<p>A question for Dan:</p>
<p>Hi Dan,</p>
<p>Any chance Tufts will move away from including standardized testing in the admissions process?</p>
<p>Thanks!</p>
<p>^ I read a article where the report asked Dean Coffin the same question and he said, "No, Tufts will always include SAT in the admissions process"</p>
<p>The SAT is a valuable tool; it measures a fair amount of ability, dedication to preparation for something important, and general preparedness for problem solving/critical thinking at a college level.</p>
<p>It shouldn't be the ONLY factor in admissions, but it's certainly a valuable one that definitely adds some depth to a student's academic record.</p>
<p>^ <em>cough</em> says the guy with the 2340...</p>
<p>It's the only valid measure that can be used to compare applicants fairly against one another, as it is standardized. Despite the different curves, it's the ONLY thing that every single applicant takes (or the ACT).</p>
<p>its also pretty biased towards the wealthy and those who can afford extensive tutoring for it....myself included.</p>
<p>"Fairly" is pretty subjective here, Neethus- maybe the SAT was a solidly valid test for reasoning skill years ago, but at this point, I see too many kids spending $800 or more on test preparation courses to believe the results are all that legitimate now.</p>
<p>I have friends whose parents have paid the insane prices. The instructor READS A PREP BOOK TO YOU, and grades your practice tests. That is all. Sorry, no secret patterns in the bubbles that tell you the correct answer.</p>
<p>Unless you have no work ethic and need a teacher to tell you exactly what to do (why are you applying to Tufts?), the inexpensive Blue Book is just as good. Friends who self-studied and took a test before the prep course saw no improvement when retaking afterward. Those who did not study before the original test improved their scores to varying degrees after taking the course.</p>
<p>Edit: The biggest improvement was something like 1650 to 1800. I don't know anyone who scored over 2000 the first time and made a significant gain after taking a course.</p>
<p>Prep courses are so worth it, but they only give you perspective. I took one and my writing section went up from the initial 400 to 700 on practice exams and 700 on the rea test. Math went down, but then I re-took the exam for my 800 and English sucks as usual (no prep course will EVER change that). All I know is when I first took my prep course, I got a 1560 on my first practice exam, and then took the real exam for a significant improvement of over 400 points.</p>
<p>Dan: Your posts seem really honest, so I want to ask a question I've been dying to know the answer to.
When most admissions officers see a low gpa, do they read the ENTIRE application, or just chuck it? I read a few places that they chuck it, but others have told me they always read it. Also, when you get a student sending mixed signals (low gpa/high standardized tests, vice versa) how do you look at it?</p>
<p>I'd have to agree with lockn. </p>
<p>Most people who score over 2000 and score higher the second time do so mainly due to being more comfortable with the test the second time. My brother did very well over 2000 the first time and scored 100 points higher the second time after prepping a lot with a private tutor. I also did well the first time, but retook them at the last minute just for the hell of it without any prepping or reviewing at all, and I scored 110 points higher as well. So I don't think the tutoring really did that much, I think it's more about gaining confidence with the test and being familiar with it if that makes any sense.</p>
<p>Thank you Dan!! Your answer is exactly what our GC said, but it's nice to have it officially confirmed. :) Her assessment is that schools have no incentive to mislead applicants so if they say they'll take either, believe them.</p>
<p>My D took one of those prep courses that cost a ton of money and ended up with a 2060 (100 points lower than her PSAT). She self-studied after that, using the blue book, taking practice test after practice test last summer, and studied the answers she got wrong. She retook the SAT in October and went up 140 points. So self-study can work. Practice (and increasing familiarity with the test) are the keys to improving your score, without spending a ton of money, IMO.</p>
<p>
[quote]
