<p>uncfan:</p>
<p>You are setting up a straw man. It is highly unlikely that Tamisha gets in by only taking “easy” classes, since ALL colleges say that the transcript is the first criteria. Admissions readers just aren’t that dumb.</p>
<p>^^^ </p>
<p>My earlier post addresses the dilemma for admissions officers who don’t have standardized testing as a measure:</p>
<p>Confusing:</p>
<p>Two juniors:
D’s friend has an 89.1 in precalculus at a large local public school.
D has an 83 in H Algebra II at a selective private school.</p>
<p>D’s friend scored in the 400s on SAT M - not planning to retake because she really doesn’t need to do so (GPA/class rank).
D scored 770 and 750 on SAT M.</p>
<p>Accurate test scores: IMO - yes; friend’s mother - yes</p>
<p>But if you look at the level of the math course and grade, wouldn’t you draw a different conclusion regarding the math ability of the girls?</p>
<p>Another case:
Student left selective private school at the end of freshman year - disappointing academic performance. Nice girl, but no one was surprised that the work load and performance level was difficult for her. She moved to a non-selective Catholic hs and graduated among the top 10 students. However, dropped into the pool of 1.5 million seniors or so graduating in 2008, she isn’t as strong as a top 10 ranking indicates.</p>
<p>I know the SAT has flaws, but not as many flaws as the hs systems nationwide. There is no objective measure other than standardized testing. Even within a school the system can be manipulated - students learn quickly which teachers are “easy As” - even which honors/AP classes are the safer bet. How the heck can college admissions advisors not look at something that attempts to standardize?</p>
<p>I think part of the problem stems from the fact that a student may be a top student at his school and then has an SAT that indicates differently. The automatic assumption - must be a problem with the SAT. Not necessarily - looking at yourself within the context of 50 - 800 seniors in a graduating class at one particular school as compared to 1.5 million students - well, good chance it may look somewhat different.</p>
<p>Just for the record: oldest d’s SAT indicated she was smart with a particular strength in writing; math was not quite as strong. Accurate.</p>
<p>S’s SAT indicated that he is a math student, less of a reader, and an average writer at best. Accurate.</p>
<p>Youngest d reads and then reads another book - or the same one again. She is the child who started Harry Potter at midnight and finished the next day at 11 a.m. SAT in CR: 800. Again - accurate.</p>
<p>However, even if you look closely at the hs transcripts of the three, I promise that you couldn’t discern much difference.</p>
<p>Were the SATs at this house an anomaly? Maybe, but it is hard to believe. (BTW each child took the SAT twice.)</p>
<p>Also - my s’s school doesn’t rank students anymore. So let’s see: no SAT submitted, a school that doesn’t rank students. Oh, and no student can take more than three H/AP classes a year. I bet admissions officers could use a little standardized help.</p>
<p>^^^ And to continue:</p>
<p>Another thought: Large public schools in my area have a class rank trick. 70 # 1’s in the class; #2 in the class is actually #71; and so on. The standard joke is that about half the class is the top 10%. I actually heard an admissions officer (ND) speak on the frustration of trying to determine class rank in this instance.</p>
<p>So let’s see: schools that don’t rank and schools with sketchy ranking; no SAT scores. I think an admissions officer should toss the applications into the air and the ones that fall closest to his feet should be the admitted students. It might be as accurate.</p>
<p>When I graduated from HS in 1976 the SAT test was fair. No prep classes, no test-taking strategies…just plain old smarts. These days the SAT is taken many times and in between the tests, many students are paying hundreds or thousands of dollars to increase their scores. Is this a true measure of someone’s intelligence?? I would like to see kids take it once. Unfortunately, they would prepare for that! What about the kids who don’t have the money for tutors or prep courses? What about the kids whose parents will only give them the $$ to take it once? YOU ARE ABOUT MORE THAN YOUR SAT SCORES…and if you don’t think so now, you will when you get out in the work force! </p>
<p>I agree that it is a big change and a little unnerving…but try to think outside the box.</p>
<p>Food for thought…would you have gotten into the college of your choice if you took the test once…no prep? No superscore.</p>
<p>Only took the SAT once - no prep - no superscore, and yes got admitted to the college of my choice.</p>
<p>I agree that you are more than your test scores. Previously did WF admit only based on test scores? Most private colleges use a more holistic approach, with test scores as only a part of the picture. I don’t think that anyone is saying that WF should only use test scores as the basis for admission; it’s just that not using them at all might not be the solution. Seems a chunk of the holistic picture is missing. Again: no SATs, unranked, hmmm … at some point, you need a basis of comparison.</p>
