What were the Wharton admission standards and average SAT scores in the late 1960s?
Executive summary
Wharton in the late 1960s admitted a far higher share of applicants than today: contemporaneous reporting about mid‑1960s admissions says the school “accepted more than half of its applicants,” and a former Wharton admissions officer later described admission then as “not very difficult” [1] [2]. Available sources in the provided set do not give a published average SAT score for Wharton undergraduates in the late 1960s; national SAT tables exist for that period but the current search results do not include Wharton‑specific SAT averages for the 1960s [3].
1. Wharton’s selection standards were looser in the 1960s — former officer’s account
A clear contemporary thread in the sources is testimony from James Nolan, a former University of Pennsylvania admissions official, who said that in the mid‑1960s Wharton “accepted more than half of its applicants” and that admissions “was not very difficult” compared with modern levels [1] [2]. Nolan’s account is cited in multiple outlets and was used to explain how a transfer applicant—Donald Trump—was admitted with assistance from a family friend; the implication across reports is that institutional selectivity then was substantially lower than today [1] [2].
2. What those accounts mean for “standards” — a mix of process and context
The phrase “not very difficult” and the >50% acceptance statement describe relative selectivity, not a formal numeric threshold for grades, recommendations or test scores [1] [2]. The sources present admissions as a human‑driven process in which personal contacts and individual officers could materially influence outcomes—illustrated by the transfer case discussed—rather than as a strictly score‑driven filter [1].
3. SAT averages for Wharton in the late 1960s — not found in the available reporting
The materials provided do not include a Wharton‑specific SAT average for the late 1960s. The Department of Education maintains historical national SAT tables that span the era [3], but the current search results do not link those national tables to a Wharton or Penn undergraduate average for the 1960s, and no Wharton archival score reporting appears in the set [3]. Therefore a concrete Wharton SAT average for that decade cannot be asserted from these sources.
4. How historians and journalists treat 1960s comparisons — beware apples and oranges
When modern pieces contrast current ultra‑selectivity with 1960s openness they rely on anecdote, institutional memory and changing applicant pools [1] [2]. Acceptance‑rate comparisons across decades can mislead because applicant volume, the relative prestige of programs, transfer rules, and standardized‑testing regimes all changed over time; the sources here use personal recollection and selective data rather than a comprehensive institutional dataset [1] [2].
5. Alternate viewpoints and limitations in the record
The sources largely echo a single line of testimony (Nolan) and reportage around one high‑profile applicant; no institutional archival release or Penn/Wharton data table for 1960s admissions standards or average SATs is present in the provided results [1] [2]. That creates two limitations: (a) the claim about >50% acceptance rests on an individual’s memory as reported by journalists, and (b) absence of direct Wharton score reporting means we cannot confirm how test scores factored into decisions then from available reporting [1] [2] [3].
6. What can responsibly be concluded from the available sources
From the cited reporting one can responsibly conclude Wharton was markedly less selective in the mid‑1960s than in the 21st century and that admissions decisions could hinge on personal intervention and individual officer judgments [1] [2]. The sources do not provide a numeric average SAT for Wharton undergraduates in the late 1960s; national SAT tables exist for that era but the current set does not tie those national figures to Wharton specifically [3].
If you want, I can (A) try to locate archival Penn/Wharton admissions reports or yearbooks that might list class profiles from the 1960s, or (B) extract relevant national SAT trends from the NCES tables for 1966–67 to give context on how SAT scores were changing at that time [3]. Which would you prefer?