Let's discuss "Test Optional"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way I interpret this is: if you are underprivileged/first gen college applicant, and if you have an otherwise good application, we don’t care if you omit your scores.
If you went to a top private school and are full pay, you better believe that we expect you to submit your scores and for them to be exceptional.

I have no problem with that btw, and my DC are in the latter category.

Full pay applicants benefit under TO. Colleges need to pay the bills.

Wait, I thought full pay applicants get high scores easily because they can afford test prep?

Anyone can afford Khan - it’s free!

But Kahn is not the same as 1:1 tutoring, which is what many rich kids do

Exactly! My own privileged kid did about 8 hours of 1:1 test prep. It involved a baseline test, 4 hours of test prep (1 hour math, the other 3 on verbal) to teach the "tricks"/what changes my kid needed to make, then 4 additional tests with 1 hour of tutoring after each one to regroup/discuss what else to do. My kid only had to do outside work of 1-2 hours in between each practice test.


My kid went from 1330 to 1500 after the first 4 hours of test prep. Each additional test was between 1480-1520 and kid ultimately got a 1500 in same sitting on 2nd official test (got 1460 on 1st).

With only 8 hours of paid 1:1 and another 4 hours of work (plus the time to take the 4 practice tests). No way Khan academy can be that effective so fast. It's just easier, more targeted by a tutor who knows the "tricks" and how to help a kid based on their previous tests. It's spoon-fed to you and a smart kid will pick it up fast (we would be where we ended with only 4 hours of tutoring). It's a privilege and if you can afford it definitely worth it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way I interpret this is: if you are underprivileged/first gen college applicant, and if you have an otherwise good application, we don’t care if you omit your scores.
If you went to a top private school and are full pay, you better believe that we expect you to submit your scores and for them to be exceptional.

I have no problem with that btw, and my DC are in the latter category.

Full pay applicants benefit under TO. Colleges need to pay the bills.

Wait, I thought full pay applicants get high scores easily because they can afford test prep?

Anyone can afford Khan - it’s free!

But Kahn is not the same as 1:1 tutoring, which is what many rich kids do

Exactly! My own privileged kid did about 8 hours of 1:1 test prep. It involved a baseline test, 4 hours of test prep (1 hour math, the other 3 on verbal) to teach the "tricks"/what changes my kid needed to make, then 4 additional tests with 1 hour of tutoring after each one to regroup/discuss what else to do. My kid only had to do outside work of 1-2 hours in between each practice test.


My kid went from 1330 to 1500 after the first 4 hours of test prep. Each additional test was between 1480-1520 and kid ultimately got a 1500 in same sitting on 2nd official test (got 1460 on 1st).

With only 8 hours of paid 1:1 and another 4 hours of work (plus the time to take the 4 practice tests). No way Khan academy can be that effective so fast. It's just easier, more targeted by a tutor who knows the "tricks" and how to help a kid based on their previous tests. It's spoon-fed to you and a smart kid will pick it up fast (we would be where we ended with only 4 hours of tutoring). It's a privilege and if you can afford it definitely worth it

So, your kid went up 40 points due to tutoring -1460 to 1500? You do realize that your kid would likely have gotten the same score just by virtue of sitting for test. All kids go up from psat to sat sitting 1 to sitting 2.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. The people who really, really love TO the most are D1 coaches of men’s sports that are played internationally. It means they can now recruit young men who have been semi-pro in their home countries regardless of how paltry their high school education was (and often, it was very paltry) because there is no objective academic measure to be met. No 18-year-old US senior can compete against a 22-year-old semipro who doesn’t have to get a minimum SAT score any more, so TO is changing the face of D1 recruiting very quickly. Men’s swimming, water polo, tennis, golf, soccer, basketball, hockey, etc. are all impacted by this.

This is fascinating. Do you have any additional information or links to articles?

This will also apply to women’s sports as well I’m sure.

Sports admit should be limited to certain majors like physical education

This is a really odd statement. Why would a student athlete be limited in what they can major in? I know many D1 athletes who were pre med and are now doctors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way I interpret this is: if you are underprivileged/first gen college applicant, and if you have an otherwise good application, we don’t care if you omit your scores.
If you went to a top private school and are full pay, you better believe that we expect you to submit your scores and for them to be exceptional.

I have no problem with that btw, and my DC are in the latter category.

Full pay applicants benefit under TO. Colleges need to pay the bills.

Wait, I thought full pay applicants get high scores easily because they can afford test prep?

Anyone can afford Khan - it’s free!

But Kahn is not the same as 1:1 tutoring, which is what many rich kids do

Exactly! My own privileged kid did about 8 hours of 1:1 test prep. It involved a baseline test, 4 hours of test prep (1 hour math, the other 3 on verbal) to teach the "tricks"/what changes my kid needed to make, then 4 additional tests with 1 hour of tutoring after each one to regroup/discuss what else to do. My kid only had to do outside work of 1-2 hours in between each practice test.


My kid went from 1330 to 1500 after the first 4 hours of test prep. Each additional test was between 1480-1520 and kid ultimately got a 1500 in same sitting on 2nd official test (got 1460 on 1st).

With only 8 hours of paid 1:1 and another 4 hours of work (plus the time to take the 4 practice tests). No way Khan academy can be that effective so fast. It's just easier, more targeted by a tutor who knows the "tricks" and how to help a kid based on their previous tests. It's spoon-fed to you and a smart kid will pick it up fast (we would be where we ended with only 4 hours of tutoring). It's a privilege and if you can afford it definitely worth it

So, your kid went up 40 points due to tutoring -1460 to 1500? You do realize that your kid would likely have gotten the same score just by virtue of sitting for test. All kids go up from psat to sat sitting 1 to sitting 2.

Seriously. My kid did Princeton review, got a 1430 first sitting, commended on the PSAT and then a 1490 second sitting. I personally think that Khan might have been better, but with my child knowing that we paid for it and it was a set schedule, she was going to do a better job of staying on track. I think if she had done better practicing on the math with khan academy she would have gotten better math score and been over 1500. I would have expected more from a tutor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way I interpret this is: if you are underprivileged/first gen college applicant, and if you have an otherwise good application, we don’t care if you omit your scores.
If you went to a top private school and are full pay, you better believe that we expect you to submit your scores and for them to be exceptional.

I have no problem with that btw, and my DC are in the latter category.

Full pay applicants benefit under TO. Colleges need to pay the bills.

Wait, I thought full pay applicants get high scores easily because they can afford test prep?

Anyone can afford Khan - it’s free!

But Kahn is not the same as 1:1 tutoring, which is what many rich kids do

Exactly! My own privileged kid did about 8 hours of 1:1 test prep. It involved a baseline test, 4 hours of test prep (1 hour math, the other 3 on verbal) to teach the "tricks"/what changes my kid needed to make, then 4 additional tests with 1 hour of tutoring after each one to regroup/discuss what else to do. My kid only had to do outside work of 1-2 hours in between each practice test.


My kid went from 1330 to 1500 after the first 4 hours of test prep. Each additional test was between 1480-1520 and kid ultimately got a 1500 in same sitting on 2nd official test (got 1460 on 1st).

With only 8 hours of paid 1:1 and another 4 hours of work (plus the time to take the 4 practice tests). No way Khan academy can be that effective so fast. It's just easier, more targeted by a tutor who knows the "tricks" and how to help a kid based on their previous tests. It's spoon-fed to you and a smart kid will pick it up fast (we would be where we ended with only 4 hours of tutoring). It's a privilege and if you can afford it definitely worth it

Would you mind sharing who was the tutor?