Is it me or are test scores now more important than ever?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The insistence here that certain students must have test scores is being over sold. Our counselor told us test optional means test optional. My white male UMC son went test optional and was accepted to a T10 ED as well as five other colleges rolling or EA, including both public and private schools, several of them offering significant merit aid. Granted he had a strong application but not hooked. I keep seeing this board insist a student like him has to submit scores, and that is wrong, they don’t.

From what state?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The insistence here that certain students must have test scores is being over sold. Our counselor told us test optional means test optional. My white male UMC son went test optional and was accepted to a T10 ED as well as five other colleges rolling or EA, including both public and private schools, several of them offering significant merit aid. Granted he had a strong application but not hooked. I keep seeing this board insist a student like him has to submit scores, and that is wrong, they don’t.

And now some schools are moving towards test preferred and counselors are changing their advice. If anything is true about college admissions in the past few years, it’s that things change between each cycle.

[Anonymous]

Having shepherded two kids through the college application process recently, I have come to believe that the world is only test optional for recruited athletes, UMCs, the offspring of VIPs and major donors, and students from California. If you are applying to any school in the top 80 or so, and don't fall into one of those categories, going TO is a major strike against the applicant.

Meh. If you’re a “standard strong” kid (good grades and rigor, good ECs but nothing crazy, not an athlete, URM, or donor) your score isn’t going to make much difference either way. Chance of getting in is negligible whether you submit a score or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For colleges that are test optional, no - test scores are not "more important than ever."

Logic.

It’s amazing how many people today accept surface level explanations and don’t consider unintended consequences or ulterior motives.

Parents think they are smarter than the colleges and AOs. Especially when their DC gets deferred or rejected.

If colleges don't want to be test optional they won't state that they are. The highly selective schools have their pick of the students they want to shape the class they want in any given admissions cycle - test optional or not.

A few schools have recently made statements indicating they are test preferred. They are saying it.

Which schools? And where are they saying this?

And obscure podcasts don't count. Where is it on the college's website?

It’s not.

So at our private, I personally know TO applicants who got into:

Vanderbilt
Cornell
Northwestern
Colgate
UofChicago (no surprise)

I’m sure there are others. I have a senior who’s friends with these folks. Don’t know any others.

So many insist that TO is for poor minorities. See above for more proof that even the well-to do apply TO successfully.

That is definitely California. None of the UCs or CalStates even look at test scores. So no one takes them anymore. It's been like for a few years now. But California is such a huge state with lots of very qualified students that it distorts the picture nationally.

People have been observing that Vanderbilt for instance takes nearly 40 percent of their class TO. You can assume at least half of those are from California. A more accurate understanding would be that outside of students applying from California, more than 80 percent of applicants submitted scores. And that strikes me as more intuitively correct. But California is so big that it creates misperceptions at the national level private universities.

Having shepherded two kids through the college application process recently, I have come to believe that the world is only test optional for recruited athletes, UMCs, the offspring of VIPs and major donors, and students from California. If you are applying to any school in the top 80 or so, and don't fall into one of those categories, going TO is a major strike against the applicant.

Your assumption is incorrect. In fall of 2023, 9% of the students were from California. Source: https://www.vanderbilt.edu/dsa/students-data/

No private school would take 20% of the enrolled class from one state (excluding the home state, e.g., Tennessee).

Assume two thirds of Californians don’t submit test scores, which would be 6 percent of the class. It’s really easy to assume much of the rest of test optional is institutional priorities — 6 percent of class is athletic recruits, 24 percent urm, 23 percent pell eligible, and 16 percent first gen (there’s overlap between groups and of course some submit scores). Vanderbilt doesn’t release numbers for legacies, but they are very big on sibling legacies, and of course, no data on large donor, assume another 10 percent of class from these two groups.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For colleges that are test optional, no - test scores are not "more important than ever."

Logic.

It’s amazing how many people today accept surface level explanations and don’t consider unintended consequences or ulterior motives.

Parents think they are smarter than the colleges and AOs. Especially when their DC gets deferred or rejected.

If colleges don't want to be test optional they won't state that they are. The highly selective schools have their pick of the students they want to shape the class they want in any given admissions cycle - test optional or not.

A few schools have recently made statements indicating they are test preferred. They are saying it.

Which schools? And where are they saying this?

And obscure podcasts don't count. Where is it on the college's website?

It’s not.

