<p>Thank you so much for saying this MYSCREENNAME, i mean, i am one of the best of my school, I'm from the Netherlands. The final exams here were extremely difficult this year, so my grades dropped a bit. Now I don't know if I have to continue on with my applications for the colleges in the States because they care so much about the SAT. I had to study HARD for the SAT and I didn't do that well, so I have to do it again. The niveau here in the Netherlands is higher, i guess. We already have like, 5 different niveaus, and only the highest can get into a dutch university, without any extra tests. They know you can do it because you have finished your high school on the highest level.. Hmm, but I still want to study in the States!</p>
<p>Does anyone really know what goes on in the admissions office? WF had never said a student would only be admitted with a certain minimum test score, or was even guaranteed admission with a high score, they were always free to admit whoever they chose for a number of reasons. And they never said there was a minimum score to qualify to apply. So why would it even matter to say that now they are not required? Since there is not a published, required formula in the admission decision, why issue a statement like this? We don't need to know that for some students they disregarded low test scores.Any way you look at it, for students with high scores, it is disappointing.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Does anyone really know what goes on in the admissions office? WF had never said a student would only be admitted with a certain minimum test score, or was even guaranteed admission with a high score, they were always free to admit whoever they chose for a number of reasons. And they never said there was a minimum score to qualify to apply. So why would it even matter to say that now they are not required? Since there is not a published, required formula in the admission decision, why issue a statement like this? We don't need to know that for some students they disregarded low test scores.Any way you look at it, for students with high scores, it is disappointing.
[/quote]
Maybe to just take a stand against an unfair and socioeconomically biased system? Maybe to emphasize that admissions should be a holistic approach that does not just peg a number to an individual? </p>
<p>I completely disagree with you. If you are a good candidate and have high scores, then you obviously should send them in. </p>
<p>In addition to taking a stand against the SAT's, this reflects well on Wake's motto of pro humanitate. It is also partially I am sure, a way to get Wake's name out there as the most elite school to be so progressive in their admissions approach. Nothing wrong with striving to be better, as I have no doubts that Wake Forest will transcend its status and become even more of a prestigious school than it already is.</p>
<p>You believe the tests are "an unfair and socioeconomically biased system"? I thought the tests were created to make the application process less biased, not more. WF has already been using a "holistic" approach before this announcement. WF can make its own rules and diversity goals, and this new stand shows they are doing just that. But making test scores the issue makes it appear that proven academic ability against a set of standards is of lesser importance to them than other criteria.</p>
<p>Just like the LSAT is the best indicator of how students will perform in law school... the SAT is the best indicator of how students will fare in undergraduate classes. High school curriculums vary greatly and a 3.8 at one high school might be equivlent to a 3.3 at another more difficult school.</p>
<p>I was absolutely stunned when I read this story. I would be surprised if this were a second-tier state school, but Wake Forest. All I can say is I think this is a mistake that will be corrected in a few years.</p>
<p>wake forest community college?</p>
<p>The sky is falling, the sky is falling ... :eek: ;)</p>
<p>For virtuallyall applicants, this is a non-issue, no import. Those with valid pertinent scores will continue to report them, trusting that if they don't help their case, at least they'll not harm it. For those others, they won't supply them and will hope. And some, specifically those that address the needs of WFU, will be admitted. If that student fails to fill a niche, then it doesn't matter.</p>
<p>I applaud this. From what I have heard adcoms say, under-represented minorities often perform more highly in college than their standardized test scores would predict. As "objective" as many people say standardized scores are, it still clearly favors students who have had the background to prepare for this specific exam and have had exposure to the exact material. Is it really fair, as some have suggested, to evaluate the performance of a student at a competitive suburban school to the performance of someone at an urban school? Clearly the suburban student is going to perform higher in virtually every circumstance, regardless of what potential the urban student has. This is a method to increase the college's ability to act as a vehicle for social mobility for student's who have achieved given their circumstances. To standardize a test across different cultures and educational systems is simply unfair to disadvantaged students and privileges the privileged. I'd rather admissions to university reflect the personal ability and potential of the applicants rather than the environment they grew up in. This may mean these students have lower GPAs at first in college as they close the achievement gap, but surely given the right environment (college) they improve over the years.</p>
