Test optional is total BS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:we're a cycle away from 60% of people not submitting. and probably three cycles away from most people not bothering to even take it unless PSAT shows you're already about there. just not worth the squeeze.

You're likely more right than wrong here.

People aren't coming to terms with the prospect of test optional becoming more entrenched ( including most of the selective colleges) in the admissions process going forward.

What do they need to “come to terms” with? It makes it difficult for schools, but it’s easier for families and students. My kid is a good test-taker and prepping for the SATs, but…if the schools she was interested suddenly went test blind, she wouldn’t care. Most kids who test high (1500) also have rigor schedules, high GPAs, interesting outside activities, good recommendations, and so on.

No it's not. Now you have a far less idea of which schools are going to accept you and whether you should send in your scores. You have to do a lot more applications and/or do early decision. It used to be much more predictable.

When was it predictable? 1950 for rich white guys?

I never said it was predictable, but it used to be much more predictable even 5 years ago. You could look at your GPA, your SAT score, and the % admitted at a school and assess whether it was a target reach, target, likely etc. SATs were an important anchoring information--most people submitted them and they are standardized. Course rigor and GPA are both variable things because they are contextualized with what your schools offer, GPA of others in the school, how schools reformulate GPA, rather than a set number like SAT. ECs and essays were always a wild card. But you could look at the score distribution of SATs and get a good sense of your chances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:we're a cycle away from 60% of people not submitting. and probably three cycles away from most people not bothering to even take it unless PSAT shows you're already about there. just not worth the squeeze.

You're likely more right than wrong here.

People aren't coming to terms with the prospect of test optional becoming more entrenched ( including most of the selective colleges) in the admissions process going forward.

What do they need to “come to terms” with? It makes it difficult for schools, but it’s easier for families and students. My kid is a good test-taker and prepping for the SATs, but…if the schools she was interested suddenly went test blind, she wouldn’t care. Most kids who test high (1500) also have rigor schedules, high GPAs, interesting outside activities, good recommendations, and so on.

No it's not. Now you have a far less idea of which schools are going to accept you and whether you should send in your scores. You have to do a lot more applications and/or do early decision. It used to be much more predictable.

When was it predictable? 1950 for rich white guys?

I never said it was predictable, but it used to be much more predictable even 5 years ago. You could look at your GPA, your SAT score, and the % admitted at a school and assess whether it was a target reach, target, likely etc. SATs were an important anchoring information--most people submitted them and they are standardized. Course rigor and GPA are both variable things because they are contextualized with what your schools offer, GPA of others in the school, how schools reformulate GPA, rather than a set number like SAT. ECs and essays were always a wild card. But you could look at the score distribution of SATs and get a good sense of your chances.

Having a good sense of your chances is just another way of saying predictable - which is a lot like saying much more predictable

Selective schools have been rejecting high scoring applicants for fifty years. Not much has changed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:we're a cycle away from 60% of people not submitting. and probably three cycles away from most people not bothering to even take it unless PSAT shows you're already about there. just not worth the squeeze.

You're likely more right than wrong here.

People aren't coming to terms with the prospect of test optional becoming more entrenched ( including most of the selective colleges) in the admissions process going forward.

What do they need to “come to terms” with? It makes it difficult for schools, but it’s easier for families and students. My kid is a good test-taker and prepping for the SATs, but…if the schools she was interested suddenly went test blind, she wouldn’t care. Most kids who test high (1500) also have rigor schedules, high GPAs, interesting outside activities, good recommendations, and so on.

No it's not. Now you have a far less idea of which schools are going to accept you and whether you should send in your scores. You have to do a lot more applications and/or do early decision. It used to be much more predictable.

When was it predictable? 1950 for rich white guys?

I never said it was predictable, but it used to be much more predictable even 5 years ago. You could look at your GPA, your SAT score, and the % admitted at a school and assess whether it was a target reach, target, likely etc. SATs were an important anchoring information--most people submitted them and they are standardized. Course rigor and GPA are both variable things because they are contextualized with what your schools offer, GPA of others in the school, how schools reformulate GPA, rather than a set number like SAT. ECs and essays were always a wild card. But you could look at the score distribution of SATs and get a good sense of your chances.

Having a good sense of your chances is just another way of saying predictable - which is a lot like saying much more predictable

Selective schools have been rejecting high scoring applicants for fifty years. Not much has changed.

No serious person can claim that not much has changed in college admissions since 1973.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Forget college if you can't even handle SAT

Hmmm. I was about 80th percentile on the SAT. Top 5% of my college (a T20).

You wouldn't be accepted today

+1

80th percentile today is about 1240. You would not get into most T20 schools submitting that, unless you are an athlete or have some really special hook.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:we're a cycle away from 60% of people not submitting. and probably three cycles away from most people not bothering to even take it unless PSAT shows you're already about there. just not worth the squeeze.

