They put SAT scores lower than essays and recs, and on equal importance level as the interview and location! When I saw this obscene crap I called the college to ask them if they were serious. The operator says this ultra-liberal BS: well, not everybody tests well. What?! Do you know that you can have your essay written for you, and do you know how freaking subjective recs are? I’m not even mentioning bribing the teacher to get a stellar recommendation. This is rediculous, it’s like saying that not everybody is smart, psshh what a joke, I’m stupefied.
<p>Brown must be the lone wolf amongst the other Ivy League schools, which all place great weight on standardized test scores. This trivializing of standardized tests is more common among LACs. However, with the increased grade inflation and "proofreading" of essays by parents, the SAT/ACT scores have become the only true objective measure of whether a student is able to handle the academic rigors of a college.</p>
<p>lol Elbereth, i guess you quoted proofreading because you imply that sometimes the essays are written by parents. If my parents wrote my essay that would be amuzing, because we are from Russia. And even among Americans, I'm pretty sure that a high school student that takes honors or AP English 9 out of ten times can write better than his/her parents, unless they were english, writing, etc. majors.</p>
<p>Brown is known for its "quirky" admissions. But I think you'll find that Brown places a large emphasis on standardized test scores, even if the emphasis is slightly less than that of similar-caliber schools.</p>
<p>HA! only 1/3 of the valedictorians get in. This is my logic: unless you are HYPSMC, then you should automatically accept people with 1500's+ (top 1 percentile), and/or top 1 percent of the student's graduating class. This would reduce many headaches in my opinion</p>
<p>While it would reduce headaches, it would greatly increase class sizes to the point where overall quality of education would surely decrease. Plus it would be SO difficult to get into selective schools with a 1490. Look at he TX 10% law - if you are in the 11% of your class, it's HARD to get into UT, so matter what else you have going for you.</p>
<p>I actually think that Brown is doing the right thing. SAT scores are pretty much useless. There are thousands or prep classes and private tutors that can teach you the test. Grades and EC's show what a person is made of and how they will fare in college. I think it is a wonderful policy they instituted. Columbia also accepted kids with lower SAT scores, but better grades and EC's. That's a great thing.</p>
<p>Most of us certainly don't believe that the SAT/ACT should be the sole factor for admitting an applicant. But it's a pretty crucial piece of the puzzle--school's academic ratings are intially assigned based upon an applicant's SAT I scores alone and then adjusted up or down according to performance in the classroom. And you can't really "buy" a good score with expensive prep courses and tutors--getting a 1500+ score requires a lot of hard work on the student's part.</p>
<p>As much as you cant "buy" a score, you can certainly do a lot to boost it. I would disagree that the SAT is a truly "major" factor. Everybody thinks that they need a 1500+ and do something incredible to get into these top schools. That is completely a myth. If your scores are in the ballpark, they have no reason to look at them. Personally, a student who does very well in school and has a high GPA is far more suited than someone who scored high on the SAT. I believe that rankings are based on the average GPA of a school. When the GPA of a school is 3.8+ with students taking 4-8 AP classes on average, that school has high quality students. </p>
<p>EC's and community service show that students are well-rounded people and have developed geniune interests that will serve them later in life and in college. Getting into college is not just a numbers game. There are many other factors, including EC's, essays, recs and summer programs. By showing intellectual curiousity, a student has proven themselves worthy of a top notch education.</p>
<p>wow. if you think that comment was "ultra-liberal BS" then i would not recommend brown to you. and test scores do provide some standard for comparison, but a 1600/36 person can often be one of the dullest ppl you will ever meet. please keep in mind test scores arent everything!!!!!</p>
<p>Test scores aren't everything - is exactly correct - look at the very good schools that don't even require SAT/ACT now-a-days - wonder what they base their incoming class on --- uuummmmmm may be diversity, grades, uniqueness of the individual, recs, ec's, writing skills - SAT/ACT scores do not the well rounded student make.</p>
<p>Well I say "Kudos to them!!!"
That's what sets Brown apart from the other ivies. It appeals to non-traditional
scholars - it ain't just a numbers game with Brown.</p>
<p>The UC's also threatened to stop using the old SAT1... thats why there's a new SAT that's revamped to Collegeboard wouldn't lose its biggest customer, the University of California system.</p>
<p>i will never ever in my long legged life give another cent to collegeboard or ACT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!</p>
<p>The score breakdown doesn't say that much, because high test scorers are usually better students anyways. Correlation doesn't prove causation. For that reason, no one can be sure if SATs mean anything.</p>
<p>Although SATs doesn't prove anything, It would be absured to say that Std. testing in general is worthless. Is someone who self studied three 5's on APs not better than someone who took the class and got three 2's?</p>
<p>SAT scores barely even predict the one wretched little miserable thing they are SUPPOSED to predict: how well a student will do freshman year.</p>
<p>People put way, way too much emphasis on these scores - I remember a father on the old CC board who was constantly whining that he wanted his child recognized as "Perfect" because he got a 1600. Statistically speaking (and even the adcoms know this), the scores are supposed to be viewed as a RANGE, so who cares about 100 points either way? (Not to mention that you can get answers wrong and STILL get a 1600, especially since the recentering in 1995).</p>
<p>I wish I could AT LEAST say that even if there were little difference between a 1500 and a 1600, there surely is a big difference between a (say) 1000 and 1600.... except my wife, who HATES tests, got a 1000, then did brilliantly in college and went on to graduate school at Harvard, and now makes more money than all my old 1500-1600 braggin' buddies from high school!</p>
<p>And I managed to have the highest GPA ever recorded in my department in an Ivy, despite having so-so board scores.</p>
<p>It doesn't look like a top LAC like Bowdoin is doing such a bad job (they do BETTER in percentage of people that go on to PhD's than some Ivies, according to mini's research) - and they don't even REQUIRE SATs. </p>
<p>I agree with morningtheft - after 15 years experience interviewing for my Ivy, I strongly agree that the people who get most hysterical about SATs are the people who have little else going for them.</p>
<p>BTW some people just aren't good at multiple-choice bubbling in during the morning hours! I tutored a student who routinely average 1560 during timed practices on real SATs - but ONLY in the late afternoon! Make him start at 8:00, and he never broke 1200!</p>