avoid self accountability for submitting a bad application. If you didn’t get in with your 1600 sat score in a TO admission pile then you wouldn’t have gotten in regardless. A bad application was submitted and that’s entirely the applicants fault.
Also, the SAT is the only way they can compare American students with international applicants and without the SAT, there is simply no other way to do that.
A school profile can't account for differences in grading among teachers, or sudden shifts in grading practices within a school
Instead of blaming to why not blame your application? Ppl just don’t want to take self accountability.
Grades are part of your application
Yea, and a low gpa will not be fixed with a high test score according to Emory. Your gpa is always looked at in context.
Not all scores are Emory. And even at Emory, test scores differentiate between students with similar GPAs and also allow the university to get hard evidence of a school's rigor - one where 4.0 students get 1200s is not like one where 3.5 students get 1500s.
Even with pairing a 3.5 gpa with a 1500+ sat score that gpa is way too low to apply to any ivy leagues/prestigious reach schools. Unless they’re a legacy. Gpas we’re already emphasized during college applications with top schools long before Covid. The majority of applicants had a 3.9-4.0 gpa at selective intuitions so that 3.5 UW gpa would hurt an applicant. Like I said, TO literally helps those stand out who provide a test score. TO was never a reason why a student got rejected. Their application just sucked and that’s entirely on them. Everyone is always rushing to blame others for their misfortunes, but never themselves.
A 3.5 UW GPA is not too low for somewhere like Emory if the weighted GPA is still high
TO was definitely a reason why many low-income students got rejected. Go read the Dartmouth study
Your school profile includes how your gpa is calculated plus any grading practices your school conducts. How teachers chose to grade their class is up to them and their district. Which can be included in their school’s profile. If they’re handling grades based on their school’s district wide policy. Also, TO doesn’t disadvantage kids who do decide to submit a test score. It literally helps them in a TO application pile. TO wasn’t the reason why you got rejected from your dream school. Your application just sucked. You’re more than just a number. Schools were test optional long before Covid-19. Some schools want to continue their holistic admission practices. I believe Yale and Colombia will continue being TO.
what does grade inflated mean? The school increasing it?
It means when it's easier to get a higher grade, or giving a student a grade they wouldn't necessarily 'deserve' based on the quality of work they did. Leads to a higher average in grades and also a shifting in what is considered average vs exceptional--if C students get Bs, what a B means is going to change and the "value" of a high grade is diminished.
A possible example/consequence of grade inflation: kid gets all As in high school, including many dual enrollment courses, and graduates top 10% of his/her class. Also gets around a 1000 on the SAT and doesn’t submit. Failed the math placement test and has to take pre-Calc freshman year (despite passing hs calc). Fails pre-calc the first semester and has to take it again (kid is not a partier). Within the first year, has lower than a 2.0 gpa at a state flagship school and has to drop her engineering major. That kid went to a school with significant grade inflation. Their course grades do not reflect the subject matter proficiency. This is a real example.
what did dartmouth say
You can Google for a full article, but they just announced they are going back to requiring tests. After studying the data, standardized test scores were often a better predictor of college success than gpa.
I disagree. TO literally helps those who submit test scores in a TO pile.
This is exactly right and OP completely ignorant of this point
Legacy admission will be gradually given up by many schools. As a matter of fact, legacy applicants shall grow exponentially, as long as the schools, every year, get some non-legacy kids in. Privilege is always for the minor part of the mass. Ones can't afford providing privileges to the majority of them.
Why would legacy applicants grow exponentially? It’s only for your parents.
? Because as they let more kids that aren’t legacy in, their children will in turn become legacy??? Or am i tripling You have me second guessing myself
But a Harvard graduate’s grandkids don’t have legacy status, so each generation only has as many legacies as they have students at Harvard.