<p>Foto2gem: I agree with you 100% </p>
<p>Ignatius: I agree with you as well, about using the test as part of painting a picture.</p>
<p>What was college admissions like BEFORE the SAT? It hasn’t always been around…and people applied to and were accepted at colleges and life went on. It can happen again…</p>
<p>NW2012…now if I could just get that response from my children…
And from my husband for that matter!</p>
<p>I think colleges used to use admission exam instead of SAT. for example, I was reading someone’s biography and it said he failed Princeton University admission exam so he could not attend Princeton…British Universities still use academic interview which is totally different from college interviews in America. They rather ask academic questions, and the interviewee should explain his/her answers…There should be something like that if SAT is not required.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I like that idea a lot.</p>
<p>Don’t forget that Wake’s application has always been fairly writing intensive. I think that the admissions office at Wake thinks that from a student’s essays, they will be able to tell the difference between someone who has all A’s because they go to an easy school and someone who has all A’s because they deserve them. And personally, I like that this plan gives the student who wants to major in English and who has phenomenal grades in the humanities and tons of potential in his/her chosen field but who just doesn’t do well in math and has a 400 on the math section of the SAT a chance to go to a good school where there is no reason for him/her to do well since he/she doesn’t have to take math (his/her one bad subject) anymore.</p>
<p>^^The only thing I worry about is that some kids are going to slip in who aren’t as qualified based on their GPA regardless of how inflated their high school grades are. Yes grades are the GREATIST overall factor in the admissions process. I don’t think Wake recognizes that some public schools are a joke in North Carolina (as I’m sure they are elsewhere). But lets be Wake and give them the benefit of the doubt for diversity’s sake.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>On what basis do you make that assertion? Do you think the WF admissions officers are not trained? Not professional? Dumb?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, I woud not assume anything about the math level of the two girls bcos the first girl will not submit the test, so I would not see it (“gpa/class rank”).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>EVERY former admissions person who has written a book (see Cohen, Hernandez et al) makes it quite clear that high school competitiveness IS taken into account. Moreover, being a Val at a 500 student HS is much better than being a VAl in a graduating class of 50. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wake Forest NEVER said it would NOT “look” at standardized test scores. Submit 'em if you want Admissions to look at 'em. But why automatically exclude the <1800 SAT who also just happens to have, say, three AP 5’s, in the tough subjects? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, I have heard of this happening in Texas schools, and perhaps elsewhere; everyone above a 4.0 w = Val. But, frankly, it is not that difficult to discern the differences bcos that weighted gpa has a max possible. So, a 4.5 trumps a 4.1 even tho they are both technically Vals.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry, but this reasoning is just silly. Professional schools – med & law in particular – all ALL about the numbers (gpa+mcat/lsat). Unless I missed the announcement that WF was also dropping test requirements for its grad schools, their policy focuses on undergrad admissions only.</p>
<p>Believe me…I too am concerned. It is a change…scary stuff. Let’s just suppose that WAKE is right…that they are moving in the right direction…that they are willing to lead the way. I am wondering how many wealthy folks were concerned when HYP, etc. decided to eliminate tuition for families with low incomes. Uh-oh…we might be going to school with kids who come from less than we do…no longer will it be for the rich and privileged…that was a VERY progressive move. The world is changing…maybe WAKE is being a leader instead of a follower. It is a fabulous place. The kids there are amazing, but it has not received the recognition it is due. I think that it is one of the best schools in the country…Forbes ranked it #19. Their rankings are based on what happens AFTER graduation. They say that USNWR rankings are like ranking a chef on the ingredients he chooses. Forbes ranks the chef on the entree. </p>
<p>Imagine you are interviewing for a position after graduation. Isn’t is possible that a kid with a lower GPA than you may end up more successful in a company…maybe he/she had lower SATs…what did they have? Something intangible…leadership qualities…communication skills…who knows? I am sure that you’ve all met that someone…they shouldn’t be so great…they are not quite as smart as you…but, dammit, they’ve got that special something. And then there are those who look perfect on paper, but are missing other qualities.</p>
