<p>
[quote]
Get your facts straight. Middlebury reports the SAT I scores for every student for whom they have scores, regardless of whether they were used in admission or not.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah. After Middlebury took a beating for gaming the system and reporting fantasy-land median SATs to USNEWS for a couple of years.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yeah. After Middlebury took a beating for gaming the system and reporting fantasy-land median SATs to USNEWS for a couple of years.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ummmm, what beating are you talking about?</p>
<p>I know Wake and like it a lot and have always seen the school as a conservatively-run and very grounded institution, but I think this is a mistake. Understandable because the school has some tough competitors in the neighborhood/region and this helps differentiate Wake a bit (but is it now differentiated in a good way??). Unless other highly ranked national universities follow suit, I wonder how this will alter the perception of the school in the eyes of potential top students.</p>
<p>At Smith, the "optional" thing is an extension of the policy they put into place back in 2002. Three years earlier, then Pres. Ruth Simmons convened a committee of the faculty, admissions folks, and institutional research to study two questions: 1) Is there a correlation among students attending between SAT scores and performance when on campus, whether measured by GPAs, departmental honors, etc.; and 2) Whether the use of SAT mitigated against Smith's 30-year commitment to economic diversity. The answers that came back were unequivocal. 1. No. 2. Yes. As a result, the new Pres. instructed the admissions office to heavily de-emphasize the use of SAT scores; they are now used virtually exclusively for the awarding of merit aid/paid research positions in the first two years (one of Smith's heavy selling points). They do that, I assume, not because the students may perform better, but simply to try to take students from their competitors (a policy that has proven successful.)</p>
<p>I suspect they took the next step because their research showed that keeping the requirements meant that applicants - and precisely the kind they wanted - they might have otherwise wanted were being daunted by SAT scores. </p>
<p>Frankly, I would like to see them take the next step and refuse to report the scores to USNWR, etc. at all.</p>
<p>Here an interesting quote from Alana Klein, a spokeswoman for the College Board:</p>
<p>"...most competitive colleges continue to use the SAT. “The schools that tend to go SAT-optional are vocational schools and those that accept 100 percent of their applicant pool. The few smaller liberal arts colleges that have gone SAT-optional tend to have a very holistic and individualized approach to admissions. Because they have a smaller applicant pool, they can get to know each applicant well,” she said."</p>
<p>I see this as a marketing move by Wake Forest more than anything else.</p>
<p>per the wake forest website, like several other schools, wake WILL require that all students submit their scores upon being admitted to the university. it is also reported that these numbers WILL be included in common data set data and, subsequently, the us news rankings.</p>
<p>so, how much will this impact the schools sat range? of course, that is going to depend on how admissions treats non-submitters. however, let us make a few assumptions:</p>
<p>1) the enrolled 'non-submitters' to wake forest will have similar academic profiles to the 'non-submitters' at bates, where the sat differential is 160 points;</p>
<p>2) consistent with other sat-optional schools, approximately two thirds of the enrolled class will be sat 'submitters';</p>
<p>3) the average sat of the new 'submitter' group will be 20 points higher than the current university average (this was the number at holy cross), as the university currently enrolls some students who will fall into the non-submitter group next year.</p>
<p>the result of these inputs would be a 35 point drop in the schools average sat score, with the range shifting from the current 1240-1410 to something like 1200-1380. significant, but not devastating.</p>
<p>the interesting question, in my mind, is who is really benefiting. since holy cross went sat-optional a few years ago, there has not been a significant increase in the reported number of students in the top deciles of their high school classes, especially when normalized for the increasing number of competitive schools that no longer rank. and bates research has shown that under-represented minority applicants are only 10-15% more likely to be non-submitters than their peers, which, given the raw numbers and assuming an sat-optional policy doesnt motivate urms to submit scores, means urms still arent terribly likely to apply. so ...i just dont know.</p>
<p>Joanne Creighton's review of Nicholas Lemann's book is a good read:</p>
<p>The interesting thing from a marketing standpoint is that going SAT option runs a bit counter to Wake Forest's reputation as a nose-to-the-grindstone top academic school, i.e. Work Forest.</p>
<p>On the flip side, it gives Wake something unique to hang its hat on. Of all the schools we visited, it was very difficult to come up with one sentence (or one mental snapshot) that was distinctive.</p>
<p>Others had different experiences, but despite several requests, my daughter was NEVER able to get a view book or application package out of the Wake Forest admissions office. Must have just been bad luck, because I would have thought she was the kind of applicant who would be right in their targets. Out of the region. Solid stats and class rank. Had visited the campus (on a day when the admissions office was closed). I mean, I don't know what else she could have said to get a response out of the admissions office.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Middlebury reports the SAT I scores for every student for whom they have scores
[/quote]
That's exactly my point - only students who have high scores report them to "score optional" schools, so the college has only the high scores to "quote", which makes their reported scores much higher than true "admitted students' scores"...</p>
<p>I wonder whether w/ Bates, the move to SAT optional resulted in URMs being only 10-15% more likely to apply b/c the school is in the middle of nowhere (even for Maine). </p>
<p>Also, wondering whether MHC has been requiring all students to submit the SAT prior to enrolling - - and whether Smith will so require. I recall that when MHC went optional the median SAT scores jumped about 30 points, again significant, but not phenom. I always assumed those were scores from the submitters only.</p>
<p>And while I agree w/ Mini re: Smith's committment to econ diversity, Smith already had a broader SAT range than othe top LACs (b/c is accpeted students w/ lows scores). It will be interesting to see how significantly the change to SAT optional increases diversity (all forms).</p>
<p>One question not answered anywhere regarding the Wake Forest/SAT optional is when the SAT is required. Many colleges say that they will not consider you for scholarships without the reporting of your SAT/ACT. </p>
<p>I do like Wake Forest's decision to encourage (strongly) students to interview with admissions people or selected alumni. Some students really shine in an interview situation. Now that won't make up entirely for poor grades/scores, but it does give a student a chance to explain in person why he or she wants to be part of the WFU community. </p>
<p>Today's announcement in no way will change my son's thinking. He will still apply there.</p>
<p>Middlebury requires standardized test scores, but it allows applicants to determine which scores are evaluated by the adcom. At Middlebury, you must submit either the ACT, SAT I, or three SAT II subject tests. If a Middlebury applicant submits 3 SAT IIs and asks to be evaluated using only the SAT IIs, the college still reports their SAT I score (which appears on the same College Board form) when compiling the profile for the freshman class. At Middlebury, as at most other schools, students can substitute the ACT for the SAT. In those instances, Middlebury reports their ACT scores.</p>
<p>hmmm...I wonder if their yield was low this year. My son applied to and was accepted to Wake Forest. Didn't attend. Primarily because it is VERY expensive for a family like ours that doesn't qualify for financial aid. But also, the rather formal southern atmosphere was a bit much for him. Hearing about dressing up for football games didn't help. Two kids went from his hs (many more applied and got in). One is doing fine, the other lasted only one semester. Hated the social scene (a girl).