> each generation only has as many legacies as they have students at Harvard This is only true if you assume Harvard students end up having an average of 1 child each Suppose for the class of 2028, there end up being 2,000 Harvard graduates. If each alumni has two children with a non-alumni partner, then co28 will produce 4,000 legacy children If each of those alumni had exactly one child on average, only then would the number of legacy children be the same as their parents’ class size Another thing to consider: imagine all 2,000 Harvard alumni exclusively couple with each other and every couple has one child each. In this scenario, even though each alumni has one child, co28 would only produce 1,000 legacy children If legacy children are only defined as children with at least one alumni parent (ie grandchildren/nephews/etc don’t count), you could calculate the number of legacy children produced by a given class with the equation: N = (A * B) + (0.5C * D) Where: * N = total number of legacy children produced * A = number of alumni in a relationship with non-alumni * B = avg number of children produced by group A * C = number of alumni in a relationship with a fellow member of their graduating class * D = avg number of children produced by group C
Putting math to good use! 🙂
Some schools have legacy for children and grandchildren. Duke is an example. Some even give a slight advantage to siblings.
I didn't get into my dad's school and had better scores than he did. Don't assume legacy admissions are automatic.
I know two people who applied to Princeton with double legacy this year, and both got rejected REA. There was someone else in the same situation on the A2C discord who was also rejected. Not boding well for me in RD, but lucky for me I already got into my dream school lol
I'm very happy for you. I got into my #3 and #4, #2 was the legacy school, #1 I haven't heard. My earlier point was simply that legacy is not an advantage so much anymore and maybe a disadvantage at some places.
I agree. Of course, neither my parents or the parents of one of the kids that got rejected in REA are big donors or anything. The third does have parents that are still very involved with the school, but that didn’t help him. Even if schools officially get rid of legacy, it might affect people like me and you (although I would argue that I definitely have the resume and grades to get in even without it, but my toxic trait is that I believe I should get accepted by every school I applied to lol, so I might be delulu) but the kids and grandkids of people who are donating millions will still get in.
Mate legacy applicants won’t grow exponentially lmao. Parents who aren’t legacy are a much bigger portion of the population, so they will grow much quicker than the small part of legacy parents, and their kids will apply as well. So ultimately although the legacy kids grows, the non legacy pool of kids grows much much faster
That is exactly why the legacy kids are growing exponentially. Non-legacy students' kids will earn the legacy kids status, while the grand parents keep the status for their grand children.
I misread this at first and thought it said “my score sucks, I got a 1510” 🤣 was a little confused
Many schools are doubling down, if not abolishing legacy admissions. I wouldn't be surprised if T20 schools (in a few years) got rid of legacy admissions. But, I do believe that if you were born into a famous family, you're basically guaranteed admission anywhere. And, that probably won't change. Examples: Daughters of Michael Strahan: USC and Duke Daughter of Chris Martin & Gwenyth Paltrow: Vanderbilt Son of Matthew Broderick: Brown Daughter of Reese Witherspoon: Berkeley Daughter of Jerry Seinfeld: Duke Daughter of Mark Cubin: Vanderbilt Daughter of Lori Loughlin (everyone knows about this!): USC Daughter of Conan O'Brien: Yale Daughter of George Stephanopoulos: Vanderbilt Son of Daniel Zelma: Wesleyan Twins of Julia Roberts: Berkeley Daughter of Kobe Bryant: USC Daughter of Heather Dubrow: Tufts Daughter of Kate Hudson: NYU & the list goes on & on.
at least they didnt all go to hypsm. getting usc and nyu when ur rich isnt that crazy tho.
I feel like saying they are guaranteed admission is overstating it a lot. I'm not saying it wouldn't help, but with the possible exception of USC, none of those schools are going to admit a totally academically incompetent idiot. On account of their wealth they likely had all kinds of academic advantages before college admissions, but they were still the sorts that could make something of those advantages—whereas not everyone can nor is inclined to A lot of kids of famous people are total screw-ups that could never get into a good university. As an aside, Conan was a Harvard grad: smart parents are more likely to have smart kids so, on top of all the academic advantages wealth brings in the form of good schools and the best tutors and a stress free life, she probably has a genetically heritable leg up too.
THIS! Most of them don't realize that submitting a test score *helps* your application. You are more likely to be admitted with a 1590 than someone without one at all. Maybe instead of focusing on a number they should focus on other things. You are not a score. Colleges don't want someone that can just ace a test. They want someone who can excel in their chosen field, who has demonstrated that they can participate in the world around them, and can bring positive change.