You're likely more right than wrong here.

People aren't coming to terms with the prospect of test optional becoming more entrenched ( including most of the selective colleges) in the admissions process going forward.

What do they need to “come to terms” with? It makes it difficult for schools, but it’s easier for families and students. My kid is a good test-taker and prepping for the SATs, but…if the schools she was interested suddenly went test blind, she wouldn’t care. Most kids who test high (1500) also have rigor schedules, high GPAs, interesting outside activities, good recommendations, and so on.

No it's not. Now you have a far less idea of which schools are going to accept you and whether you should send in your scores. You have to do a lot more applications and/or do early decision. It used to be much more predictable.

When was it predictable? 1950 for rich white guys?

I never said it was predictable, but it used to be much more predictable even 5 years ago. You could look at your GPA, your SAT score, and the % admitted at a school and assess whether it was a target reach, target, likely etc. SATs were an important anchoring information--most people submitted them and they are standardized. Course rigor and GPA are both variable things because they are contextualized with what your schools offer, GPA of others in the school, how schools reformulate GPA, rather than a set number like SAT. ECs and essays were always a wild card. But you could look at the score distribution of SATs and get a good sense of your chances.

Having a good sense of your chances is just another way of saying predictable - which is a lot like saying much more predictable

Selective schools have been rejecting high scoring applicants for fifty years. Not much has changed.

No serious person can claim that not much has changed in college admissions since 1973.

Much has changed but the fact that high scoring students were being rejected has not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't really think that TO changed much of anything for colleges. It's just there to confuse parents imo.

Before this cycle, they had other policies that effectively discounted value of the scores for some students over others.

Now, they are leaving it up to the parents to decide, probably because parents have sued over what they did in their offices.

I think it's bad for the students, however. SAT does have predictive value in how students do academically in college. It's not a coincidence that a lot of these selective schools are opening tutoring centers at the same time that more of their applicants have been accepted applying TO. You'll hear eggheads debate this and come up with gerryrigged data to refute it, but the SAT has been around for a long time. Also, common sense.

Which schools are opening tutoring centers that didn’t have them before TO? I worked at a private T10 and T20 and now at a public R1. The increase in tutoring centers pre-dates TO.

I agree that TO has made the admissions process more complicated for students and AOs. Also, standardized tests should be used to validate GPA/academic performance but a student doesn’t need a 1500 to excel at a highly selective college.

Based on current research (scholarly and institutional), Covid and online learning have affected college academic readiness and mental health. On average, less than 20% of enrolled students are admitted TO at highly selective schools. Besides math heavy majors, the small subset of TO students are performing the same as non-TO students after the first year of college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't really think that TO changed much of anything for colleges. It's just there to confuse parents imo.

Before this cycle, they had other policies that effectively discounted value of the scores for some students over others.

Now, they are leaving it up to the parents to decide, probably because parents have sued over what they did in their offices.

I think it's bad for the students, however. SAT does have predictive value in how students do academically in college. It's not a coincidence that a lot of these selective schools are opening tutoring centers at the same time that more of their applicants have been accepted applying TO. You'll hear eggheads debate this and come up with gerryrigged data to refute it, but the SAT has been around for a long time. Also, common sense.

I agree that TO has been there simply to provide plausible deniability to college admissions offices. Harvard doesn't need another lawsuit against their admissions office and administration. There will always be inequities in admissions at schools like Harvard and Princeton. It's impossible for their offices to be totally fair. Applicants are people. They have turned them into algorithms as much as people can be so transformed, but that doesn't ensure absolute fairness.

I have a senior applying to university this year and I refuse to lose a worry to this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't really think that TO changed much of anything for colleges. It's just there to confuse parents imo.

Before this cycle, they had other policies that effectively discounted value of the scores for some students over others.

Now, they are leaving it up to the parents to decide, probably because parents have sued over what they did in their offices.

I think it's bad for the students, however. SAT does have predictive value in how students do academically in college. It's not a coincidence that a lot of these selective schools are opening tutoring centers at the same time that more of their applicants have been accepted applying TO. You'll hear eggheads debate this and come up with gerryrigged data to refute it, but the SAT has been around for a long time. Also, common sense.

I agree

I disagree.

[Anonymous]

The TO stuff has become nuts, in my opinion. I think colleges should be test blind or test required.
The TO movement is just making the kids try to play games with when and where to submit their scores. By telling students to only submit to a test optional school if their score is at or above the 50th percentile of last years admitted students, we are just making the following year students need to score even higher to feel good about submitting scores. Soon kids with 1550 with be applying test optional and usefulness of scores will just disappear at highly competitive schools.
School counselors are telling top students to not submit their 1500+ to some schools..

