<p>@lookingforward Surely that quality shouldn’t override everything else. It seems like the system is set up in a convoluted manner… to only differentiate between people who can find and seek help from people in the know? That seems sketchy to me. It certainly doesn’t check for the other (arguably more important) qualities they look for.</p>
<p>I think at the end of the day it’s just safer to accept that there are flaws in the system.</p>
<p>And honestly a single essay is not the best gauge of whether people seek out help. There’s a lot of probability involved in whether they’ll find the right help, whether they’ll know they’ve found the right help, etc. </p>
<p>It’s like ignoring the top half of applications at a job because you’re not looking for unlucky people.</p>
<p>The results this year made it pretty obvious that these colleges adcoms’ subjective judgments are far from perfect when faced with tens of thousands of applicants. After all, the one Harvard admit I know was stripped of his valedictorian title for cheating (the allegations for which he didn’t even dispute) and Harvard claims to uphold academic integrity. A super-qualified applicant was rejected from Rice but taken in by Stanford when Rice has a pretty high admittance rate at my school (at least 10 people a year); there were also other odd rejection-acceptance combos (rejected from Berkeley, accepted to Yale; rejected from CMU, accepted to Cornell; rejected from UT, accepted to Harvard) and the odd case of a super-underqualified applicant (1500/2400 SAT, C-student) getting into Cockrell petroleum engineering.</p>
<p>You could claim that there’s some other magic attribute that these colleges saw (of course, it remained completely invisible to their peers and close friends over the course of many years, sometimes whole decades)… but that’s just backing up your claim with another (unfalsifiable) one, building a tower of cards bound to collapse.</p>
<p>I’m not assuming that these people don’t know what they’re doing. I just believe it’s more probable than the alternative, that they are superhuman beings capable of making perfect decisions when faced with an overwhelming horde of applicants, most of whom would probably do very well at their school. </p>
<p>At the end of the day, I trust objective results more than subjective assessments. Take it for what you will.</p>
<p>@alumn88 Requiring SAT scores in the application process would not change Bowdoin’s ability to sift through deserving applicants with low test scores. As I stated in previous posts, colleges are in control of how much or little weight it gives SAT scores versus other factors. </p>
<p>SATs have been around since the 1930’s so Bowdoin going test optional in 1969 doesn’t change anything regarding ranking and selectivity. Without US News Reports Rankings, kids and parents still looked to average SAT scores of colleges to determine where to send their children to college. Higher the school’s average SAT the better the school. This standard still stands today. Does anyone really think a college that has CR+M average of 900 is really better than a college with an average of 1400 even if both colleges have average high school GPAs that are identical. </p>
<p>Name one dual BS/MD program that does not require high SAT scores to gain admission. There is none. </p>
<p>Go online and check scholarship requirements and you will see the higher the SAT score the more $$$ an applicant is eligible to win. Want to get into Honors program again SAT score minimum for eligibility. </p>
<p>Want to go to Law, Graduate or Medical School find one that doesn’t require the LSAT, GRE or MCAT. The best predictor is high GPA and high test score which is why even school like Bowdoin doesn’t go NO Test required if it believes SAT scores are meaningless.</p>
<p>Having been “stated” on CC does not make it necessarily … true or accurate. Nor should one believe much of what appears in Morse Code. </p>
<p>Fwiw, there is more to the practice of being test optional than an increased in reported test scores. When a school can maintain its ranking, more applications follow, and the resulting artifical boost in fee income and perceived selectivity. Being test optional might have little impact on the end game, namely who ends attending the school, but it surely has an impact on attracting the “nothing to lose applications” and THAT is music to the ears of most enrollment managers. </p>
<p>In the end, there are many ways to boost applications. Free and pre-filled applications, perceived selectivity, marketing that borders harrassment, notoriety of alumni in political circles, financial aid … all work. Test optional is just one of the gimmicks in the arsenal, and the beauty is that it does NOT come at a price! </p>
<p>DoZ, I said “one of the qualities.” Between the CA and the supps, there is more than one chance to show your self and perspective in written responses. (And your EC involvement is another set of choices you made, that can reveal much.) In real life, there are many experiences where you get one chance to give it your best shot- eg, when you apply for funding, a project approval, or summarize for an award. </p>
<p>There are lots of factors that go into admit decisions. That’s really the point of all these threads that end up arguing about stats: reality is that holistic looks at many sides of the applicant and weighs them against the college’s many community and institutional needs. Some posters will say it bluntly: if you want rack 'em and stack 'em, choose different colleges.</p>
