Dartmouth could adopt language such as “you have to score at least 1200 and be +300 your HS average score to be considered a competitive applicant” which would clarify things for students and GCs without excluding FGLI nor rural applicants.
In addition, let’s remember that Dartmouth has a special mission towards Native Americans.
The students’ remarks echo the discussion on this forum.
I agree they could clarify the language in their policy.
I also think it was a mistake not to have a student rep or two on the committee looking at changing the policy…that was a missed opportunity for D and their new Pres.
They are never going to do that because there will be some students that fall below that threshold that Dartmouth wants the flexibility to admit (in the past some athletes from our school have fallen into that category).
I don’t disagree. The risk, well one of the risks, is that counselors of the types of students D is looking for may not recommend their students send test scores in the 1400 range (which is one number D has communicated so far)…so they just wouldn’t apply to D (or Y). I have heard some counselors saying exactly this. Would more/clearer direction help with this? I don’t know.
And of course, only a relatively small portion of these students even have a test score, which is a separate issue (that you have also raised.)
Why are these particular student so mad? If they’re qualified, they’re qualified.
Not quite. For American applicants, they have a combined SAT score minimum, so even if you get an 800 on one part, you are still going to need to do well on the other section to meet the minimum score requirement.
In addition, many Oxford courses have their own Oxford specific admissions test that needs to be taken as part of the application process that are significantly harder than the SAT/AP.
But yes, Oxford didn’t seem to care that my math & computer science applicant son got a 4 in AP English Literature when he had 5s in the important ones.
Yes, Oxford admits the kids they want to admit, using the data that’s relevant for THEM. And Dartmouth and Yale admit the kids THEY want to admit, using the data that’s relevant for THEM.
The Air Force Academy has different admissions criteria than Julliard. This is not a hard concept to grasp. And the UK system is the “apples to oranges” comparison to Dartmouth and Yale.
Kudos to your son!
Especially since many UK universities, especially Oxford, consider APs to be barely better than GCSEs 
And with 8-10 GCSEs British students are expected to show mastery (or pass, depending on what uni they’re aiming for) in a breadth of subjects. We can debate (not here) whether 16 is the right age to start specializing - the UK and the US are on opposite ends of the spectrum on that question!
Anyway a British C/5 ie., American B ie., an AP 4, is sufficient for basic general proficiency in a subject you’re not going to study 
at British universities that require those.
It works for them. What qualified means changes with the institution, its history, its mission, etc.
Dartmouth can use whatever criteria but the language needs to be clearer. Same thing for Yale.
@Hawkspeak, I have not been following this thread so forgive me if I missed this. But, over the years, grades have been inflated and SATs have been compressed twice. As such, it is difficult to differentiate the best students academically from others. This gives the admissions office a lot more leeway to construct the class it wants (whether this is social engineering to increase a particular definition of diversity or discrimination against non-protected racial or ethnic groups or to pick kids with a SJW slant or kids w/o a SJW slant). Require scores, even though they have been compressed, makes it easier for folks to identify/justify the kinds of social engineering / discrimination they are doing. As such, folks in favor of the current social engineering policy of the school will object to reinstating tests.
With regard to accommodations, both of my kids are very bright and have learning disabilities and this was a while ago as both are out of grad school and are working adults. A neuropsychologist said a term they used for the older one was severely gifted – supercomputer brain but dial-up I/O speeds. When the CB denied some of the accommodations that the psychologists and school thought made sense, his caseworker was so upset because so many kids in our affluent burb were able to get the basic accommodations (50% extra time) without any obvious need – they did not have IEPs or 504 (?) plans, so the need for extra test time was questionable. I’m sure it has only gotten worse over time.
I’ve only been partially following as well… What do you mean by ‘compressed’? I know they changed to make it more of an ‘achievement’ test a while back.
So, social engineers want to eliminate merit-based decisions? what does that mean for the value of the degree? I’d think past and existing students would want to defend the value of the degree and perceived exclusivity of the institution.
I mean, look at what’s happening at Harvard for heaven’s sakes.
Yes, and No. The Yes is always nice for PR and spin, but teh No is bcos teh Group (Coalition Against Testing) that showed up for Office hours was not gonna change their minds. The Admin could have met with them for months and their answer would be teh same. The Group’s reason for existence is to eliminate testing.