If a highly competitive school is considering admitting a student and then sees a 1500, I highly doubt that would push them into the deny pile- if anything it would push into admit over a similar student without scores-
Strong scores support a strong academic record and the colleges don’t expect all strong students to have only 1580-1600.
Maybe I’m naive.

[Anonymous]

We were point blank told at two college visits that test optional is driving up the mean to levels that most cannot achieve and that we should expect schools to change to test blind or not consider it in 3-4 years.

That doesn’t help us since our kids are graduating in 2-3 years.

My oldest is tracking around 1450 on practice tests which I think is a great score and has him only missing a couple of questions which, often upon reviewing, he realizes right away his mistake. It seems unfortunate to me that that isn’t a strong enough score to submit at the most competitive schools but so be it.

[Anonymous]

colleges should post min required SATs imo, like the UK schools do.

the SAT is not that hard and while there area areas and schools lacking in decent education, there are very good free online resources. my own kids went to title 1 schools, I get it, but there's too much out there now. (my own kids did prep to supplement their lacking schools and SAT prep too - nothing paid for). I dont see how a very poor kid with an 1100 SAT is going to thrive at some of these schools. we're doing them no favors.

for highly selective t20 schools, we would all be better off if you had to prove you hit the 1350 or 1400 or whatever. That includes donors and athletes. And make it by subject if you want, "A CS applicant must have a 700 in the math section of the SAT".

from there, applicants can hide it or not. but it's gone through at least one qualifying hurdle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am reading so many posts about kids with amazing GPAs and mediocre SAT/ACT scores. In this day and age of hugely inflated GPAs it makes more sense to me me that schools would require standardized test scores to at least see how these kids perform under that sort of pressure. College is not for the faint of heart (at least not at the top 20) and kids that can’t “cut it” with decent standardized scores really are doing themselves a disservice by attending and then not performing well on the exams and evaluations. So many people saying “Billy has a 5.0 GPA and all As and 10,000 AP classes but got a 1200 on the SAT…. Should we submit that to Stanford?” It’s driving me nuts. Not to mention that the only kids submitting scores are the ones who knock it out of the park which in turn just raises the average scores of those admitted. It’s a vicious cycle.

Get ready for “grade optional.”

[Anonymous]

+1. I am all for the SAT/ACT tests. Many people are brainwashed, or don't want to work hard, or for political or other reasons. Their arguments don't add up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:we're a cycle away from 60% of people not submitting. and probably three cycles away from most people not bothering to even take it unless PSAT shows you're already about there. just not worth the squeeze.

You're likely more right than wrong here.

People aren't coming to terms with the prospect of test optional becoming more entrenched ( including most of the selective colleges) in the admissions process going forward.

What do they need to “come to terms” with? It makes it difficult for schools, but it’s easier for families and students. My kid is a good test-taker and prepping for the SATs, but…if the schools she was interested suddenly went test blind, she wouldn’t care. Most kids who test high (1500) also have rigor schedules, high GPAs, interesting outside activities, good recommendations, and so on.

No it's not. Now you have a far less idea of which schools are going to accept you and whether you should send in your scores. You have to do a lot more applications and/or do early decision. It used to be much more predictable.

When was it predictable? 1950 for rich white guys?

I never said it was predictable, but it used to be much more predictable even 5 years ago. You could look at your GPA, your SAT score, and the % admitted at a school and assess whether it was a target reach, target, likely etc. SATs were an important anchoring information--most people submitted them and they are standardized. Course rigor and GPA are both variable things because they are contextualized with what your schools offer, GPA of others in the school, how schools reformulate GPA, rather than a set number like SAT. ECs and essays were always a wild card. But you could look at the score distribution of SATs and get a good sense of your chances.

Having a good sense of your chances is just another way of saying predictable - which is a lot like saying much more predictable

Selective schools have been rejecting high scoring applicants for fifty years. Not much has changed.

You really don't think there's been a decline in predictability of the admittance of high scoring applicants since test optional became more prevalent? I don't even know how you would support that view. It's not like predictability is an on-off switch--outcomes like college acceptances become more predictable with more information.

[Anonymous]

Schools like test optional because it artificially increases their averages recognizing that only top candidates submit. This becomes a cycle, driving up the scores and, theoretically, the overall caliber of candidates who feel comfortable applying.

My opinion is that kids/parents are making a huge strategic error in not submitting test scores nearly all the time. The implication if you don't submit is that you didn't do well which obviously sends a message.

Notice that most schools don't publish acceptance rates differentiated by those who submit and those who don't. Some schools, oddly including Auburn, publish that EA is close to impossible (sub 10%) if you do not submit scores.

As long as I'm ranting, the whole "test optional" phrasing when describing one's admission stats is grating. Your kid either "submitted" or "didn't submit," the didn't "TO."

Rant over.