So at our private, I personally know TO applicants who got into:

Vanderbilt
Cornell
Northwestern
Colgate
UofChicago (no surprise)

I’m sure there are others. I have a senior who’s friends with these folks. Don’t know any others.

So many insist that TO is for poor minorities. See above for more proof that even the well-to do apply TO successfully.

That is definitely California. None of the UCs or CalStates even look at test scores. So no one takes them anymore. It's been like for a few years now. But California is such a huge state with lots of very qualified students that it distorts the picture nationally.

People have been observing that Vanderbilt for instance takes nearly 40 percent of their class TO. You can assume at least half of those are from California. A more accurate understanding would be that outside of students applying from California, more than 80 percent of applicants submitted scores. And that strikes me as more intuitively correct. But California is so big that it creates misperceptions at the national level private universities.

Having shepherded two kids through the college application process recently, I have come to believe that the world is only test optional for recruited athletes, UMCs, the offspring of VIPs and major donors, and students from California. If you are applying to any school in the top 80 or so, and don't fall into one of those categories, going TO is a major strike against the applicant.

Your assumption is incorrect. In fall of 2023, 9% of the students were from California. Source: https://www.vanderbilt.edu/dsa/students-data/

No private school would take 20% of the enrolled class from one state (excluding the home state, e.g., Tennessee).

Assume two thirds of Californians don’t submit test scores, which would be 6 percent of the class. It’s really easy to assume much of the rest of test optional is institutional priorities — 6 percent of class is athletic recruits, 24 percent urm, 23 percent pell eligible, and 16 percent first gen (there’s overlap between groups and of course some submit scores). Vanderbilt doesn’t release numbers for legacies, but they are very big on sibling legacies, and of course, no data on large donor, assume another 10 percent of class from these two groups.

I know a legacy kid who got in last year TO. Father likely a pretty big donor and involved in various ways

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, OP is correct. The way schools use test optional now, there is no difference between a 1200 and a 1500 (both are advised to apply test optional), but all the difference in the world between a 1500 and a 1520. Which puts kids scoring at the upper end of the test optional range under enormous pressure to get their objectively very good scores up to the reportable level.

It's really crazy and just completely substantiates the not so conspiracy conspiracy theory that TO is a mechanism to facilitate DEI type goals. It doesn't make sense to say on the one hand, test scores really aren't meaningful and shouldn't be a roadblock to top notch education, but then on the other hand care about the difference between one or two questions right on the SAT (for a certain group of applicants). If test scores are seen as unreliable because they are just a reflection of socioeconomic circumstances, they can't also be so reliable as to be a precise measure of ability within a pool of candidates from the same socioeconomic circumstances.

Not a conspiracy theory. I think it's common sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The point isn’t that TO isn’t TO; it’s that if you have a high test score, it helps, perhaps more than ever before.

Yet some posters (or the same 2-3) on this thread continued to repeat TO is only for URM applications (black kids specifically) and athletes, even though we know, based on the numbers, TO is benefiting white and Asian.

Test optional would seem to benefit kids from all backgrounds who can't break 1100.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some schools only want test scores that allow them to increase their average test score profile. It's not that they wouldn't accept your 1450 or that it isn't good enough (it clearly is), they just don't want to be forced to report it if their rival schools aren't. Stupid games, all caused by silly rankings that don't mean anything.

This is the comment right here. It used to be that the point of scores were to show that a kid could do college-level work. Now scores are a marketing strategy for the schools. If only 1500+ kids submit, a school can claim their average test score is 1500+.

Stupid games indeed. It’s like we are in some bizarro-world in which the point of the kid’s application is to help the schools game the rankings. We’ve lost the plot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Having shepherded two kids through the college application process recently, I have come to believe that the world is only test optional for recruited athletes, UMCs, the offspring of VIPs and major donors, and students from California. If you are applying to any school in the top 80 or so, and don't fall into one of those categories, going TO is a major strike against the applicant.

Meh. If you’re a “standard strong” kid (good grades and rigor, good ECs but nothing crazy, not an athlete, URM, or donor) your score isn’t going to make much difference either way. Chance of getting in is negligible whether you submit a score or not.

Personally, I think essays and recommendations are where it's really at for unhooked kids.

Get a 34 or 1500, and you will definitely be considered at top 40 schools.

But you need the score if otherwise unhooked. Two cents.

Of course, someone scoring 5s on a dozen AP tests will do fine. But generally, admissions readers want to see that the standardized scores match the grades in rigorous classes.

