is test optional really only for low income or diversity applicants?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's patent that applications without test scores signify poor test scores, whether due to lack of aptitude, lack of preparation, poor preparatory education, or something else. Consequently, there's little practical difference between submitting poor scores versus no scores.

The weight given to either scenario by any given school is difficult to know, since test scores are not the only factor in admissions decisions.

Wrong. You can't be judged on what you don't submit. Whereas if you submit a poor score, it's part of your application.

I was told "nobody is not submitting a 34-36 ACT or 1500+ SAT". If you are applying to the most selective schools it is going to be assumed you did not fall in their average test score acceptance rates which will only matter if you aren't First Gen or an URM, that is who they designed test optional for.

OP here - this is my original point - if it’s only a hook for first gen or URM,
colleges should be open and upfront about it - pretty disingenuous imo

The schools are up front about TO. DCUM doesn’t believe them. On every tour I attend they were very, very clear that they mean what they say. One (top school) went so far as to say that “no one is looking to invite a lawsuit.”

But that’s why the colleges won’t (willingly) release demographic data on who was admitted TO. It’s also why they’re leaning harder on first gen — it gets them away from a direct connection to race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test blind is so much better than test optional. It's fair to everyone.

Except the kids with high gpas and test scores. The fewer data points, the more arbitrary the decision making, especially in the age of Covid inflated grades.

It’s not arbitrary. People can claim grades are inflated but high schools can send a lot of information about their student population that provide additional context to GPAs. Schools can’t get that with test scores, and they know that. They don’t know if the high score is a result of a one time test or hours of practice with a private tutor and multiple rounds of testing.

I think you’re wrong. Colleges assume that applicants from private and affluent public schools are actively prepping for the SAT, and they take that into account in evaluating applicants. They also know that test scores correlate with household income and take that into account as well. And they know the average SAT score of every high school that their applicants come from because it’s all spelled out in the school profile that the high school sends along with the transcript.

For all of the reasons, top colleges expect to see great test scores from non-URMs attending private or affluent public high schools and will assume if you don’t send them that it’s because yours don’t measure up. They don’t expect it from URMs or lower performing high schools, so when scores aren’t submitted there it doesn’t hurt you.

I know rich white advantaged folks hate to hear that. But going test optional wasn’t designed to cut rich folks a break. It started because so many kids couldn’t even find a place to take the test, and it’s being continued because the result was a lot more applications from kids from diverse backgrounds who always assumed wrongly that their scores shut them out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's patent that applications without test scores signify poor test scores, whether due to lack of aptitude, lack of preparation, poor preparatory education, or something else. Consequently, there's little practical difference between submitting poor scores versus no scores.

The weight given to either scenario by any given school is difficult to know, since test scores are not the only factor in admissions decisions.

Wrong. You can't be judged on what you don't submit. Whereas if you submit a poor score, it's part of your application.

I was told "nobody is not submitting a 34-36 ACT or 1500+ SAT". If you are applying to the most selective schools it is going to be assumed you did not fall in their average test score acceptance rates which will only matter if you aren't First Gen or an URM, that is who they designed test optional for.

OP here - this is my original point - if it’s only a hook for first gen or URM,
colleges should be open and upfront about it - pretty disingenuous imo

The schools are up front about TO. DCUM doesn’t believe them. On every tour I attend they were very, very clear that they mean what they say. One (top school) went so far as to say that “no one is looking to invite a lawsuit.”

But that’s why the colleges won’t (willingly) release demographic data on who was admitted TO. It’s also why they’re leaning harder on first gen — it gets them away from a direct connection to race.

I agree. That poster is being naive. Again, the Grinnell statement makes thing about as clear as a college is going to be, and I’ll bet it’s not an outlier. They’re telling you pretty clearly when you shouldn’t submit them, and I’d assume that when you don’t they will figure that you’re following their advice. In other words, they will know you’re not happy with your score, your score isn’t as good as your grades, or your score is below average for Grinnell - all the times that they advise you not to submit unless you’re an URM.

[Anonymous]

Like it or not, not submitting standardized test scores does send a clear message. How any particular school handles this can & will vary.