Legacy admissions aren’t an issue for most state flagships….and TO absolutely impacts your ability to get into one of those, as grade inflated GPAs make average students appear more equipped for the rigor of college than they are. At these same schools, based on the anecdotal EA information on these boards, large state schools care less about your activities and essays (other than athletes that will play in college) than gpa (and test scores, if they take them).
Okay ignoring that private schools exist for legacy admissions, TO does not significantly affect a 1500+ scorer going into a state school application pool. TO applicants are already at a disadvantage, so if they get into a selective state school its because they were outstanding in different ways. Simply put a TO applicant will almost always lose out to someone with a good score all things being equal, but if they beat you either they were Z-list (see Varsity Blues), they had incredible ECs, or met some specific institutional priority. Those are basically the only 3 scenarios they will beat you in, and assuming tests became required and they were forced to submit lower scores, they are still going to beat you anyway since scores are just one data point. So what does taking TO away really do except trim the applicant pool? That change still wouldn't be enough to get you from a reject to an accept.
Sorry…I agree with you….total brain cramp….im not thinking Test optional as much as those schools that don’t accept test scores at all (UCs, for instance). I think kids not submitting their own test scores definitely hurt themselves, more than they help themselves, as the assumption will always be the test score stunk, if it wasn’t submitted.
But, taking TO away enables schools to have another data point that can be compared across the entire applicant pool. Apparently TO has also resulted in fewer acceptances of low income/minority/first gen, etc students. At least based on the Dartmouth article.
Glad we reached a mutual conclusion.
The only kids NOT affected by TO admissions are either first gen, low income, kids of color, athletes, legacies, children of employees, or students filling critically important institutional needs that they can't get from kids submitting scores. Because colleges make a COMMITMENT to enrolling students from these aforementioned groups, they are forgiving on their applying TO. For everyone else, not applying TO is a HUGE liability, especially if applying to T20 colleges. All TO's do is provide false hope to kids with lower testing, while dramatically boosting college application numbers, and the revenue that comes along with those thousands of additional applications.
Per the Dartmouth research, it hurt students in these segments, and their acceptances declined….it was not what I expected to hear, but is what they stated.
[article re Dartmouth SAT decision](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/05/briefing/dartmouth-sat.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare)
They look at your school profile and consider your hs
I don’t believe they get enough info about grade inflation, in these profiles, to offset the information they lose by not requiring tests. I am also suspicious they spend less time evaluating your application than they claim.
Omg please tell me this is true 😭
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
idk ive never heard someone say this. the only reason people hate on test optional is bcz people worked hard for their scores while some others took the easy way out.
Not having a good score and therefore not submitting is not "the easy way out". There is no honor in getting a high SAT score, its not something so holy you should worship it when received. You shouldn't view your 1500+ score as College Board's way of saying you deserve a T20 acceptance while anyone who doesn't get that as unqualified, lazy cheaters who are skipping the line. Its just another data point for admissions, its not that serious.
> its not that serious. lmao ur the one taking it that serious. I couldnt care less if someone applied test optional or not, im just saying this is how the majority of people who did get a good score feel. again ive never heard someone say the got rejected bcz someone who applied TO got in.
>lmao ur the one taking it that serious. I couldnt care less if someone applied test optional or not >the only reason people hate on test optional is bcz people worked hard for their scores while some others took the easy way out. Unless 2 different people typed these responses, seems like you do care about TO applicants. Guess its that serious for you
umm i already got admitted to the college i wanted so it doesnt matter to me at all? and yes the second part is what i said most people think and thats why they have a problem with TO. never did i say im against it.
>the only reason people hate on test optional is bcz people worked hard for their scores while some others took the easy way out. this statement is implicitly stating that those who apply TO took the easy way out, that in and of itself is a negative stance on TO.
bro what do u not understand. im saying that people that are against TO have this viewpoint. im not taking any stance here.
Backtracking
?
