<p>News</a> Office</p>
<p>That's cool! Now the only question I have is, how awesome do your SAT scores have to be to make it useful to submit them...</p>
<p>hey, will i have a chance to get admitted if my sat 1 score is 1830?</p>
<p>Since Smith is now SAT optional, I would submit your score if it's over the Smith current average, and not submit if it's below. Why take a chance, especially if your grades are high?</p>
<p>Smith has essentially been SAT optional since 2002, when the study undertaken at the request of previous President Simmons was completed. I suspect they waited to make it official for fear of being overrun with applicants for whom Smith wasn't a strong priority (as happened at many other schools). With the demographics of the next decade, it makes more sense now.</p>
<p>I would not be at all surprised if the admissions office continues to factor in SAT scores as part of their STRIDE, etc. considerations.</p>
<p>I think Mariposa's post hit the nail on the head. </p>
<p>Often, when a school goes SAT optional, the published SAT scores (review books, CDS, etc.) go up b/c only those w/ strong scores submit them. This was the case w/ Bowdoin and MHC.</p>
<p>Mini, I suspect you're correct re: SATs being part of STRIDE/Zoll/Dunn consideration - - but I don't understand why. If SATs are predictive for only the first year and correlate primarily w/ income, why use them for anything except straight merit (aren't STRIDES somewhat need based?) - - just for those ineligible for need-based aid?</p>
<p>STRIDES aren't need-based, though merit aid (of any sort) can be used to reduce need-based awards (usually the loan portion - that's what happened to my d. (a Zollman/STRIDE). They use merit aid (as do ALL schools) to attract applicants away from other institutions (it doesn't have anything to do with first-year performance).</p>
<p>SATs really are optional- I got into Smith this year despite forgetting to send them 
oops…</p>
<p>I did NOT, however, get the STRIDE or Zollman despite top stats and decent ecs. Although this could be attributed to the fact that the scholarships are incredibly selective and not everyone with top grades/ecs can get them.</p>
<p>I personally don’t consider this a “good” thing.</p>
<p>To me, it is a lowering of standards.</p>
<p>They probably want to admit kids who have the ability to pay full freight, but those kids don’t have high enough SAT scores.</p>
<p>And/or perhaps they want to admit more minorities to achieve diversity, but those kids sometimes don’t score high enough on the SAT either.</p>
<p>It is one thing to place less emphasis on the SAT. It is quite another to say that you don’t even have to take it.</p>
<p>Notwithstanding the recent anti-SAT trend, it is my experience that someone with a 2300 SAT is indeed a lot smarter than someone with a 1900 SAT.</p>
<p>just a note, there are lots of students with “top” stats and decent ecs who don’t get STRIDE/Zollman. Those are the tippy top of the applicant pool, students who could go to an Ivy or top LAC with some luck. </p>
<p>I’m a bit nervous about this. A 4.0 doesn’t really tell me anything about an applicant. A 4.0 with a 1600(3 sections ) SAT score or a 3.8 with a 35 ACT score tells me a hell of a lot more about the applicant. </p>
<p>I’m from a super poor family, so I understand SAT score correlates with income. I am understanding of this plight. However, rarely does someone who is actually gifted tank the test.</p>
<p>SAT/ACT Optional. Bad idea! Impacts academic image of a school. </p>
<p>Just my .02</p>
<p>David</p>
<p>Smith has been Board optional for years. When visiting schools with an older daughter two years ago, admissions officers (not necessarily at Smith) would concede in private (or at one school, state baldly in the information session) that students should only submit boards if they were in the median or higher. Well, duh. For better or worse, when looking at a school with optional boards, assume that the real median is lower. All women’s colleges have lower scores, simply because half the usual applicant pool is ineligible. There are a number of excellent reasons to attend a women’s college, all of which one might mention in an admissions essay. There is 1 that is rarely mentioned: the opportunity to attend a school which is academically superior to the co-ed schools where the student might be accepted. </p>
<p>While we are bursting bubbles for those using US News to make a decision, note the schools where 50% or more of applicants come from schools that do not provide a class rank. The better the school, the more this will be true. Some high schools are better than others. Some private high schools are highly “selective”, which can mean that all but the lowest 10% of the class will have high boards, and be capable of succeeding at any college in the country (top NYC private schools, St. Grottlesex boarding schools). These schools make very complete transcripts available to college (i.e. the college could compute an approximate class rank), but they do not rank. It isn’t moral reservations that stops these schools from ranking, it is a tacit understanding with colleges that accepting ranked students might make the college look “worse” when they post statistics. </p>
<p>I’d like to think that colleges who don’t require boards are making a statement about boards, but that isn’t what I think. A real statement would be to require the boards, talk about their curricula, faculty, and graduates, and stick to their principles on board scores.</p>
<p>Well, my internist is board certified and his nurse is board certified, my dentist passed his boards, the engineers that drew up the bridge I use to cross over the intracoastal are board certified, and if I choose to practice my field as opposed to doing academics, I’m board certified. I sort of like these national exams that demonstrate a certain level of achievement and competence. ^^^ These professional exams are not “optional” and, I like that.</p>
<p>I believe applicants to college should submit SAT/ACT scores as one piece of the undergraduate admission equation. </p>
<p>.02</p>
<p>David</p>
<p>To “David”. Does your d go to Smith? How does it make you feel that Smith doesn’t require the scores. Is it a lesser college to you because of this?</p>
<p>Let’s remember how Smith got there. Ruth Simmons felt the result of using SAT scores was driving excellent low-income and minority candidates away from Smith, but she couldn’t prove. She created a committee of the admissions office, institutional research, faculty, and students to study two questions: 1) were the SAT scores of students attending a good predictor of college performance at Smith, and 2) did the use of SAT scores work against admission of low-income, minority applicants. They studied the question for two-and-a-half years, and found: 1) SAT scores of attending students were not a good predictor of college performance at Smith; and 2) the scores did work against admission of low-income, minority applicants. Simmons didn’t stay around to see the implementation of SAT-optional polices which, coupled with new recruitment efforts, resulted in the early 2000s of Smith having the largest percentage of Pell grant recipients of any prestige private liberal arts college in the country. It required a very large financial commitment on the part of the college. So the SAT-optional policy has to be seen in this larger context.</p>
<p>“All women’s colleges have lower scores, simply because half the usual applicant pool is ineligible.”</p>
<p>And half of the remaining won;t apply to a women’s college. And half of those are looking for a liberal arts college, and will choose a coed one over a women’s one if they can. So the pool is really about 1/8th the size.</p>
<p>njcdmom-- My daughter goes to Smith. It is a fabulous LAC. I wish they required SAT/ACT scores as one piece of the admissions equation. My point is that testing on a national scale is a reality of life – why pass on SAT’s.</p>
<p>.02 David</p>
@blarghblargh Do you mind if I ask you about your GPA. I want to go to smith but my SAT scores are bad.