Some schools are likely to benefit from the TO policy as they can admit based on other factors without harming their US News rating component related to standardized test scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test blind is so much better than test optional. It's fair to everyone.

Except the kids with high gpas and test scores. The fewer data points, the more arbitrary the decision making, especially in the age of Covid inflated grades.

It’s not arbitrary. People can claim grades are inflated but high schools can send a lot of information about their student population that provide additional context to GPAs. Schools can’t get that with test scores, and they know that. They don’t know if the high score is a result of a one time test or hours of practice with a private tutor and multiple rounds of testing.

You do know that grades also reflect a family's resources and wealth, right? Rich families hire private tutors to help their kids with school courses and walk them through projects and homework. We'll educated parents can do this as well (even do the projects for their kids, in addition to take-home tests) whereas this is not a realistic option for a lot of working class families.

I think you mean grades CAN also reflect a family's resources and wealth. It's ridiculous to say that rich families all hire tutors for course work , projects, etc. I think we would be considered wealthy, and we send our kids to public school - have never hired a tutor for anything. Our oldest is applying to college this year with a high GPA and high test scores. He is lucky - he is a smart kid who loves school and does well on standardized tests. But he was born that way - this wasn't bought for him via personal tutors, and his parents are not doing his work, as your post states. I grew up poor and was a similar student. Some of our kids' friends have math tutors. Some don't. My kids both tutor low income kids for free. My brother had multiple free tutors growing up. I agree fully with the concept that talent and potentially are distributed equally but opportunity and access are not, and fully support the demand for equity in education. But it's just wrong and doesn't advance anything when you declare across the board that all affluent families hire tutors for everything and even do their kids school work for them. UMC and wealthy kids can be born smart and work hard, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test blind is so much better than test optional. It's fair to everyone.

Except the kids with high gpas and test scores. The fewer data points, the more arbitrary the decision making, especially in the age of Covid inflated grades.

It’s not arbitrary. People can claim grades are inflated but high schools can send a lot of information about their student population that provide additional context to GPAs. Schools can’t get that with test scores, and they know that. They don’t know if the high score is a result of a one time test or hours of practice with a private tutor and multiple rounds of testing.

I think you’re wrong. Colleges assume that applicants from private and affluent public schools are actively prepping for the SAT, and they take that into account in evaluating applicants. They also know that test scores correlate with household income and take that into account as well. And they know the average SAT score of every high school that their applicants come from because it’s all spelled out in the school profile that the high school sends along with the transcript.

For all of the reasons, top colleges expect to see great test scores from non-URMs attending private or affluent public high schools and will assume if you don’t send them that it’s because yours don’t measure up. They don’t expect it from URMs or lower performing high schools, so when scores aren’t submitted there it doesn’t hurt you.

I know rich white advantaged folks hate to hear that. But going test optional wasn’t designed to cut rich folks a break. It started because so many kids couldn’t even find a place to take the test, and it’s being continued because the result was a lot more applications from kids from diverse backgrounds who always assumed wrongly that their scores shut them out.

But not every URM attending private schools has the disposable income for test prep like their classmates. I spend all of my money on tuition for my URM to go to private school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's patent that applications without test scores signify poor test scores, whether due to lack of aptitude, lack of preparation, poor preparatory education, or something else. Consequently, there's little practical difference between submitting poor scores versus no scores.

The weight given to either scenario by any given school is difficult to know, since test scores are not the only factor in admissions decisions.

Wrong. You can't be judged on what you don't submit. Whereas if you submit a poor score, it's part of your application.

I was told "nobody is not submitting a 34-36 ACT or 1500+ SAT". If you are applying to the most selective schools it is going to be assumed you did not fall in their average test score acceptance rates which will only matter if you aren't First Gen or an URM, that is who they designed test optional for.

OP here - this is my original point - if it’s only a hook for first gen or URM,
colleges should be open and upfront about it - pretty disingenuous imo

The schools are up front about TO. DCUM doesn’t believe them. On every tour I attend they were very, very clear that they mean what they say. One (top school) went so far as to say that “no one is looking to invite a lawsuit.”

