<p>Thanks Hawkette. </p>
<p>I did not say that SAT should be abolished completely though I support schools that make it optional in applications. It is “standardized”, but as you know the preparedness for it is not. Meaning, many kids of wealthy parents and/or private schools have SAT tudors and indeed have curriculum that teaches towards a high SAT score. The administrators in my school district are disdainful of such practices and we regularly send kids to some of the country’s finest schools…a broad spectrum of fine schools I might add.</p>
<p>I do note that even with the schools you listed which had more than 20% of applicants with CR and Math scores below 600, still have a very high graduation rate in the high 80’s in either 4 or 6 years and that is often a measure at large state schools of whether they can get the classes they need completed before their fourth year of school. I am not saying Harvard should admit 20% with SAT’s of 1100 or 1150. What I am saying is that kids with SAT scores of 1200 and up can perform at optimum levels, and those with scores of 1300 and up, particularly as they approach the magical 1400 figure which many schools use as a cutoff for admission (whether they admit it or not) perform as well as and in some cases superior to kids with 1500+ SAT scores. The SAT does not measure motivation, maturity and circumstance. Its a blunt instrument at best. And that is why people, in my purview who insist that SAT scores are a proper measure of determining a schools ranking and impliedly its superiority over others are incorrect and do a grave disservice to prospective applicants and their families. If that were so, then the graduates of these higher SAT score schools would most certainly only want to work at the top 25 schools. In fact, a very high percentage of them end up working at much lower ranking schools and will tell you directly that school rankings are a fool’s errand and are fiercely supportive and defensive of the schools where they now teach.</p>
<p>Pitting schools against each other, particularly with flawed statistics even if they are standardized, is inappropriate. Rankings are very controversial and most college administrators disdain them. Many colleges are working together now to refrain from providing USNWR and others the information and withdrawing from consideration completely.</p>
<p>Instead of perpetuating the problem, I have chosen to argue from the other side of the fence. I think I have done so in a civilized manner without intent to demean or insult anyone in particular, though I am quick to give a loud raspberry to the efforts of some who wish to use statistical evidence to push their school up the ladder of rankings and make others feel less worthy.</p>
<p>That is not to say that I dont admire many of the schools who enjoy lofty ratings. I know someone who got into an Ivy with a 1380 SAT and now acts like they are one of the gifted few in the 1500+ class. Its very unfortunate. I would much preferred if the individual had been humble and stated, “I am the luckiest person alive…I got into an Ivy League School. Please wish me luck.” With that I would have gladly said, “I will give you all the positive support you need, my friend.” </p>
<p>Some kids just do better on standardized scores. Some have advantages of tutoring and special classes at their schools. I prefer to root for the underdogs.</p>
<p>Thanks.</p>