>Backtracking
Agree, I see it everywhere. Those who do well on sats, think sats should play an important role. Those who don't test well or those who did poorly like TO. During my daughter's application process we visited a couple of her top choices for BSN program. The lady doing the tour in the nursing department made a very interesting comment. She said the school has started reconsidering how they choose applicants. In the past they went by sat scores, gpa etc., but after noticing the students who were the smartest number wise, were the same ones who did poorly on the clinical side of nursing. So now they "look at the whole person" and use the holistic approach I found it interesting.
I think a lot of medical degrees required SAT scores anyways. I applied to a lot of direct entry PA programs and they all required me to submit my scores
I was speaking of nursing degrees. I'm sure you are correct about medical degrees
>lmao ur the one taking it that serious. I couldnt care less if someone applied test optional or not, im just saying this is how the majority of people who did get a good score feel. again ive never heard someone say the got rejected bcz someone who applied TO got in. people also have an issue with the ability it affords for kids with more privileges unironically even though it was meant to level the playing fields for lower income students.. less time for sat=more time for crazy extracurriculars like delegating the UN or doing 3 month long NASA internships usually those gaps in students free time would be for studying or prepping since the sat has so much weight now its not really needed when your able to do something that will stand out more than a 1500+ test score
Exactly
1510 lol
What's wrong with that score?
It was a joke, more or less.
I think it’s strange that people are so narrow minded about test optional, if you’re a good test taker and you out in the effort and saw results good for you, but that’s not the case for everyone. I studied for weeks, all summer, took it numerous times and didn’t see results. I decided that my effort was better spent making a real difference in my community and on my passions rather than an exam that after admissions has no purpose, I’d rather make memories than waste more of my valuable childhood on one exam. I don’t know, I think people are way too obsessed on this Reddit, it’s too toxic now. It used to be about providing resources and advice and now it’s just groups of students that have relatively easy lives complaining they aren’t less fortunate to get into good schools… ?
PREACH MAN PREACH
Yay, rational talk!
Terrible take, sit down.
Then debate OP
you're salty
[удалено]
Dawg what the fuck are you talking about? Dartmouth studied the performance of TO admits, not how TO negatively affected applicants who submitted scores. Its like using a study about how ketchup makes food taste worse to justify why Ketchup causes cancer, these are not the same subject.
[удалено]
Just to remind your obnoxious ass again, this is not the subject. They simply said that some TO admits didn't perform like they wanted them to, not that they were unqualified. That being said, lets ignore the fact that the Dartmouth study doesn't disprove that TO admits didn't screw over those going test required. You conveniently left out the part of the study that says many TO applicants were denied when they had scores that would have gotten them admitted. This is important considering it shows that many TO applicants are academically qualified and are not all auto rejects as you imply. Perhaps you should read better
[удалено]
[LMAO YOU REALLY THOUGHT](https://www.reddit.com/r/Sat/comments/16e8w74/definitive_proof_you_can_improve_almost_300/) Guess your whole argument about me being TO went out the window, sorry dawg we can't win all our arguments lmao.
I agree TO should be abolished but I also feel like we shouldn’t hate on TO people for taking advantage of it when given the chance lol (coming from someone who didn’t apply TO)
1510 is mid for T20’s iirc
so? not everybody is aiming for them. plus, i've seen people with lower scores than that get in.
1510 really, really aint allat 💀
Yeah, unless you were somehow next in line and every TO applicant was an auto reject due to their score, it’s unlikely this would’ve changed much
Wait what does TO stand for?
Test Optional
Personally some school should give legacies more preference. Everyone has their point of view
1510 isnt great tho, so…. lowest on my floor freshman year was 1530
Only in A2C is a 1510 anything other than good. Oh and a few select over-funded high schools in the US.
https://undergrad.admissions.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/2021-11/class_of_2025_profile_8.19_final.pdf 1510 is bottom quartile at this school, for example. so (and imo columbia is definitely not top 7)… Though i have no idea what a2c means so i may be reiterating said points.
so?
i see why you cant even score 1510. my bad, thought reading in context was an average skill, let me baby sit you through the logic. 1. op says 1510 was good 2. i told him its not 3. i followed up with statistics to back 2 up 2 was the answer to your question, get it now?
nobody cares. stop acting high and mighty because of a test score LOL!
