Thread by @asymmetricinfo

I got in to Penn with a 2.7 GPA (though improving steadily throughout high school), & parents who couldn't afford to make donations. The weird smart kid who didn't do homework because they were too busy writing a novel was a definite character in the Ivies in my era. Not any more

https://twitter.com/iwelsh/status/1459602070571347968

In fairness, applications were much more labor intensive then, with no common app, and I applied to more schools than most people of my era. Unsurprisingly, given my GPA, I had a high reject rate: I got into two out of three of my reaches, but was rejected by both of my safeties.

Getting rid of the SAT is going to be one more strike against that kinds of kids. Every remaining criteria is some variation on "how hard do you try to please adults, and how well have you mastered the rarified set of social norms embraced by college admissions officers?"

Now, pleasing adults is a skill I probably should have mastered earlier and better ... but society needs its non-conformists, and our elite schools are systematically weeding them out.

To be clear: I went on to almost flunk out of Penn before once again getting religion, improving my GPA, and ending up as a largely functional adult who meets deadlines. Admitting kids with high SATs and low GPAs is a high-risk strategy ... but schools should take more such risks

Not because it benefitted me, but because history often made by the wanderers who had the idea no one else thought of ... and because we are most vulnerable to groupthink when we systematically eliminate anyone who doesn't satisfy our innate craving for the pleasantly predictable