<p>Generally, the consensus I get from most people's remarks seem very negative. As a Junior at Wake Forest and a college student in general, I think this is a very short sighted reaction to a very progressive decision made by Wake Forest. I'm going to try and keep this short:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I feel like many people correlate high SAT/ACT scores with the credibility of a university, however, standardized test scores, following admissions, do not define a student's experience in college. More than anything the people are what make college special. By eliminating required test scores for admission, more unique people who will add more to the student body will have the chance to be accepted. Diversity is much broader than simply racial background and nationality. Scoring high on the SAT predicts nothing about one's personality. Now, admissions can now focus on what's more important: essays, course load, recommendations, and yes, GPA. This will allow interesting different kind of applicants, not just the norm, to be accepted. One of the most frustrating things I have found in college, and I think this can be said for most top-ranked schools, is having to go to class with the people who were accepted simply because of their SAT/ACT scores and a high GPA from some ****ty public high school. These people are NOT prepared for college, can often lack any common sense/street smarts and I would generally refer to them as stupid. These students who were fortunate enough to score well on a 4 hour test and go to an easy high school are the worst people to have in your university. </p></li>
<li><p>While Hatch's recent onslaught of major changes to Wake Forest have been presented in succession more closely than they probably should have, I respect him for trying to improve the quality of Wake Forest. Hearn, President Emeritus, did an excellent job building Wake Forest into what it is today. However, we can't expect Hatch to leave Notre Dame, his alma mater, and not implement some of his own ideas within our university. Some argue that he is trying to mold Wake Forest into another Notre Dame with the implementation of "visiting hours" for opposite sex students in dorms and that our new letterhead "logo" looks like a bank's, but these changes will be, or already have been, accepted over time. Overall, the changes he is making will be accepted and I think they potentially will make Wake a more recognizable, higher-ranked national university.</p></li>
<li><p>Eliminating the SAT/ACT will most likely lead to a higher US News ranking because, yes, it will decrease the acceptance rate. However, this isn't weighed heavily in the rankings compared to other evaluative criteria. With the elimination of the SAT/ACT other improvements within the university will follow that will boost the national ranking. </p></li>
<li><p>While the SAT won't be required, the majority of students who have the ability to get accepted at Wake Forest will enevitably send them anyways. There is a fairly strong correlation between GPA and SAT scores, so it doesn't matter anyways. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>In summary, I realize that my ideas are rather scattered but I'm tired of hearing everyone complain about Hatch and the changes to Wake Forest. I don't necessarily agree with everything he's doing but I realize that change is enevitable and complaining won't stop him from continuing with his plans. Certain rules, such as removing Greek letters from the dorms, anger me and I think that the administration's reasoning is flawed, but I'm willing to try and remain optimistic about our future and trust the administration, who actually has experience in managing universities, knows what they're doing.</p>
<p>SouthernWake - wow - great post. While reading your post, I couldn't help thinking my D is going to be in smart and thoughtful company when she arrives at Wake next year. Really makes me glad she picked Wake Forest!</p>
<p>I guess I am ignorant on the matter, but I don't understand why everyone is getting so upset. Yes, it is a change. But there are excellent liberal arts colleges that did this years ago and it does not appear to have hurt them. Bates and Colby up in Maine are two that come to mind. My D looked at both before deciding they were too small for her, and I don't think the fact that they did not require the SAT played any part in her decision not to apply (besides the small size, may have been mostly the extreme winters, actually).</p>
