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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

it can still be true that TO is a technology developed to evade legal scrutiny over racial preferences.

Yet the numbers don't support this. For example, using stats up thread, if 40% of the Vandy class was URM, then perhaps this would be an interesting discussion.

But we already determined that the 20 percent of Californians getting in test optional are of all ethnicities. That leaves 20 percent for institutional priorities like first gen, urm, donor cases, athletes and pell eligible, maybe 40 to 50 percent is not urm.

However, still means your dmv middle and upper classs Asians and whites are not benefitting from test optional.

The "but California!" defense isn't working buddy.

+1

[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?

Hey, Dumbo. Not every Asian scores 1600. And YES there are Asian students at Harvard who applied TO.

You aren't helping.

[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.

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.

This example is this year, the current application cycle.

[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.

From what state?

From DC.

[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.

This was not my child’s experience this cycle. To went just fine with an otherwise strong, unhooked application.

[Anonymous]

Grade inflation has reached the point where nearly 60% of students at most "competitive" high schools across the country apply in the fall and winter of their senior year with "an A average", which is more than 3x what that %age was 30 years ago when test scores (adjusted for re-centering) were essentially the same. How has classroom performance increased so dramatically without a reasonably corresponding increase in test scores?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Grade inflation has reached the point where nearly 60% of students at most "competitive" high schools across the country apply in the fall and winter of their senior year with "an A average", which is more than 3x what that %age was 30 years ago when test scores (adjusted for re-centering) were essentially the same. How has classroom performance increased so dramatically without a reasonably corresponding increase in test scores?

Whenever I make this point, the TO proponents attack. Apparently, kids that are “poor test takers” only do poorly on the SAT/ACT. They do just fine on all the tests at school to earn the As that get them at 4.5 GPA. It has nothing to do with test re-takes, equitable grading, lack of deadlines for homework, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Grade inflation has reached the point where nearly 60% of students at most "competitive" high schools across the country apply in the fall and winter of their senior year with "an A average", which is more than 3x what that %age was 30 years ago when test scores (adjusted for re-centering) were essentially the same. How has classroom performance increased so dramatically without a reasonably corresponding increase in test scores?

Whenever I make this point, the TO proponents attack. Apparently, kids that are “poor test takers” only do poorly on the SAT/ACT. They do just fine on all the tests at school to earn the As that get them at 4.5 GPA. It has nothing to do with test re-takes, equitable grading, lack of deadlines for homework, etc.

DP: Not a TO proponent/just a realist. For most colleges, TO is here to stay.

Classroom performance hasn't increased dramatically. Grade inflation is real--but what is your point? A few of the elite schools may find the courage to make testing mandatory, but most want to compete with their peers and will be "test aware" or "test preferred" to benefit from the best of both worlds. Yale and Dartmouth AOs publically admitted that a significant number of TO students are not doing well and the data is becoming clear in their 5-year TO experiments. Dartmouth's AO stated that last year had the highest number of kids on academic probation. They need students to submit at the 25th percentile and for under-resourced kids, even lower. A student scoring 1300 on the SAT can graduate from Yale but a 1100 will struggle and risk failing.

[Anonymous]

Our private has this rule for T20:

Consider TO if GPA above 3.85 (3.9 for T10) and scores are not at least 34 ACT (maybe 33.

If GPA below, need some scores - if at 25% generally need something else out of the ordinary (pointy national level ECs)….

[Anonymous]

Neo wrote:Majority of the colleges are using TO to protect their yield

How?

[Anonymous]

Apply to true safety schools and avoid the angst and hand wringing.

But most parents think their DC has a shot at T25.

Temper expectations people.

[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.

Well, I sat through an information session at Vandy where they specifically stated they didn’t expect test scores from Californians. And there have been other posters from CA stating kids aren’t taking tests. So not sure why we should take your word for it.

USC has one of the highest test optional rates in the country. I’m sure that has nothing in do with the fact that 40 percent of its students are Californians.

[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.

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.

Well, I sat through an information session at Vandy where they specifically stated they didn’t expect test scores from Californians. And there have been other posters from CA stating kids aren’t taking tests. So not sure why we should take your word for it.

USC has one of the highest test optional rates in the country. I’m sure that has nothing in do with the fact that 40 percent of its students are Californians.