I didn’t see that it was only students from that newly formed group in attendance?
Regardless, if Beilock did say this (which is factually incorrect), the students weren’t the only ones there who weren’t going to change their minds:
According to Tilahun, when a student asked about the influence of eugenics on the origins of the SAT, Beilock interrupted them and told them that was “not the correct history.”
A number of higher ed leaders have contacted D repeatedly asking for their data (and the source of their data) used as support for drawing their conclusions. No response so far. While they can have whatever testing policy they want, it seems the information flow is a one way street there, at least right now.
It’s a private school. I see no reason why they shoudl share their data with a “number of higher ed leaders.”
Correct…
…Yet, you are critical. What you appear to be saying, ‘you can have any testing program that you want, BUT first you have to prove it to me.’
They are indeed free to adopt whatever testing regime they want, and we are free to point out the flaws, inconsistencies, and ahistorical assumptions in their stated reasons for doing so.
correct, but you don’t have a right to demand their data. As noted upthread, if you don’t like their policies/practices, don’t apply.
The higher ed industry is (generally) one of collegiality. Some are asking for the data/its source because they/their institutions may benefit from accessing said data sources. That’s all…nothing super critical, nothing nefarious, just historically how that industry tends to work.
We can ask to see the data, they can refuse to supply it, we can make inferences based upon the refusal, the dance can go on forever.
An alternative to this would have been for Dartmouth and Yale to throw the entirety of their convictions behind testing and not manufacture a credulity-straining defense of it for the sake of public relations.
Disagree. For those opposed to testing, this is a BIG deal.
Any defense woudl be credulity straining to the anti-test crowd.
IMO, the University of California data is as good as it gets. Millions of student data points over decades. If that data shows a value in testing, there is a value in testing.
Now, that value may be too small relative to the cost of testing, but I haven’t seen that argument made (or I missed it).
What if - hear me out - they realized they HAD rejected a dozen or two FGLI students with 1380-1420 scores that were fabulous for their schools but bc the GC had not known how to convey relevant information for schools nobody ever applies to, the school had a very minimal profile, and it was an unknown quantity, D/Y didn’t realize the kid was a standout? And the score would help them at least past 1st cut for s.o to dig, perhaps call or look into the school, sth more time-intensive that can’t be done before 1st cut? So that the score wouldn’t be used to keep anyone OUT but could be used to keep them IN?
Obviously this may be their intention, but IRL may backfire.
And I’m not sure how they’ll convince more kids to test.
I do think having a national benchmark is useful but really not sure the SAT/ACT are what admissions need. However it’s the tool, or one of the tools, that they have.
“Show us you can get a 5 in an AP class where you got an A” seems a bit more valid in terms of benchmarking even if suboptimal too.
Also, the CB better step up and expand its accessibility.
The SATs have been an “achievement” test for a very long time, and the College Board has been very explicit about this. Some 30 years ago there was a claim that the SAT back in the past were “IQ” tests, a questionable claim back then as well. Claims now that they are “IQ” tests, in face of evidence to the contrary and the statements of the people who produce the tests, boggle the mind.
The right test can check how much of the material a student has learned in high school, and how much of that material has been retained in a usable form. The SATs are simply no longer that test.
Define “merit”. Why do you think that having a higher SAT score makes a student more “meritorious”. Moreover, when these colleges are using SAT scores, they are differentiating between scores of 1520 and 1570, even though these are generally the result of brain farts, or worse, which questions were removed from consideration.
As for “social engineers”? We are in the mess that we are in because of the social engineers of the past. Or do you think that segregation, red-lining, and a long list of racially, ethnic, and religiously discriminatory laws and policies that were in place for 90% of the history of the USA and longer were not social engineering?
What people call “social engineering” is dismantling hundreds of years of discriminatory social engineering.
I know, it’s terrible that it’s full of the scions of the wealthy and powerful who were admitted because their parents attended, because the participate in Country Club sports, because their parents donated money, or because their parents are powerful and/or famous.
Oh, I forgot, that’s always been the case.
According to their CDS, the mid 50% range of SAT scores has been going up steadily, as have the GPAs of their admitted students, so I guess that it is “merit-based” after all…
Regarding merit - for “elite” colleges, not all “merit” is created equal. The same SAT scores are more “meritorious” the wealthier the applicants’ family is: