Let's discuss "Test Optional"

[Anonymous]

Does it mean "Your test scores could help you but omitting them from your application won't hurt" or "admissions stuff presume that your scores were not good if you don't submit them and they will choose someone with decent/mediocre scores over someone who doesn't, all other things being equal"?

I may be skeptical, but I am starting to doubt the line given out by our school's counselors that the scores only matter if they help you. There's a negative deduction to be made there.

Any views?

[Anonymous]

If you listen to AOs, they hate College Board and care more about rigor/GPA.

If you listen to everyone who is not an AO, testing is the most important thing in the world.

[Anonymous]

Again?

[Anonymous]

I think your school counselors are basically right. You’re getting hung up on the idea that colleges are trying to admit the strongest students. The vast majority of them are not. They’re trying to maximize revenue. TO increases the pool of admissible students who are willing and able to pay sticker price.

[Anonymous]

Agree 100% I believe that the standards for students that don't submit scores are significantly higher -- near-perfect grades, ECs, LORs and essays. Outside of a few schools, particular the UCs, test scores seem to really benefit applicants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you listen to AOs, they hate College Board and care more about rigor/GPA.

If you listen to everyone who is not an AO, testing is the most important thing in the world.

Care more about gpa/rigor, but still prefer that combo with high test scores. At least at the T30 or so. Test optional students get admitted at a much lower rate at these schools, but 2 years ago. A good chunk of them wouldn’t have even been considered.

[Anonymous]

I know this is just anecdotal, but here is what happened to my kid and their friend from school. Both applied ED in-state to flagship, well-regarded university. My kid applied with the following stats: 4.4 gpa and 1420 sat, plus good ECs (varsity sports, good amount of community service and typical teenage summer job-DID NOT start a business, cure cancer or publish a research paper!). Friend with slightly lower GPA and sat 1460 (similar ECs) decided not to submit score. My kid was accepted. Friend was deferred. I think my kid’s score, thogh in the lower range if accepted students, validated their gpa. We were not sure about submitting, but took the plunge, and it paid off!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agree 100% I believe that the standards for students that don't submit scores are significantly higher -- near-perfect grades, ECs, LORs and essays. Outside of a few schools, particular the UCs, test scores seem to really benefit applicants.

+1

Also, the idea that you shouldn't submit test scores that fall marginally below the mean or median ACT/SAT score for the school is a terrible one. If DC is only a few points below, but DC goes TO, then DC gets lumped in with all of the TO applicants who were much lower than the mean or median score. That means that the rest of DC's application will have to be that much better.

So to quote Mel Brooks, if you've got it, flaunt it! https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/if%20you%27ve%20got%20it%2C%20flaunt%20it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you listen to AOs, they hate College Board and care more about rigor/GPA.

If you listen to everyone who is not an AO, testing is the most important thing in the world.

Total bullshit.
That's basically much less standard and much more work for AOs from it.
AOs don't like TO

[Anonymous]

I’m hearing it really varies by college.
I hate the TO system because it think it’s a never ending death spiral. Take a school that 3 years ago had admitted saga in the 1400-1450 range. 2 years ago kids would only submit if they were above 1425, so admitted range went up to 1425-1475. Last year kids only submit if above 1450, so admitted range goes up to 1450-1500. This year will go up again and next year again, etc. etc. that’s just an example but I’ve heard that is essentially what’s happening at many TO schools.
I personally think standardized tests are great for helping to ID promising kids from random schools in random towns. And the death of standardized test scores probably only helps kids whose applications are being crafted by their parents and consultants.

[Anonymous]

It is difficult to show rigor when everyone is in Honors English and many kids graduate over 4.0 (MCPS)

[Anonymous]

I heard an AO say "if you are proud of your score submit it". My DC submitted at 50% (she chose ED1 school based in part on matching 50%) and was accepted ED1. she would have also submitted if at 25%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you listen to AOs, they hate College Board and care more about rigor/GPA.

If you listen to everyone who is not an AO, testing is the most important thing in the world.

Total bullshit.
That's basically much less standard and much more work for AOs from it.
AOs don't like TO

Source?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you listen to AOs, they hate College Board and care more about rigor/GPA.

If you listen to everyone who is not an AO, testing is the most important thing in the world.

Total bullshit.
That's basically much less standard and much more work for AOs from it.
AOs don't like TO

Source?

If you were an AO, would you like better standard and more information or deal with more random stuff

[Anonymous]

I am skeptical as well. I think it's important to understand in all this that college is a business. TO gets more applications so helps them. Of course, most schools will stick with it since it helps them.

Touting TO as some sort of equity improvement is ridiculous. From what I see, it's less. Wealthy parents are instead spending thousands on essay editing, and other application boosts. Tests seem more equal to me than this.