I do believe Californians are in a kind of unique situation. And I moved to the DMV from California, so quite familiar with the state.

Broadly, taking the SAT or ACT is not a thing anymore. The UCs and Cal States don't even look at it. No consideration at all. And absolutely everyone applies to state schools. Even the best of the best. Berkeley and UCLA are elite schools. And not only do they not care about test scores, they don't even glance at them. So, obviously, since the majority of California residents go to state schools, very few bother with standardized tests.

But I think California is an outlier.

If you look at colleges, they are doing the Test Optional thing one year at a time. They love the extra applications. The lower their acceptance rate, they happier they are. And it allows them to easily admit "priority" students. But they are also mindful of the academic preparedness of their students. MIT noped out real quick when they saw that the TO students weren't hacking it.

So it's a balancing act for most of let's say the top 50 schools. They revel in all the extra applications. They can admit their athletes and legacy and DEI without any question about their academic qualifications. And those that do submit scores invariably have very high scores, which also boosts their selectivity.

Win-win for selective colleges.

But if you are not a "priority" high school student, it sucks. Median test scores for accepted students are in the stratosphere. Don't even look in that direction unless you have a 34 or a 1500. And your smart asian or white kid from the burbs - outside of California - will definitely have to submit. There is so much more pressure on high school kids today compared to 5 years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Hey, Dumbo. Not every Asian scores 1600. And YES there are Asian students at Harvard who applied TO.

You aren't helping.

Heu, Dumbo, Asians were 48,527 out of the 133,962 kids who scored over 1400 (i.e. they were 36% of the highest scorers even though only 10% of the people who took the test) and therefore writ large TO does not benefit Asians. If everyone had to report their scores, Asians would benefit because they do better than other groups.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Well, I sat through an information session at Vandy where they specifically stated they didn’t expect test scores from Californians. And there have been other posters from CA stating kids aren’t taking tests. So not sure why we should take your word for it.

USC has one of the highest test optional rates in the country. I’m sure that has nothing in do with the fact that 40 percent of its students are Californians.

I do believe Californians are in a kind of unique situation. And I moved to the DMV from California, so quite familiar with the state.

Broadly, taking the SAT or ACT is not a thing anymore. The UCs and Cal States don't even look at it. No consideration at all. And absolutely everyone applies to state schools. Even the best of the best. Berkeley and UCLA are elite schools. And not only do they not care about test scores, they don't even glance at them. So, obviously, since the majority of California residents go to state schools, very few bother with standardized tests.

But I think California is an outlier.

If you look at colleges, they are doing the Test Optional thing one year at a time. They love the extra applications. The lower their acceptance rate, they happier they are. And it allows them to easily admit "priority" students. But they are also mindful of the academic preparedness of their students. MIT noped out real quick when they saw that the TO students weren't hacking it.

So it's a balancing act for most of let's say the top 50 schools. They revel in all the extra applications. They can admit their athletes and legacy and DEI without any question about their academic qualifications. And those that do submit scores invariably have very high scores, which also boosts their selectivity.

Win-win for selective colleges.

But if you are not a "priority" high school student, it sucks. Median test scores for accepted students are in the stratosphere. Don't even look in that direction unless you have a 34 or a 1500. And your smart asian or white kid from the burbs - outside of California - will definitely have to submit. There is so much more pressure on high school kids today compared to 5 years ago.

For the 1,000th time, the students who are also applying outside the State of California, which is nearly EVERY SINGLE STUDENT in an affluent area of the state, are absolutely taking the ACT or SAT or both. Students who have a realistic shot at getting into Berkeley or UCLA or UCSD almost invariably also look at the Ivies, and other Top 20 programs around the country, too. In addition to the fact that TO is a facade for certain groups when applying outside the state, you're also talking about MANY hyper-competitive kids who want to take the ACT and/or SAT to notch another feather in their cap. Speaking from personal experience, my son and his cohort seemed to be looking forward to taking the SAT (just like they look forward to comparing AP exam results in July each year) - probably as much for reasons relating to competing with each other over their score as much as for validating their grades.

I don't have the ACT and SAT registration data for 2023, but I can tell you that the one time my son registered for the SAT, it was brutal finding a seat in a testing site within 100 miles of our metro area.