<p>I feel this change will require the admissions department to spend more time evaluating each application for admission, which can only improve the university.</p>
<p>"^good point gellino. didn't think of it that way. except for the fact that most people applying to top schools like duke, emory, vandy, etc know that wake forest is not even on the same level."</p>
<p>Except that schools turn over every four years. USNWR had Penn ranked 15-20 in the first ten years of its consistent annual rankings. On a dime starting in 1998, it has been ranked 5-10 in USNWR since. Those applying to colleges in the '90s may not have applied to Penn because of this relatively low ranking and may have chosen to apply to Dartmouth, Brown, Cornell instead. In this decade, based on what seems like nothing different initially, USNWR has ranked Penn above all those schools. However, now it has become a self-fulfilling prophesy and students who wouldn't have considered Penn in the past look at it ranked #5 in USNWR and value it more highly and don't know or don't care that Penn 'wasn't on the same level' as Dartmouth, Brown, Cornell previously. Perceptions change quickly, which then cause perception to become reality.</p>
<p>^BTW, Bates is SAT optional, but Colby is not.</p>
<p>I think the original poster meant Bowdoin and Bates in Maine. Other top schools that do not require the SAT include Hamilton and Holy Cross. Every year a few more seem to join the group.</p>
<p>
<p>Sorry, aherro, but decades of research do not support your last clause.</p>
<p> [quote=kentuckymom] just told my daughter about WF's announcement, and she simply said, "I guess I'll take them off my list." We discussed pros and cons as outlined on this thread, but she still perceives it as a negative overall.
</p>
<p>I don't get it. Why does your D see this as a negative? (She can still submit her 2400/36...)</p>
<p>I think some people are getting a bit too worked-up over this. Remember something- Wake's admissions has ALWAYS been based on more than SAT/ACT scores. Kids on this very board have been denied with 1400s, and accepted with 1250s. What makes the difference? I'm admittedly not an expert of Wake's admissions processes, but character traits and activities presented in essays, interviews, and other parts of the the application seem to be incredibly important, moreso than at other institutions. Wake's application contains six short answer questions, one larger essay, a prompt to describe an important extracurricular activity, and a prompt to describe a campus visit, all perfect canvases to portray your true self and dedication to Wake. Wake certainly isn't going to choose applicants soleley because they did not take the SAT/ACT. The principle behind the transition is that standardized tests are usually, but not ALWAYS the best basis by which to judge an applicant's viability as a student at the university. </p>
<pre><code> Let's get another thing straight- the SAT and ACT do NOT necessarily measure how hard one works. They measure one's inlaid skills in only a couple (albeit important) subject areas, and we all know college involves more than natural talent. The real question really lies in one's faith in the standardized test system. Is it really a fair standard for everyone to follow? It may measure academic skill, but it does not measure one's morals, judgment, and character. It seems as though Hatch & Co. are emphasizing that particular aspect of each applicant, and I applaud them for it. Personally, I feel all complaints about this "change" is all rooted in doubt in a student's abilities. I'd like to hear anyone's argument that a test score should come overwhelmingly before one's values and character traits. Both, I think, are important, especially at a school like Wake. Why not scrutinize them on a higher level?
It's understandable that students (and parents, for that matter!) worry about their "chances" when the old "system" changes. However, I think a lot of people, including the admissions committee, will agree that, if the applicant is well-qualified, with high st. test scores, intuitive essays, strong recommendations, and a visible commitment to their application, he or she will likely not have anything to worry about. Applicants shouldn't base their judgment of the school on its admissions criteria. They should base it on her perception of the school community, quality of teaching, and other core values. This explanation certainly doesn't account for all the "bugs" that the change has. It's difficult to predict what the future will bring, but optimism, perhaps, will play a role in helping the school grow.
In strong defense of my (future) school, I also want to comment on the trite, frankly uncouth comments of some of the posters above who labeled Wake as being "not on the same level as Duke" and "a community college." Wake is, indeed, a top university in the country, not only in academics, but in character. Your comments reflect poorly upon your own institution, as well as your own character. You should be grateful for your educational opportunities as opposed to downgrading those which you (naively) feel are inferior.