<p>foto2gem … you’ve brought to light a most interesting point in the end game of trying to determine the ultimate purpose(s) of a college education. For a great many, it’ll be the current day “union card.” Don’t got one, no worthwhile work.</p>
<p>For others, it’ll be the next level of transcript, LSAT, Medcat, GRE, Miller Analogies (do they still use this?), etc. Simply an upper-level replay of the scenario being discussed ad nauseum here.</p>
<p>And for some, notably those holding sheepskins from one of the 20-30 “elite” institutions, it will be an entry-level-admit-one ticket. Based upon school chums and networks, institutional reputations, or a combination, one will get that early job. Won’t keep it for her, nor will it move her up the corporate food chain, but may get her in the door. May get her even a 2nd or 3rd job, which will likely be necessary.</p>
<p>And for most, we’d hope, it will be the “tool box” that helps you to get started with the most valuable tool being a good foundation and stimulus for further learning in life. Many in this group won’t necessarily be the ones with summa cum magna carta grades. They’re the ones who learned to work, learn, play on a team in good spirits and with a specific role. In a great many cases, these will be the “average” academic players who’ll become stars in the workplace. There’s a significant and growing body of research illustrating that academic achievement and work-wold success require vastly different types of “intelligence.” And one apparent conclusion is that while these 2 forms of “smart” need not be fully disparate, one from the other, they often are. Those with academic “intelligence” tend to perform well and have opportunity to do so in academic settings. Wanna be a professor? Score on your SAT, GRE, etc. and fret plenty about your grades.</p>
<p>btw, despite that growing body of evidence about this reality, there’s a substantial and very real disincentive for academics, i.e. those most likely to explore this type of stuff, to do it. Why? Reduces their power, position, self-import and esteem, value of their path, etc., etc. No way one wants to ask and answer honestly a question that might indicate their role is not nearly so important as they perceived. Not to demean the relatively few really brilliant Ph.Ds. , but for way too many of them, it’s the proverbial pursuit to know more and more of less and less until they know absolutely everything about nothing. Ever read any/many refereed journals? </p>
<p>But if you don’t fit that profile, don’t despair. Work hard, learn to learn, learn to be liked by and to like others and “get along,” work hard, keep learning, be cooperative, show genuine interest, work hard, exhibit loyalty and respect for your associates, work hard, be accountable, reliable and trustworthy, recognize and allow authority and superiors to perform what they must, eliminate airs of superiority, arrogance, elitism from one’s demeanor. Did I mention work hard?</p>
<p>Reading this thread (perhaps right after “Gone With the Wind” and immediately prior to “War & Piece” 
) it’s easy to see the very different forms of “intellect”, notably in how those good folks in WFU’s admissions, administrative, and governing roles and players are viewed and held up or put down by the intelligentia here on. And not tough seeing why a some very “bright” people are total flops in the world of reality, work, family, etc. Smart and oh so dumb, it seems.</p>
<p>This might ironically help Wake Forest as I was saying before.</p>
<p>Wake Forest will seem to have a ‘higher’ SAT average… guaranteed most of the people who will be sending test scores to Wake will have a 1350+. Sure there will be a little asterisk which will a reference a footnote saying, “Only 40% of students sent in test scores”, but how many employers are going to be spending hours perusing US News anyway?
:p</p>
<p>Does anyone understand that Wake Forest did not “DROP” the SAT. they just no longer “techincally” require it. it still won’t good if you don’t submit it. This, however, just gives them some freedom to recruit those who are exceptional in other ways. Which is something they can do since they are small enough to have their mandatory interview process and intensive writing portion of the application.
it also makes a statement, and obviously is a publicity stunt…</p>
<p>by the way it wont inflate scores, only # of applications. they still have to get the test score information from those who didnt submit to them and then send that info to US news</p>
<p>bball – what mandatory interview? Is that a new requirement in the last couple of years? D did not have an interview.</p>
<p>They now strongly recommend interviews with alumni now. You could always schedule to have one though. I had one with the assistant dean of admissions I believe before I applied.</p>