Statements by AO's or others about SAT/ACT score cutoffs

[Anonymous]

If fewer than 50 percent of students submit scores, then scores do not count in U.S. News rankings and other factors get more weight. For this reason, I wonder if some schools try to discourage score submitting from all but the very top applicants to ensure they stay below the 50 percent mark. I otherwise can't understand why seemingly similar colleges have wildly different percentages of score submitters (see, e.g., Bryn Mawr and Mount Holyoke).

[Anonymous]

USNWR should be disbanded. Too much influence on college admissions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:USNWR should be disbanded. Too much influence on college admissions

Totally agree. It has outlived its useful life. The information it provides is often directionally helpful but people get too in the weeds and truly think that #24 is significantly "better" than #25. Very little changes every year but they have to shuffle the rankings or no one would come back.

[Anonymous]

Most college counselors say that, absent a big spike, MCUMC should not submit if below 50 percentile. And if you do have a big spike, submit or not submit will not make a difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If fewer than 50 percent of students submit scores, then scores do not count in U.S. News rankings and other factors get more weight. For this reason, I wonder if some schools try to discourage score submitting from all but the very top applicants to ensure they stay below the 50 percent mark. I otherwise can't understand why seemingly similar colleges have wildly different percentages of score submitters (see, e.g., Bryn Mawr and Mount Holyoke).

I had no idea US News treated colleges differently if less than 50% submitted. What other factors get more weight, and how does this strategically improve those schools rankings?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:USNWR should be disbanded. Too much influence on college admissions

Totally agree. It has outlived its useful life. The information it provides is often directionally helpful but people get too in the weeds and truly think that #24 is significantly "better" than #25. Very little changes every year but they have to shuffle the rankings or no one would come back.

And yet people are obsessed despite all evidence of it being useless. It’s an interesting psychological study - how rankings motivate individuals to make decisions. The whole idea of scarcity and why humans are drawn to things they can’t have.

[Anonymous]

I think I posted in this linked thread last year (but not sure)... WashU said you would not be treated "worse" or differently without a test score (they don't assume a low score if there is NO score) - there's just one less data point in the scoring rubric.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1231410.page

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If fewer than 50 percent of students submit scores, then scores do not count in U.S. News rankings and other factors get more weight. For this reason, I wonder if some schools try to discourage score submitting from all but the very top applicants to ensure they stay below the 50 percent mark. I otherwise can't understand why seemingly similar colleges have wildly different percentages of score submitters (see, e.g., Bryn Mawr and Mount Holyoke).

I had no idea US News treated colleges differently if less than 50% submitted. What other factors get more weight, and how does this strategically improve those schools rankings?

Graduation rates, on the theory that they correlate most closely to test scores. I would guess weighting this more helps LACs with lots of full-pay families whose kids are likely going to graduate on time even with a 1350 SAT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think I posted in this linked thread last year (but not sure)... WashU said you would not be treated "worse" or differently without a test score (they don't assume a low score if there is NO score) - there's just one less data point in the scoring rubric.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1231410.page

Also this one was helpful. You might want to bump it up, OP?

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1247472.page

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:so basically AO not concerned if student is able to keep up with classes but rather they want to keep the score "up" artificially inflated....otherwise 1400 would be ok everywhere

I partially agree. I think they’re saying that test score isn’t necessary to evaluate an applicant’s readiness/likelihood of success; all it’s good for is keeping the school’s average inflated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:so basically AO not concerned if student is able to keep up with classes but rather they want to keep the score "up" artificially inflated....otherwise 1400 would be ok everywhere

I partially agree. I think they’re saying that test score isn’t necessary to evaluate an applicant’s readiness/likelihood of success; all it’s good for is keeping the school’s average inflated.

The thing is - if they know your HS, they kind of can use Landscape and Slate to predict your academic abilities based on grades, GPA and other metrics. If they don't know your HS, I imagine you (1) aren't getting in TO or (2) need a high score.

[Anonymous]

The Department of Education should ban the false advertising of high "average SAT scores" for schools that are test optional. It's outright lying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Last cycle, Vanderbilt emissions officer told us as part of their August tours not to submit below a 34. “Don’t submit anything that you would not think improves your admission chances.”

33 is neutral and does not improve.

lol this from the ED TO school. OK

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Department of Education should ban the false advertising of high "average SAT scores" for schools that are test optional. It's outright lying.

Bingo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Vanderbilt said 1510 or above

Please don't post about what Vanderbilt says is a median or cutoff. They are in the TO and ED arena.