Test optional is total BS

[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.

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.

I don’t. Smart kids have been getting rejected from colleges for years predating test optional. You all just want to think you have it worse than everyone else. It’s not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:just listen very carefully to AOs when asked this question - and they're all asked it.

we've heard quite a lot of top 20 presenters say, "my advice is to look up our numbers from last year, and submit if you're at 50% or higher"

they want their averages to go up - it works for their rankings.

Pretty much

Outside of the top 40 colleges, no one gives a damn about test scores.

But for those top 40 schools, it matters a lot. And they want those 1580s and 35s. It sucks for smart kids. There's so much pressure right now.

TO is a disaster for smart and ambitious students. But it's a big win for top 40 colleges. They get to admit their garbage students AND they keep their numbers up. It's hard to look at schools like UCLA and Berkeley with any kind of respect at the undergrad level. A lottery for mediocrity.

Respect to MIT, Georgia Tech, Georgetown and the other schools still demanding test scores.

SAT and ACT scores have been well-proven as indicators of intelligence and likelihood of success in college. The situation is regrettable.

Hardly. I’m in CA. My kids attend a “highly rated” suburban public school. Each year, only about 10 kids go to UCLA and 10 to Berkeley. These are top top kids. Absolutely exceptional.

If you think UCLA and Berkeley are filled with mediocre kids, I would suggest you have an anti-UC bias and it’s clouding your judgement.

UCLA and Berkeley remain the gold standard dream for California students .

How about the 5000 transfers each year from the community colleges? https://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/campuses-majors/ucla/transfer-admission-profile.html.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Stupid. They should go back to requiring it. This will give just another added dimension to verify kid's ability, along with AP exam results.

HS are too different. Grade inflation is very real (and deflation at some HS).

The past few years, they just keep taking away 'merit indicators' and filling it with gobbly-gook wishy washy essays.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

We were told that if you attend a good HS and/or live in good neighborhood, if you don't submit scores the assumption is that you did not test well. Our CC said along the lines 'who is not submitting a 35 ACT, etc? The problem is the percentiles have spiked with only the tippy-top scorers submitting. The top ACT for Ivies/top10s- used to be minimum 34, that is now shifting to 35.

[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.

You are kidding me, right?!?!!! What it has done is drive the application numbers up to ridiculous amounts--test scores used to help self-select the pool. When they were required, kids didn't waste $80 applying to schools where they weren't close to test averages there.

When you now have 70k applicants to a school, that is a problem. It also eats up AO time, falsely drives up schools 'yield and therefore selectivity' by courting kids to apply.

It's ridiculous. Pretty soon GPAs with be devalued with standards based learning---then we won't have grades or scores just 'holisitic essays' to determine who gets in. Good lord. This country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Stupid. They should go back to requiring it. This will give just another added dimension to verify kid's ability, along with AP exam results.

HS are too different. Grade inflation is very real (and deflation at some HS).

The past few years, they just keep taking away 'merit indicators' and filling it with gobbly-gook wishy washy essays.

People love the "it has always been this way " status quo.

Test Optional is the new admissions paradigm ( 80%+ of schools and counting).

The OPTION to submit a standardized test. Or not.

Your choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I don’t. Smart kids have been getting rejected from colleges for years predating test optional. You all just want to think you have it worse than everyone else. It’s not.

You seem to be equating not perfectly predictable with less predictable. There's some basic probability math here to dispute you. When everyone had to submit scores and 75% of the admitted applicants had scores over the 90%ile, there's only 10% of the applicant population with those test scores. That impacts the odds of admission for high scorers. But there's no limit on how many 4.0+ GPAs there are--or awards or ECs etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I don’t. Smart kids have been getting rejected from colleges for years predating test optional. You all just want to think you have it worse than everyone else. It’s not.

You seem to be equating not perfectly predictable with less predictable. There's some basic probability math here to dispute you. When everyone had to submit scores and 75% of the admitted applicants had scores over the 90%ile, there's only 10% of the applicant population with those test scores. That impacts the odds of admission for high scorers. But there's no limit on how many 4.0+ GPAs there are--or awards or ECs etc.

+1

Now, the question is whether a lower-scoring student should submit their score, whereas in the past, they may not have even entertained the thought of applying to a highly selective school. The floodgates have been opened to applicants who may have been previously deemed not qualified. That may have certain merits, but it is absolutely correct that the admissions process is less predictable for high scoring applicants than before test optional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:just listen very carefully to AOs when asked this question - and they're all asked it.

we've heard quite a lot of top 20 presenters say, "my advice is to look up our numbers from last year, and submit if you're at 50% or higher"

they want their averages to go up - it works for their rankings.

Pretty much

Outside of the top 40 colleges, no one gives a damn about test scores.

But for those top 40 schools, it matters a lot. And they want those 1580s and 35s. It sucks for smart kids. There's so much pressure right now.

