<p>^^^^</p>
<p>You think? I was thinking about all those proud SSU graduates with shiny Ph.D’s working in academia.</p>
<p>Well, I would expect our grads to do very well on their GREs.</p>
<p>LOL. But of course. I do think that you might be misjudging a bit the intellectual potential of some of those super testing drones.</p>
<p>Hmmm. interesting. </p>
<p>Except I would be for counting Writing as an SAT II and doing (Math + Verbal)*(3/2).</p>
<p>Many colleges still don’t count the Writing section and for good reason, they don’t do it because the Writing section puts lower-class students at a greater disadvantage than the other two sections simply because it is the easiest to prep for. I know of many people around my area who spent about $1000 on SAT prep and got 750+ Writing while only getting around a 1300-ish combined on the other two sections.</p>
<p>I think it’s an interesting idea. You have hard-working and smart kids but I would also adjust the Super-Stat score based on income (if there is a correlation between SAT score and income) since those of lower income have the potential to be very successful and make full use of the resources the college has to offer and are as intelligent as those with higher incomes and higher test scores. </p>
<p>I’ll post my own score here… using two different methods.</p>
<p>WITH WRITING
My score is 5985.</p>
<p>WITHOUT WRITING (Adding Writing as an SAT II)
My score is 6050.</p>
<p>Only thing is should a person who gets all 4’s on his or her AP’s be treated the same way as someone with a 1920 SAT or is that why you weighed AP’s less.</p>
<p>If GPA is not a factor, I could see SSU as a big party school, 
People who are good test takers but never felt the need to work very hard in high school- however, adding AP/SAT II scores will change that a little bit.</p>
<p>Wow, uh, good luck with that. It’s not a school either of my children would want to attend. I could imagine my son being one of the target market – he tests very well – but he wouldn’t want to spend four years around people who had that to recommend them.</p>
<p>If anyone hasn’t said this already, your original proposal sounds a lot like China and South Korea’s systems.</p>
<p>Honestly, this sounds like a broader, older version of CTY, TIP, and other such programs. Strict meritocracy – all test scores. You qualify for different services (being able to purchase different services 
) based on how high your score is.</p>
<p>Do well in both math and verbal, and you can take science, math and humanities courses at summer camp. Do not quite so well, you might still qualify to take distance learning, or go to CAA rather than CTY during the summer. Do exceptionally well, be invited to join SET, which is free of all costs for whatever services they provide.</p>
<p>And the summer camps are anything but boring – just ask the kids who go or have gone there. There are plenty of accomplished, interesting, creative kids at these camps; the thing that makes the camps different from regular camps is that ALL the kids are gifted, and like being around other gifted kids.</p>
<p>These kids are not all drones or boring or unable to do anything except do well on standardized tests. Yes, I know the modest proposal is not serious, but some of the posts here make some pretty disheartening assumptions about some very bright kids. I know in some schools and parts of society, it’s common to pull down intelligent kids; I’d have expected better of people who value education and, presumably, intelligence.</p>
<p>First step to implementation would be for all colleges to retroactively calculate this score for all their students then publish the score ranges. It would be interesting to see and would probably reflect current admissions weightings. After that rank all the colleges by their average super-stat scores. Lastly, compare to USNWRs rankings.</p>
<p>The College Board and institutional research offices produce super-stat style formulas in the form of regression analyses all the time that are even more objective than SSU’s. They’ll basically show you how to maximize first-year gpa in ways that are institution-specific, using whatever variables you want to throw into or exclude from the mix. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Admission</a> Validity Study](<a href=“http://professionals.collegeboard.com/higher-ed/validity/aces/study]Admission”>http://professionals.collegeboard.com/higher-ed/validity/aces/study)</p>
<p>But few schools, particularly selective ones, do admissions-by-number even though they could. I suspect that there just wouldn’t be many takers for a school where there were few classmates in your major some years; no competition at your level in the sport you love another year; gender imbalance; 15 great trombonists and 1 really terrible bassoonist; virtually no students whose native language was not English; very lonely students from underrepresented minorities; and on and on . . .</p>
<p>I love how half of the posters do not seem to be able to read this thread in the correct Swiftian perspective.</p>
<p>“Those who are more thrifty (as I must confess the times require) may flea the carcass; the skin of which, artificially dressed, will make admirable gloves for ladies, and summer boots for fine gentlemen.”</p>
<p>:D</p>
<p>
My classmate wants to attend Oxford, in an e-mail they told her she needed 3 APs with at least 4-5-4.</p>
<p>“Is McGill full of textureless drones?”
