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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

What are the numbers that show us this?

As Asians do better on tests than any other group, how could removing tests as a metric possibly benefit them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nah. If they see good grades in rigorous courses, they’re not going to assume the kid is way under their 50th percentile, they’ll assume “somewhat under”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't disagree if you compare UMC incomes with people in other parts of the country. However, we are talking about TO and the unhooked white/Asian students in the DMV (and other metro areas with a high percentage of educated people) are UMC with incomes >$150K but not rich enough to make a large donation. Plenty of Big 3 and other private schools in this area also have similar UMC families. Seems like you believe these families are hooked. I agree that top private high schools have an advantage in college admissions, but that is not considered a hook.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

What are the numbers that show us this?

As Asians do better on tests than any other group, how could removing tests as a metric possibly benefit them?

DP: Good question--and yet I know an Asian American female student who was admitted to an Ivy TO. Not an athlete, legacy, or donor. Excellent grades, rigor, and ECs. Just under 50th % so didn't submit.

[Neo]

Bucknell - 96% submitted test scores. Very interesting

[Anonymous]

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.

This characterization of standardized testing in the State of California departs significantly from what I've seen. That's fancy talk for calling it B.S.

Students who are planning to apply beyond the UC and CSU systems, which includes most of the students in the higher performing school districts, are absolutely continuing to sit for the ACT and/or the SAT. Why do you think it's such a hassle to get a seat in a testing center within 60 miles of one's home? In my son's high school this past year (2023), 78% of his 500+ student senior class sat for one or both tests. Of the 22% who didn't, I'm assuming a significant portion are students who are dead set on a UC or CSU offer (with ELC and the statewide guarantee, a percentage of students already know they're in, even if it's a UC Merced scenario), recruited athletes already committed to either of those systems or an out-of-state school where D1 recruitment or a TO pre-read wasn't held against them), or the lowest performing students who are vectoring toward a community college start to their college education anyway.

Nobody in California is realistically thinking T20 outside the UC system "and I'll try it TO" ... to suggest that is idiotic.

[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.

This characterization of standardized testing in the State of California departs significantly from what I've seen. That's fancy talk for calling it B.S.

Students who are planning to apply beyond the UC and CSU systems, which includes most of the students in the higher performing school districts, are absolutely continuing to sit for the ACT and/or the SAT. Why do you think it's such a hassle to get a seat in a testing center within 60 miles of one's home? In my son's high school this past year (2023), 78% of his 500+ student senior class sat for one or both tests. Of the 22% who didn't, I'm assuming a significant portion are students who are dead set on a UC or CSU offer (with ELC and the statewide guarantee, a percentage of students already know they're in, even if it's a UC Merced scenario), recruited athletes already committed to either of those systems or an out-of-state school where D1 recruitment or a TO pre-read wasn't held against them), or the lowest performing students who are vectoring toward a community college start to their college education anyway.

Nobody in California is realistically thinking T20 outside the UC system "and I'll try it TO" ... to suggest that is idiotic.

NP and CA resident. Your HS has a higher % of students taking the SAT/ACT than is common. Your school must actively encourage it? I think about 30% of graduating seniors at my kid’s school took the SAT/ACT. Almost all of those kids were considering selective schools out of state. The remaining students planned to stay in-state so didn’t take it.

I do agree that PP’s comments about Vanderbilt were nonsensical.

[Anonymous]

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.

Illinois here. With vandy example at our private.

[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.

I had a senior last cycle, no one getting in a T20 went test optional, they all had great test scores. This is from a Maryland top academic rigor private. Perhaps different in other parts of the country. I do know kids that successfully went test optional at Pitt and BC.

How many of those you listed were also legacies, athletic recruits or urns?

No athletes here (otherwise the list would be soooo long!). All White or Asian or white/Asian kids.
Not in DMV.
Rigorous private.

California?

No.

[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.

It’s way more common than you think. You might be too removed from the process this year given you don’t have a senior anymore…

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

There will always be exceptions but the idea is it will be rare. If we looked at Dartmouth’s acceptances this year by race and carved out recruited athletes, I suspect we would see some clear patterns. And the transcript of TO students who get in are likely extremely strong.

[Anonymous]

After the current post COVID group graduatates, I bet there are a ton of studies that show why test scores will be again mandatory for the top schools. Similar to RTO mandates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP. I'm not necessarily pushing TO, and fwiw my own DC submitted scores everywhere, including schools where I'm fairly certain it will hurt her. My comment wasn't about what an applicant should do, it's about how the meaning and purpose of test scores have shifted for schools.

For top schools, the increases at the high end haven't been dramatic, because there's a ceiling to scores, and 75th percentile+ was always high. But on the low end, scores moved up significantly. I just ran a quick check between 2014-15 CDS (a random date, but most schools were reliably test mandatory), and last year's. Comparing reading and math (not the writing section which existed back then), Trinity College's 25th percentile composite score jumped 150 points. Northeastern's went up 110 points. Williams's went up 150 points. Even Harvard's 25th percentile went up 90 points.

To return to test mandatory, Trinity would likely have to return to having published 25th percentile scores for math/reading in the high-500s, Williams in the high-600s. I'd be surprised if most schools want to do that, because it will look like a decrease in quality of student body, which has implications for yield, etc.

Mind you, I'm not one of these DCUM posters who thinks tests are the be-all and end-all (I think the problem with elite college admissions is that we've created such a sharply tiered system, mirroring the economy in general). But it does seem we've created a system where the tail is wagging the dog. We are asking a lot of kids -- all those who would have been solidly middle 50% scorers before -- to put significant time and energy into taking/preparing for standardized tests, to the exclusion of other things, largely so the colleges can signify something about themselves. That just seems backwards to me.

[Anonymous]

I agree with the PP that submitting a score above 25th percentile is a good idea. The schools are managing two variables. They want the number of kids who submit to be high and they want the range to be high. If you are at least above 25th, you help them with both metrics. (Obviously being above 50 or 75 is better.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:TO is just a mechanism to let schools cherry pick the reason they accept students without having supporting data to show their bias in selection. Lets them shape the class they want without providing ammunition for lawsuits by Asian students.

Yes, this is how I see it. Colleges want to up their numbers of black and Latino and first-generation(non-Asian) students. Test Optional is a good way to do it in their quest to create more diverse incoming classes.

[Neo]

Majority of the colleges are using TO to protect their yield