<p>And Hampshire is going to be looking for a different combo of independent/self-driven, quirky and adventurous, while Stanford, Bates and others will want what they want. You’re worried how the colleges get a good read on kids from an app and supp. Likewise, the kid should be getting a good read on those colleges and what they like- which, the tired phrase goes, is more than stats. And more layered than you find in CC chat. And usually right there in print. MIT is one of the best examples. Gibby has provided Harvard words on this thread or another recent one. Helps to dig, not cycle all this back to but scores this and scores that.</p>
<p>@lookingforward I think you’re misunderstanding me. I’m fine with the system having all these subjective factors (although I find your justifications ridiculous- the results of those other situations in which one factor decides everything cannot be predicted very well by using another similar situation; the fact that they depend on so little to actually differentiate applicants actually means that they’re tough to predict using any situation and even toughter to predict using a highly similar one).</p>
<p>I just don’t think those factors should be freed from all objectivity. As other posters have pointed out, these data are still useful and very predictive compared to mere subjective assessments. EC involvements might be useful, but realistically they’re tough to differentiate between as well.</p>
<p>Holistic is awesome. Holistic allows for interpreting data. However, holistic sans data would just be terrible.</p>
<p>As for the Hampshire/Stanford part, there were weird results that contradicted those claims this year as well. I’m not saying they should just look at stats. I’m saying it’s silly to ignore stats because stats are useful, generally have some scientific nature to their design, and less arbitrary than subjective assessments.</p>
<p>@voiceofreason-- You are right that Bowdoin, or any other school, could certainly “sift through applicants.” However, the point of Bowdoin going SAT optional was to avoid discouraging students who are otherwise exceptional from applying simply because of lower test scores. When I was there over 25 years ago I can think of several of my classmates who were HS valedictorians from low income areas who did not submit their scores, but did very well in college and went on to top grad schools and/or have had very successful careers. I was NMS, and honestly, it is impossible to distinguish between those who were test score submitters, and those who were not (and the ratio, as I recall, is typicaly weighed about 9/1). If Bowdoin chose to, it is selctive enough that it could easily fill each class with only students with 2300+ SAT’s. But that is not its agenda. It’s goal is to have an academically talented, but interesting and diverse student body comprised of people with different backgrounds, talents, perspectives etc. Kudos to Bowdoin for being on the cutting edge of this policy 40+ years ago because it is a wise policy, and not because it improves its USNWR ranking.</p>
<p>@alum88 We agree on much but where we differ is being test optional versus no test/test with disclaimer that test are not given very much weight. If Bowdoin goes no test or test but no/little weight the students you mention would still apply. The status as a Test Optional in my opinion reeks of manipulation of ranking versus what you see as an opportunity for top students who did not score well.</p>
<p>A good number on this thread have accumulated experience in all this. That’s not a putdown, it’s a small explanation why some here have the perspectives they do. We’re not just looking at one microcosm, one hs, what we know about friends or a few articles. I don’t mean that to be harsh. </p>
<p>Yes, there is very little- between the CA and supps, maybe 13-16 pages per kid. All the more reason to manage the hs years and approach the app/supp with the seriousness they require. and to know the colleges you target, what they offer and what they want, in return. Does anyone really want to so change the course of this thread, to go into ECs and what comes through in other aspects of an app??? Stats and rigor get you to the threshold, it’s up to the package you present to get you a step further. Ultimately, after a series of reviews, the U chooses the kids they feel will fit and thrive, add to the community, make a difference in the class and meet the U’s needs. No one owns an admit, til it comes to you.</p>
<p>@voiceofreason: Standardized testing has significant weight at Bowdoin for those who choose to submit. This is based on the fact that the average SAT/ACT scores of matriculating students is so high. Again, Bowdoin went test optional decades ago and it had nothing to do with gaming the rankings. I do think it’s true that may schools have recently followed suit because they see it as a way to increase applicants and game the test score averages in the hopes of improving rankings. Because Bowdoin has been test optional for so long, and the track record of its graduates is so strong, it has not impacted its selectivity or perceived prestige. We’ll see if that holds true for the schools who have only recently jumped on the bandwagon.</p>
<p>How about Tufts’ Early Assurance/Maine Track program? Students from Maine or a Maine college admitted in their sophomore year, no MCAS required. Considering the fact that two of the most prominent test-optional schools are in Maine I think this is significant.</p>