I have no idea. S says it’s full of beautiful girls.</p>
<p>Yes, it’s interesting. The Canadian universities admit essentially on this basis. McGill and Toronto, at least, are very fine universities. But I don’t see high-scoring Americans beating a path there. (Some, yes, but not many.)</p>
<p>The issue is that the 6300 kids don’t WANT to go to SSU. They want to go to Harvard, just as it is now, but with them included. (They don’t care that ALL of “them” be included, just him- or herself.)</p>
<p>If there were an SSU, it would probably look a lot like Berkeley or McGill. And, yes, it would have a perfectly vibrant life, but that in part because most of the people there wouldn’t be in the ballpark of 6300 on Hunt’s superstat. The vast, vast majority of those people enroll somewhere on the spectrum Harvard-Duke, and have no particular desire or need for more options. (But they DO think it unfair if they wind up at Duke.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s an interesting refinement to the modest proposal.</p>
<p>“I would also adjust the Super-Stat score based on income (if there is a correlation between SAT score and income) since those of lower income have the potential to be very successful and make full use of the resources the college has to offer and are as intelligent as those with higher incomes and higher test scores.”</p>
<p>While this is an interesting proposal, unfortunately SSU does not have as part of its mission the remedial education of persons who, due to low income or other circumstances, are not already prepared to excel in challenging college level courses in a broad range of subjects.</p>
<p>“The issue is that the 6300 kids don’t WANT to go to SSU. They want to go to Harvard, just as it is now, but with them included. (They don’t care that ALL of “them” be included, just him- or herself.)”</p>
<p>The question is, how many 6300 kids are not getting into Harvard because of subjective criteria like GPA and ECs? It is those kids who will be drawn to SSU. What’s more, I expect that virtually all 6300 kids will at least apply to SSU as the ultimate safe school.</p>
<p>How would you distinguish among applicants with the same numerical total? If you had 100 open seats and applicants consisting of 20 with 6300, 35 with 6000, 55 with 5000, how would you choose between identical scorers? Obviously, there would need to be a large number of admits to achieve yield goals, but with such limited criteria, you could end up with a bunch of the same numbers. So who would get in and who wouldn’t? Gender?</p>
<p>^^^^ Maybe by breaking down individual test scores into exact percentiles, data Collegeboard already has on hand, for those who are tied.</p>
<p>Great system. I’d reckon the writing score should be eliminated, just use the M+V system with your AP score boost. I wouldn’t even look at high school GPA.</p>
<p>I assume SSU will of course be a “virtual” learning institution? From a business standpoint there’s not much point in bothering with the upkeep of a “real” campus since clearly the students’ social lives or personal interests would merely interfere with their objective pursuit of academic excellence - and, for that matter, their personal lives are just of no logical consequence at SSU. And really, who wants an orchestra with 100 flutists and no clarinets anyway - a likely possibility since we have not screened them in any manner as to their outside interests? </p>
<p>Because these students can easily “learn” from their own homes (since our “super test-takers” have clearly already mastered the art of self-study), this will keep tuition costs at a minimum while at the same time will allow more extensive (albeit “virtual”) learning opportunities to each student than they could possibly receive from a more traditional learning institution. ;)</p>