<p>I don’t know what should be the cutoff score but I hope they don’t have one. I have a feeling I won’t do so well on my SATs because I got a 162 on my PSAT so i really, really hope they don’t make some ‘cutoff’.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, and this is probably the biggest reason that I feel that AP tests cannot be viable as important tools in the admissions process. If you make the tests more difficult (and/or provide a finer scale), the gap in scores between elite high schools and average public high schools will just widen.</p>
<p>I understand what everyone’s saying, but I just really have a hard time understanding the correlation between SAT scores and college success. My understanding is based purely on anecdotal information, but how closely linked are the two? I know people who’ve done brilliantly in college and have had pretty lousy SATs and vice versa. In all of those cases, the high school transcript was a MUCH better indicator of future success than SAT scores.</p>
<p>Yes, and this is probably the biggest reason that I feel that AP tests cannot be viable as important tools in the admissions process. If you make the tests more difficult (and/or provide a finer scale), the gap in scores between elite high schools and average public high schools will just widen.</p>
<p>Well my meaning was different, I meant the current APs are multiple choice/FR tests with a large element of “prepping for the types of questions that appear” - more so than actually understanding the material. Understanding the material requires either a motivated self-studier or a great teacher.</p>
<p>I believe the APs can be viable, if made good, challenging tests. Why? Because unlike SATs and SAT IIs, they are not required - they are a boost. In fact, SAT IIs being required itself is a sort of issue, because they depend vastly on how well prepared one is for the specific tests. The whole point of APs is that they should mark additional interest and achievement … as courses, and the exams should be standardized tests of appropriate level to making sure the courses are run seriously. </p>
<p>I wouldn’t even say it’s arguable that eliteness of family (academically - not just financially) and high school background influences admissions decisions today. Plenty of very dedicated students don’t know much about some of the competitions and such which seem to carry merit with the top schools admissions. Plenty of high schools are simply better represented at the top schools. </p>
<p>Basically I don’t think making the APs more difficult and seriously considered will do anything but improve the situation, because at least APs are somewhat widely known. Even though I’m sure it’s easier to ace a tough exam coming from an elite school than not. Self-studying for a hard exam to show one’s dedication, because one doesn’t come from an elite school, is in fact a great opportunity for a student from lesser background to show (s)he is serious.</p>
<p>^Agree. Aside from a few colleges who are test-optional, the vast majority of colleges require an SAT or ACT score. Many colleges also require one or more subject tests. No college requires APs; they require rigorous academics, but no one specifically requires APs.</p>
<p>This is completely out of topic but why do people capitalize IVY? It’s not even an acronym.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t believe that there should be a cutoff. Schools such as Harvard, Stanford, and Princeton accept a handful of students each year that, stats-wise, are underqualified in comparison to the rest of the applicant pool. But these students have outlying factors that explain their 1700 SATs or 3.5 GPAs - they might be recruited athletes, or from an impoverished background, or perhaps faced unusually difficult challeneges to get to where they are today. Putting a ‘cutoff’ eliminates the permission of schools to consider extenuating circumstances in the application process.</p>
<p>For example, take UT Austin. For in-staters, one must be in the top 10% of their class to be admitted. In my opinion, that’s an absurd rule. Some magnet high schools in Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, and El Paso have outstanding students in the top 50% of the class, not just the top 10%. So for these reasons, I don’t believe putting a ‘cutoff’ is a good idea for any university.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Absurd, but also not completely true. You’re confusing automatic admission and general admission. While the top 10% rule guarantees admission to your school of choice in Texas, it is hardly the only one path to admission. </p>
<p>The students that you describe in “Some magnet high schools in Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, and El Paso have outstanding students in the top 50% of the class, not just the top 10%” have few problems in gaining admittance. All they have to do is being REASONABLY competitive. Of course, the definition of outstanding might be entirely in the eye of the beholder. </p>
<p>The reason why so many complain about the 10% rule is that they know that the best, if not the only, chance to be admitted is via that crutch. Adding another basic requirement such as a 600 on all SAT sections would reduce the number of automatic admits to a small number, and halt the automatic admissions for many Texas Bubbas.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>True, but the Common Data Set could help you create correlation points for the enrolled students.</p>
<p>Pardon me, xiggi, for spreading false information.</p>