I’m confused, does your kid have a 34-36 ACT or 1500+SAT and you are debating if you should send them to a TO school where that score is within range?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test blind is so much better than test optional. It's fair to everyone.

Except the kids with high gpas and test scores. The fewer data points, the more arbitrary the decision making, especially in the age of Covid inflated grades.

It’s not arbitrary. People can claim grades are inflated but high schools can send a lot of information about their student population that provide additional context to GPAs. Schools can’t get that with test scores, and they know that. They don’t know if the high score is a result of a one time test or hours of practice with a private tutor and multiple rounds of testing.

You do know that grades also reflect a family's resources and wealth, right? Rich families hire private tutors to help their kids with school courses and walk them through projects and homework. We'll educated parents can do this as well (even do the projects for their kids, in addition to take-home tests) whereas this is not a realistic option for a lot of working class families.

I think you mean grades CAN also reflect a family's resources and wealth. It's ridiculous to say that rich families all hire tutors for course work , projects, etc. I think we would be considered wealthy, and we send our kids to public school - have never hired a tutor for anything. Our oldest is applying to college this year with a high GPA and high test scores. He is lucky - he is a smart kid who loves school and does well on standardized tests. But he was born that way - this wasn't bought for him via personal tutors, and his parents are not doing his work, as your post states. I grew up poor and was a similar student. Some of our kids' friends have math tutors. Some don't. My kids both tutor low income kids for free. My brother had multiple free tutors growing up. I agree fully with the concept that talent and potentially are distributed equally but opportunity and access are not, and fully support the demand for equity in education. But it's just wrong and doesn't advance anything when you declare across the board that all affluent families hire tutors for everything and even do their kids school work for them. UMC and wealthy kids can be born smart and work hard, too.

You're correct, not all rich families hire tutors. Just like not all kids who do well on the SAT and/or ACT have had costly test prep. Lots and lots of kids who score well, mine included, did nothing to prepare except some free Khan Academy videos that anyone can access. So grades can reflect family wealth/resources just like standardized tests can.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's patent that applications without test scores signify poor test scores, whether due to lack of aptitude, lack of preparation, poor preparatory education, or something else. Consequently, there's little practical difference between submitting poor scores versus no scores.

The weight given to either scenario by any given school is difficult to know, since test scores are not the only factor in admissions decisions.

Wrong. You can't be judged on what you don't submit. Whereas if you submit a poor score, it's part of your application.

I was told "nobody is not submitting a 34-36 ACT or 1500+ SAT". If you are applying to the most selective schools it is going to be assumed you did not fall in their average test score acceptance rates which will only matter if you aren't First Gen or an URM, that is who they designed test optional for.

OP here - this is my original point - if it’s only a hook for first gen or URM,
colleges should be open and upfront about it - pretty disingenuous imo

The schools are up front about TO. DCUM doesn’t believe them. On every tour I attend they were very, very clear that they mean what they say. One (top school) went so far as to say that “no one is looking to invite a lawsuit.”

I’m confused, does your kid have a 34-36 ACT or 1500+SAT and you are debating if you should send them to a TO school where that score is within range?

No, I never said that. Several schools we toured stated “We are test optional. If you do not submit your score we will not hold if against you. If you did not get a score in the 50th percentile, don’t submit.”

If that’s a lie, it’s a pretty egregious lie.

And again, there are a lot of kids with scores that, pre-pandemic, would meet the 50th percentile range. TO drives up the scores and if they kids listen to the schools, they should go TO. My kid was admitted to UVA in 2019 and submitted an SAT score of 1360. We didn’t really think twice about the score based on the scores from 2018. Now my second kid, with a higher GPA, 14 APs/2 DEs, and a 1370 is weighing TO. Because that’s what TO is driving kids to do.

Grinnell stated there policy but they are only one school. Why do you think they are being honest and every other school is lying? Why are AOs, guidance counselor and college advisors all saying TO really is TO if that’s not true?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test blind is so much better than test optional. It's fair to everyone.

Except the kids with high gpas and test scores. The fewer data points, the more arbitrary the decision making, especially in the age of Covid inflated grades.