TO is a disaster for smart and ambitious students. But it's a big win for top 40 colleges. They get to admit their garbage students AND they keep their numbers up. It's hard to look at schools like UCLA and Berkeley with any kind of respect at the undergrad level. A lottery for mediocrity.

Respect to MIT, Georgia Tech, Georgetown and the other schools still demanding test scores.

SAT and ACT scores have been well-proven as indicators of intelligence and likelihood of success in college. The situation is regrettable.

Hardly. I’m in CA. My kids attend a “highly rated” suburban public school. Each year, only about 10 kids go to UCLA and 10 to Berkeley. These are top top kids. Absolutely exceptional.

If you think UCLA and Berkeley are filled with mediocre kids, I would suggest you have an anti-UC bias and it’s clouding your judgement.

UCLA and Berkeley remain the gold standard dream for California students .

How about the 5000 transfers each year from the community colleges? https://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/campuses-majors/ucla/transfer-admission-profile.html.

That is transfer to any of the UC colleges. There are 9 of them. Some have higher admit rates (Merced, Riverside), some of them have competitive admit rates (Santa Barbara, Irvine, Davis) and some of them are highly competitive (UCLA, Berkeley).

Those 5000 transfers are not all going to UCLA or Berkeley, sorry to break it to ya.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:just listen very carefully to AOs when asked this question - and they're all asked it.

we've heard quite a lot of top 20 presenters say, "my advice is to look up our numbers from last year, and submit if you're at 50% or higher"

they want their averages to go up - it works for their rankings.

Pretty much

Outside of the top 40 colleges, no one gives a damn about test scores.

But for those top 40 schools, it matters a lot. And they want those 1580s and 35s. It sucks for smart kids. There's so much pressure right now.

TO is a disaster for smart and ambitious students. But it's a big win for top 40 colleges. They get to admit their garbage students AND they keep their numbers up. It's hard to look at schools like UCLA and Berkeley with any kind of respect at the undergrad level. A lottery for mediocrity.

Respect to MIT, Georgia Tech, Georgetown and the other schools still demanding test scores.

SAT and ACT scores have been well-proven as indicators of intelligence and likelihood of success in college. The situation is regrettable.

Hardly. I’m in CA. My kids attend a “highly rated” suburban public school. Each year, only about 10 kids go to UCLA and 10 to Berkeley. These are top top kids. Absolutely exceptional.

If you think UCLA and Berkeley are filled with mediocre kids, I would suggest you have an anti-UC bias and it’s clouding your judgement.

UCLA and Berkeley remain the gold standard dream for California students .

How about the 5000 transfers each year from the community colleges? https://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/campuses-majors/ucla/transfer-admission-profile.html.

That is transfer to any of the UC colleges. There are 9 of them. Some have higher admit rates (Merced, Riverside), some of them have competitive admit rates (Santa Barbara, Irvine, Davis) and some of them are highly competitive (UCLA, Berkeley).

Those 5000 transfers are not all going to UCLA or Berkeley, sorry to break it to ya.

Actually, sorry to break it to you, but you’re the one who is uninformed in this particular discussion.

[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.

You are kidding me, right?!?!!! What it has done is drive the application numbers up to ridiculous amounts--test scores used to help self-select the pool. When they were required, kids didn't waste $80 applying to schools where they weren't close to test averages there.

When you now have 70k applicants to a school, that is a problem. It also eats up AO time, falsely drives up schools 'yield and therefore selectivity' by courting kids to apply.

It's ridiculous. Pretty soon GPAs with be devalued with standards based learning---then we won't have grades or scores just 'holisitic essays' to determine who gets in. Good lord. This country.

Agree, PP. Where does it end?

[Anonymous]

I got into a top 30 slac with a 480 math sat and a 700 verbal. And my grades were not great, but the college took a chance on a bright underachiever from a magnet high school. Our senior has scores with a similar gap (a little higher) and I want them to submit because I think they show precisely where their strengths lie--and where they do not.

College is about specialization. Applications should not be about gaming the system. This test optional crap annoys the hell out of me because I worry schools will reject based on the math score because they won't want that in their stats.

[Anonymous]

well, before test optional, students were not getting into any top SLACS with a 500 SAT in any subject. (your scores aren't relevant for a lot of reasons, but one is the grading system is a bit different now)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I got into a top 30 slac with a 480 math sat and a 700 verbal. And my grades were not great, but the college took a chance on a bright underachiever from a magnet high school. Our senior has scores with a similar gap (a little higher) and I want them to submit because I think they show precisely where their strengths lie--and where they do not.

College is about specialization. Applications should not be about gaming the system. This test optional crap annoys the hell out of me because I worry schools will reject based on the math score because they won't want that in their stats.

You submitted an 1,180 SAT score?

Interesting.

Anthropology major or something non math intensive?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The implication is you don't submit is that you didn't do well which obviously sends a message.

As logical as this is, almost everything I have read says that colleges don’t assume anything about a student not submitting scores.