<p>@lookingforward Yes, I do know a bit about BS/MD program vetting. Almost all BS/MD programs have a minimum SAT score and GPA required to submit an application. There are a few who claim to allow anyone who wants to apply but as you can guess the successful applicant has crazy high SAT and GPA. The successful applicant to a typical BS/MD program has a 3.9 GPA and 1480 SAT (CR+M). For the more selective ones like Brown University’s PLME the average SAT is even higher at 1540.</p>
<p>If you meet the GPA and SAT threshold then your EC’s are evaluated and the more medical experience you have the better as well as recommendation letters which at least one should be from a medical professional. Those that pass this test are then brought in for interviews before final selections are made.</p>
<p>So if any high school student wants to get into a BS/MD program they better score high on the SAT or ACT.</p>
<p>Brown PLME: Applicants are not judged solely on the basis of test scores. Students are selected on the basis of scholastic accomplishment and promise, intellectual curiosity, emotional maturity, character, motivation, sensitivity, caring, and particularly on the degree to which they seem adapted to the special features of the program. For the PLME, Brown seeks highly qualified and strongly motivated students who are committed to a career in medicine and who wish to pursue an area of academic interest to an advanced level of scholarship within the framework of a broad liberal education. Since Many PLME candidates indicate they are willing to consider the 4 year degree, if they aren’t accepted for 8, they start vetted like all others. </p>
<p>Regarding a previous post:
" This reminds me of the whole “weeding out” process that occurs with organic chem for pre-med students. If some students find it too hard, too long, blah blah, that’s no problem. Thank you for leaving the doors open for better students to get ahead :)"</p>
<p>A freshman chemistry professor told me about students asking to get a C not an F in second semester chemistry. The reason was “to get into organic”. So, you can’t pass second semester freshman chemistry, which requires minimal memorization and minimal algebra knowledge, and you want a professor to send you on to ORGANIC?</p>
<p>Of course, they were only asking after they got their final grades, because magical thinking had served them previously.</p>
<p>(And the school has a BS/MD program with no minimum SAT scores nor minimum MCAT scores. Granted, the medical school is in Grenada. You can get in with a great GPA and horrible or non-existent SAT and MCAT scores.)</p>
<p>What rings interesting is that the polar opposites probably don’t work. Just using test scores or not using test scores at all doesn’t seem to provide the best situation for evaluating students at the undergraduate level. Even though there is much lament about the Holistic process and by no means is it unflawed. Have the schools evolved to a place where the process in place may be the best available when one considers what else is available and the host of variables that are in play. </p>
<p>@lookingforward I’m not sure where we disagree. The threshold model works pretty well and we both seem to favor the mix of subjective and objective factors in the holistic process.</p>
<p>@lookingforward All schools that claim a holistic admission policy which includes Brown state that. But proof is in the pudding. Look at who gets in. High test scores and high GPA. All the Ivy’s say the same in their website’s but again look who gets in. If you have a low SAT and/or GPA (I use the term loosely with these schools. 3.6 GPA and 1300 SAT is low in their eyes) you have to have a hook to get into these schools. Want to get into Yale, Harvard, MIT, Cal Tech, Pomona, etc. see what happens if you submit a 1260 SAT. The fact of the matter is these schools really are disingenuous when they put such nonsense on their websites. Such language gives too many students false hope of acceptance. In fact every college and university that has an acceptance rate lower than 25% should be ashamed. Millions of hours of application time are wasted on a lost cause, not to mention the $$ millions in application fees that are spent on trying to get into schools that students have no chance of getting into. </p>
<p>V, we’ve had these “I’ve got it all figured out” threads for years, plenty of “Oh, they’re so disingenuous.” I just thought you might have some closer experience. </p>
<p>I disagree, voiceofreason. These schools also make it explicitly clear the testing profile of their admitted students/ If you thought you had a good chance with a 1260 when the average student at these schools gets around a 700+ on each section, that would be your fault. </p>
<p>The reason these schools state that is because they aren’t looking for a class of perfect individuals who had perfect GPAs and perfect test scores. And as a result, having perfect scores isn’t enough to be admitted. Not having perfect scores isn’t a reason to be rejected either. For instance- the Pomona 2017 profile (<a href=“http://www.pomona.edu/admissions/files/2017-class-profile.pdf”>http://www.pomona.edu/admissions/files/2017-class-profile.pdf</a>) indicates that around 1% of the class does score in the 500s or so for the SAT sections.</p>
<p>These schools have low acceptance rates because they are highly desirable. And the holistic approach is truly a thing- one can’t predict if they’ll get in without applying to the school. I know students who scored 1500s on their SATs and got admitted, and vice versa- perfect scores, and denied. There is no way to know if you’ll get in unless you apply, though doing well in some factors like test scores ensures that you have a better chance. If the student genuinely likes the school, they should apply there. </p>