When most admissions officers see a low gpa, do they read the ENTIRE application, or just chuck it? I read a few places that they chuck it, but others have told me they always read it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The answer, at Tufts, lies somewhere in between. First, I'll start by saying that "low" is a relative term, and its difficult to tell exactly how low is low from this question. But when I read a student with a GPA that raises serious red flags - as in, this applicant may not possess the tools to be able to graduate from Tufts - I do a quick pass to check if there's anything that might have caused the grades to be suppressed: trouble at home or a major illness, for instance. But if I can't quickly find evidence to refute the implication of the transcript, I stop reading the file. If we lack the confidence an applicant can succeed at Tufts based on academic performance, then we cannot admit that student. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, when you get a student sending mixed signals (low gpa/high standardized tests, vice versa) how do you look at it?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is determined by the rest of the application. Obviously, there are a myriad of reasons for an imbalance, some of those reasons are less hampering than others. Let's take the Low GPA/High Testing example; it's difficult to know what to make of that until we read the file. Perhaps there will be evidence that this student is bored in high school, but finds ways to grow their intellect outside of school, and will rise to challenge in the future. Or, on the other hand, maybe the impression is the testing is inflated and the student isn't as capable as the scores imply or a student really is that bright but doesn't possess the practical skills to capitalize on their intelligence in the classroom. It's not really possible to know until you read the file. Flip the disparity and its still necessary to read between the lines in the rest of the application to interpret the academic record.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Most people who score over 2000 and score higher the second time do so mainly due to being more comfortable with the test the second time.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Thread resurrection! For those with questions on the philosophy behind how testing is viewed, especially as it relates to socioeconomic factors, check out the posts in "<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/tufts-university/446146-contextualizing-sats.html%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/tufts-university/446146-contextualizing-sats.html</a>." The discussion there is one I am most interested in continuing, and if my posts raise thoughts/questions/concerns, please join that thread's conversation. An honest conversation about the purpose and equity of the admissions process is always one worth having.</p>
<p>When I first took the PSATs oh so many years ago, I scored a 1700. After 6 months of 2-3 hours/day of self studying, I raised it to a 2330(in 1 sitting) when I took the real test. Did I get any smarter? Probably not. Did I study my butt off? You bet</p>
<p>I took a prep class as well, but it was mostly a waste of time. The only useful things I picked up were some test taking "tricks", which I'm sure were available free on the internet.</p>
<p>As for standardized testing, it is absolutely essential for grad schools with no prerequisite curriculum such as Law. It's not really fair to compare the GPA of a phychology major at Umass Boston to say an Electrical Engineer at MIT. According to stats of previous applicants each raw question(out of 100) is worth roughly the same as 0.1 of your GPA. It's kinda gross actually...</p>
<p>Thanks Dan, helped a lot :P</p>
<p>A lottery!</p>
<p>Barry</a> Schwartz: Why Selective Colleges--and Outstanding Students--Should Become Less Selective</p>
<p>I couldn't have said it better.</p>
<p>This article is outstanding! Right on target and a wonderful read this morning before the big weekend of waiting.</p>
<p>Great article! Very true to life.</p>
<p>I'm not sure if we are moving the discussion to the more relevant thread, or continuing it here, but I will go ahead and leave my comments here. I come from a low-income, first-generation family. I scored a 2010 the first time on the SAT in March, then spend a fair amount of summer with the Blue Book and scored a 2220 in October. Even with those scores I feel as though I could have gone up a fair bit higher, but I wasn't willing to waste my time on such a pursuit. So, although I have no knowledge of what prep classes are like, my general inclination would be to say they are unnecessary and overrated. </p>
<p>BalletGirl, although I can see why you would relate to Schwartz, his proposal and your proposal have significant and important differences. He is of the mind that once a student reaches a level of general competitiveness, splitting hairs between them is futile. You seem to believe that the inherit differences that colleges have in campus environment, faculty preferences, and geography is irrelevant. That's why it is far easier to be intrigued by Schwartz's ideas, although they still are not ones that I feel should be implemented. </p>
<p>Dan, your answers all seem very genuine and you are a true asset to this community. Assuming that all admissions committees are run by people like you, my faith in the process has been strengthened.</p>