Not submitting those standardized scores is a pretty big red flag.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Having shepherded two kids through the college application process recently, I have come to believe that the world is only test optional for recruited athletes, UMCs, the offspring of VIPs and major donors, and students from California. If you are applying to any school in the top 80 or so, and don't fall into one of those categories, going TO is a major strike against the applicant.

Meh. If you’re a “standard strong” kid (good grades and rigor, good ECs but nothing crazy, not an athlete, URM, or donor) your score isn’t going to make much difference either way. Chance of getting in is negligible whether you submit a score or not.

+100

At many T20 schools, an unhooked student has less than a 5% chance of admittance, in many cases, less than 2% because of institutional priorities. Submit the score (>1480/33) or go TO. The odds will not dramatically change even with a 1580.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some schools only want test scores that allow them to increase their average test score profile. It's not that they wouldn't accept your 1450 or that it isn't good enough (it clearly is), they just don't want to be forced to report it if their rival schools aren't. Stupid games, all caused by silly rankings that don't mean anything.

This is the comment right here. It used to be that the point of scores were to show that a kid could do college-level work. Now scores are a marketing strategy for the schools. If only 1500+ kids submit, a school can claim their average test score is 1500+.

Stupid games indeed. It’s like we are in some bizarro-world in which the point of the kid’s application is to help the schools game the rankings. We’ve lost the plot.

I keep reading comments like this from people pushing going TO, but then the common data set scores move up only slightly for each school. So the kids in the 25th percentile are still getting in with those scores. If your kid can get anything above that number it makes no sense not to submit.

[Anonymous]

my son and his best friend he has played his varsity sport with all 4 years are both very similar in ECs. I cannot comment on LORs or essays. However my son has a 4.2 and his friend a 4.6. His friend could not get his SATs over 1200, my kid scored a 1560 (not a super score either) My kid ranks 28, his friend top 10. They both applied ED to Washington & Lee. my son got in his friend did not. It’s shocking my kid got in with his low class rank. I would. it say my sons essays were extraordinary, as he doesn’t have any sort or remarkable live story. I really think TO is a disadvantage for applicants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The insistence here that certain students must have test scores is being over sold. Our counselor told us test optional means test optional. My white male UMC son went test optional and was accepted to a T10 ED as well as five other colleges rolling or EA, including both public and private schools, several of them offering significant merit aid. Granted he had a strong application but not hooked. I keep seeing this board insist a student like him has to submit scores, and that is wrong, they don’t.

+1 my friend's daughter, unhooked, white, UMC, top private in NYC, got into Dartmouth ED (this year's cycle).

So, rich kid in Manhattan.

Not really applicable to a middle class kid applying from the burbs in Cleveland.

The TO advantage is meant for DEI and the privileged going to "top private in NYC."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The insistence here that certain students must have test scores is being over sold. Our counselor told us test optional means test optional. My white male UMC son went test optional and was accepted to a T10 ED as well as five other colleges rolling or EA, including both public and private schools, several of them offering significant merit aid. Granted he had a strong application but not hooked. I keep seeing this board insist a student like him has to submit scores, and that is wrong, they don’t.

+1 my friend's daughter, unhooked, white, UMC, top private in NYC, got into Dartmouth ED (this year's cycle).

So, rich kid in Manhattan.

Not really applicable to a middle class kid applying from the burbs in Cleveland.

The TO advantage is meant for DEI and the privileged going to "top private in NYC."

Her family is UMC, I know their income is under $300k and they submitted CSS profile. Similar SES with many of the DMV posters on this board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The insistence here that certain students must have test scores is being over sold. Our counselor told us test optional means test optional. My white male UMC son went test optional and was accepted to a T10 ED as well as five other colleges rolling or EA, including both public and private schools, several of them offering significant merit aid. Granted he had a strong application but not hooked. I keep seeing this board insist a student like him has to submit scores, and that is wrong, they don’t.

+1 my friend's daughter, unhooked, white, UMC, top private in NYC, got into Dartmouth ED (this year's cycle).

So, rich kid in Manhattan.

Not really applicable to a middle class kid applying from the burbs in Cleveland.

The TO advantage is meant for DEI and the privileged going to "top private in NYC."

Her family is UMC, I know their income is under $300k and they submitted CSS profile. Similar SES with many of the DMV posters on this board.

Maybe DCUM people making $300k don’t “feel rich” but I assure you most of the country would consider that rich.