</code></pre>
<p>"Sorry, aherro, but decades of research do not support your last clause."</p>
<p>What is this decades of research you refer to? I have definitely seen studies done in recent decades showing that SAT scores are the single largest predictive determinant of freshman year GPA.</p>
<p>gellino:</p>
<p>Only CB's 'research' indicates a large predictive determinant. But, for another pov, check out the research by the University of California, on literally, thousands of students over the past 20-30 years. Essentially they found that gpa alone is the largest predictor of Frosh succes. GPA+SAT score is only marginally better. SAT by itself was no better than gpa by itself. However, UC also found that Subject Tests, particularly Writing, are an even better predictor than SAT 1. (You can search cc for the numerous threads on UC SAT research.) </p>
<p>btw: the origin of the SAT was to find that 'diamond in the rough', i.e., lower gpa but really bright student, or someone attending a low resource school.</p>
<p>"I don't get it. Why does your D see this as a negative? (She can still submit her 2400/36...)"</p>
<p>It suggests a further devaluation of standardized testing in favour of less reliable factors. I refuse to believe that the 2200/3.5 kid is dumber than the 1800, 4.2 kid. He may be lazier, but I'd rather go to school with him than the dimmer kid who grinds it out.</p>
<p>Really honestly, don't laugh, and no basis other than our feelings during our last 6 months of college searching, and from all the admissions seminars we've been to and reading websites like this one, if you are a white midwestern female (so many colleges are trying to increase their male percentage), with great gpa, ec's, references, and parents that attended state colleges (not a "first year"), without a "hook" of racial or other diversity or some kind of hardship or really unusual factors, you are made to feel like you don't have a very good chance at being accepted at very many schools, i.e. you don't add anything special to their enrollment and your chances of getting accepted are 50/50 at best. If you have really high test scores, you would hope those would be your edge or hook, and if a college right up front says you don't even have to submit those, you are made to feel like you are not the kind of student they are looking for. You can tell us we're really silly for feeling this way, but many, many kids agree with me on this. Kids with the credentials I mentioned above don't seem to be courted by colleges these days. Also, and again with no statistics and just based on personal experience, more often than not, kids I know with high test scores are the ones who do work extra hard, go the extra mile, read in full the required books plus many many more, for example, and do so much better on the verbal and reading tests. Why can't this be an edge for them? And are there any good colleges who want kids like this and actually say so?</p>
<p>agree completely kentuckymom
thank you</p>
<p>Welcome to the lalaland of academe, KYmama. This is not a recent phenomenon, aside from you and other newcomers to the admissions hunt. Take heart though, with well over 3,000 campuses, a GREAT many will want the wonderful student you describe. But it requires diligence and refusing to get married to mythical mystique of certain campus(es) that can and often do disappoint. In reality, there are only 30 highly selective schools in the pool, altho many have the great luxury of posturing as such in the current time period, as your student has the misfortune of being on the crest of the demographic wave of boomer-bouncers. And many of them/ours are applying to many schools. So we hear from virtually every school "our apps are at an all-time high" but that doesn't tell the entire story.</p>
<p>So, you need to develop a plan that has some flex in it and again, refuses to pre-judge that place (s) where you just "have" to get in. They all teach calc and psych from the same books and ironically, many of the less "selective" places have far greater focus on teaching your student than those more worried about getting their philosophy profs published in the refereed journal on "God's Neutrality at the Holocaust: Proof He's Not Dead, Only on Vacation in Boca". And you'll find the FA packages much more lucrative at those places.</p>
<p>In the end, there is but one thing that really counts ... what kind of experience did your student have and did they learn anything more, less, different than they would have anywhere else. </p>
<p>And if credentials are important to her aspirations, as has been noted, the far better value for the buck is grad school pedigree. For example, in most college catalogs, they don't even mention undergrad institutions. Go figure! Don't you find that incredibly ironic?</p>
<p>btw, as was noted in a recent commencement address given at Texas A&M ... the speaker warned the grads that the issues you're talking about like diversity, equality, providing opportunity to those otherwise unable to participate, etc. are concepts nearly exclusive to academe. In the "real world" it's quality, performance, experience, expertise, skill, etc. that will carry the day and deliver the pay.</p>