I just think Wake Forest needs to do something to move up on the radar screen. It's losing out to schools like Vanderbilit, Emory and Duke. Hope this works for them.</p>
<p>This layman knows nothing about yields, SAT differentials, correlations, and impacts on diversity. I'd never heard of SAT optional until this thread.</p>
<p>My first impression of this news is simply that Wake is lowering the bar. </p>
<p>I doubt that's what Wake intended. But if this is purely a marketing move, they must have considered the risks of projecting that image and concluded they're worth taking. </p>
<p>Leaves a person like me scratching my head.</p>
<p>Yup...marketing ploy. When we visited Bowdoin last fall, at the information session they confirmed that 80% of their applicants provide test scores...so even though they are "test optional" the tests are absolutely used in admissions decisions. Students who do not report scores are presumed to have low scores...and that can definitely hurt the student (unless he/she has some other exceptional quality e.g. recruited athlete, URM, etc). So for the highly competitive schools, even if they are "test optional" you still need to have great scores, unless you are bringing something else exceptional to the table. Confirmation of this is found in how quickly all of these schools (Bowdoin, Bates, Hamilton, etc) all proudly trumpet the increases in average SAT scores for their incoming classes each year.</p>
<p>well I will pipe in that my son was admitted to Wake a few years ago which was a match school for him, but he completely comprehended when visiting that he would be very challenged there and the program was stringent. he is attending a reach college. Why? he was not offered any merit money at his reaches or at Wake. </p>
<p>I think Wake is going to do well with their new policy and I really like the new emphasis on interviews and personal selection efforts above and beyond the SAT/ACT. I hope diversity goes to the next level for them because they have a very committed faculty and strong program, and a strong extra-curricular atmosphere, too. They already have a strong appeal in the Middle Atlantic states.
I just want to add from another angle..they have merit money for superstars but very little incentive "partial" merit money. Our son probably would have gone to Wake if they had offered him even a modest partial merit scholarship and so I wish they had more plentiful merit money. The students who landed their big scholarships of course were entirely worthy and outstanding, but they could also do more to land top students with a larger array of merit offerings.</p>
<p>Faline - completely agree with your evaluation on Wake merit money. My son got a big goose egg, and received offers for generous partial scholarships at comparable private schools. It seems like it's all or nothing...similar to Duke. But then...they're no Duke.
Not sure about this SAT policy change...probably just a marketing thing really.</p>
<p>I sincerely hope that Wake did not find the inspiration for its recent change in Joseph A. Soares' "The Power of Privilege: Yale and America’s Elite College, a book I found to be very long of opinions and extremely short on factual research from an author with a specific agenda. I highly recommend NOT to spend your time and money on Soares' manifesto.</p>
<p>Fwiw, it might be good to remember that WF was one of the latest schools to accept the ACT as an acceptable test. For all the publicity generated by colleges going "Fair Test," I am not certain why observers think this is good news for all applicants and is bound to help students who have lower SAT scores. </p>
<p>I maintain that the biggest attraction of "playing games" with the SAT is a decision that helps the schools "play" ... statistiscal games. I hope that ranking organizations will respond appropriately and start dropping the SAT optional schools from the rankings or mark their record with a very visible asterisk. I am convinced that such "penalty" would cause the schools to review their position. </p>
<p>If rankings were not part of the equation, the schools should not care and stick to their ... story about how this helps students. In the meantime, I maintain that it is also not coincidence that the greater importance given to rankings in the past years has prompted many schools to abandon a test they accepted for many decades. Pretending that they finally discovered the "science" that contradicts years of research is highly questionable. </p>
<p>It's not a coincidence that the schools that drop the SAT happen to be the biggest gamers and most opaque and when disclosing statistics ... and for obvious good reasons.</p>
<p>Just another gimmick!</p>
<p>My friend's daughter was a top student at a rigorous prep school that regularly sent kids to top schools. She does not test well and did not do well on the SATs. So she applied to a number of schools that did not require SATs. I would have thought that she was the exact sort of student that they would scoop up, given the difficulty of her courses and her excellent grades (graduated #2). She did not. Friend told me that the school was a bit hesitant about her chances at those schools anyways, though they were proactive with her app. In fact she got into Dickinson off the waitlist because of help from the GC. It is not that easy to get into those selective schools that do not require the SAT. I think you have to have some compelling hook along with the grades to make up for the lack of submitting the test scores.</p>