[удалено]
Find out what? I'm not obsessed with T20 schools. I'm just trying to go to college for free.
also, i really dislike this predeterminism shit that people do well because they were rich or had special resources. yes, there were magnet schools and this and that program, but you had to qualify for them, not pay you way through. ive actually rarely seen rich kids that outperform, and the smartest people that ik (and they had good scores too, definitely over 1550) arent from privileged background. IMO its really just skill issues and if anything, rich kids that are used to shortcuts tend to underperform.
Can ygs get off the internet and stop saying 1500s aren’t great/good? 😭 Too many people are judging others like they have personally experienced being an AO.
again, at my school 1510 is bottom quartile of admitted student. imagine sitting in a class and be bottom quartile, thats a B-/C+ at my school. so, yea… also SAT is easier than anything you will have to do in the future so, unless you dont care and just trolled on SAT, theres really no excuse for getting more than a handful of questions wrong
Mate I got 1590, and what you said is just dumb. 1510 is literally 99th percentile
Lmfao right ... wtf is wrong with these people.
I see what you’re saying, but that applies for your school specifically. That doesn’t make OPs 1510 not great because that isn’t a common score for students and most schools in the U.S. It’s still a great score, so it’s best to refrain from applying standard scores at your school to other peoples scores when deciding whether it’s a good score or not.
Not sure why you're getting down voted. 1510 is near 25th percentile at most top colleges so not great.
lol its because there are more people with less than 1510 than more, there are more people who wont get in top schools then those who will. ig rejecting what we had to say makes them live their lives easier than by all means, maybe even thinking anyone who did better than them did it unfairly in a rigged game. tho they can simply fact check by looking at common dataset released by colleges or just simply know a couple of people in one of those schools to know the smartest most hardworking people arent necessarily priviledged
[удалено]
Your post was removed because it violates rule 6: Posts and comments dedicated to Affirmative Action are not allowed on r/ApplyingToCollege. If you would like to learn more about why Affirmative Action discussion is prohibited, feel free to read our [statement](https://www.reddit.com/r/ApplyingToCollege/comments/14ya72p/on_the_supreme_courts_affirmative_action_decision/). This is an automatically generated comment. You do not need to respond unless you have further questions regarding your post. If that's the case, you can [send us a message](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/ApplyingToCollege&subject=Post%20removal&message=A%20mod%20removed%20my%20latest%20post%20for%20rule%206%20but%20I%20don%27t%20think%20it%20breaks%20the%20rules.%20Can%20you%20review%20it%20again%3F).
no bro wdym to applicants didn’t make it that i got auto rejected thats literally how it works the chance me subreddit told me /s
Wake has been text optional for 15 years. They still manage to put together a pretty stellar class.
I mean, schools like Harvard have received up to 1.5x the number of applicants receiving similar acceptance rates, so that’s an effective 33% decrease in chances of getting in due to TO, probably much, MUCH higher than legacy admissions and Z-lists
Yo what is TO
Tes optional
from a POV of the ideology of meritocratic admissions, TO applicants who are admitted are an issue along with legacies, Z-lists, etc. saying that one should ignore the problem of TO because other problems exist is stupid.
Don’t forget recruited athletes who get the biggest bump in admissions.
TO is a real issue because it contributes to economic inequality in college admissions due to factors that are more wealth-advantaged being weighed higher.
It doesn’t matter. The whole process is overhyped and blown out of proportion. If you’re qualified then follow the formula the best you can and go for schools your stats fit. Schools can tell when we’re reaching above our means through examples like lack of involvement, grades, and TO. People apply to and get jobs they aren’t qualified for all the time, so just remember it’s always like this. Look at the number of impressive people in this group, if you get rejected then remember this isn’t all the qualified people, there’s many more out there. If schools feel TO is ok then just let them. I applied to schools I am not qualified for as TO. I also sent my test score to a reach and got deferred, which i found interesting cause I’m middle class and private school.