It’s not arbitrary. People can claim grades are inflated but high schools can send a lot of information about their student population that provide additional context to GPAs. Schools can’t get that with test scores, and they know that. They don’t know if the high score is a result of a one time test or hours of practice with a private tutor and multiple rounds of testing.

You do know that grades also reflect a family's resources and wealth, right? Rich families hire private tutors to help their kids with school courses and walk them through projects and homework. We'll educated parents can do this as well (even do the projects for their kids, in addition to take-home tests) whereas this is not a realistic option for a lot of working class families.

I think you mean grades CAN also reflect a family's resources and wealth. It's ridiculous to say that rich families all hire tutors for course work , projects, etc. I think we would be considered wealthy, and we send our kids to public school - have never hired a tutor for anything. Our oldest is applying to college this year with a high GPA and high test scores. He is lucky - he is a smart kid who loves school and does well on standardized tests. But he was born that way - this wasn't bought for him via personal tutors, and his parents are not doing his work, as your post states. I grew up poor and was a similar student. Some of our kids' friends have math tutors. Some don't. My kids both tutor low income kids for free. My brother had multiple free tutors growing up. I agree fully with the concept that talent and potentially are distributed equally but opportunity and access are not, and fully support the demand for equity in education. But it's just wrong and doesn't advance anything when you declare across the board that all affluent families hire tutors for everything and even do their kids school work for them. UMC and wealthy kids can be born smart and work hard, too.

You're correct, not all rich families hire tutors. Just like not all kids who do well on the SAT and/or ACT have had costly test prep. Lots and lots of kids who score well, mine included, did nothing to prepare except some free Khan Academy videos that anyone can access. So grades can reflect family wealth/resources just like standardized tests can.

+2 Some DCUM haters don’t like to admit that many very wealthy parents are wealthy because they are very smart. Very smart parents tend to have very smart kids, regardless of income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Like it or not, not submitting standardized test scores does send a clear message. How any particular school handles this can & will vary.

Some schools are likely to benefit from the TO policy as they can admit based on other factors without harming their US News rating component related to standardized test scores.

I agree that schools benefit from TO. But I assume the message sent by not sending in scores is that you felt sending in the scores didn’t benefit your application period. I don’t understand how this is two set of rules when the guidance is exactly the same whether you are purple, green or blue, high income or low income. But if you want to mess around and NOT send in high scores that are above the threshold or send in lower than 50% threshold score because you feel like you are a victim of some sort of reverse oppression please go ahead but don’t blame minority and first generation college students (which I always need to remind people can be any race including white) if your kid doesn’t get in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test blind is so much better than test optional. It's fair to everyone.

Except the kids with high gpas and test scores. The fewer data points, the more arbitrary the decision making, especially in the age of Covid inflated grades.

It’s not arbitrary. People can claim grades are inflated but high schools can send a lot of information about their student population that provide additional context to GPAs. Schools can’t get that with test scores, and they know that. They don’t know if the high score is a result of a one time test or hours of practice with a private tutor and multiple rounds of testing.

You do know that grades also reflect a family's resources and wealth, right? Rich families hire private tutors to help their kids with school courses and walk them through projects and homework. We'll educated parents can do this as well (even do the projects for their kids, in addition to take-home tests) whereas this is not a realistic option for a lot of working class families.

I think you mean grades CAN also reflect a family's resources and wealth. It's ridiculous to say that rich families all hire tutors for course work , projects, etc. I think we would be considered wealthy, and we send our kids to public school - have never hired a tutor for anything. Our oldest is applying to college this year with a high GPA and high test scores. He is lucky - he is a smart kid who loves school and does well on standardized tests. But he was born that way - this wasn't bought for him via personal tutors, and his parents are not doing his work, as your post states. I grew up poor and was a similar student. Some of our kids' friends have math tutors. Some don't. My kids both tutor low income kids for free. My brother had multiple free tutors growing up. I agree fully with the concept that talent and potentially are distributed equally but opportunity and access are not, and fully support the demand for equity in education. But it's just wrong and doesn't advance anything when you declare across the board that all affluent families hire tutors for everything and even do their kids school work for them. UMC and wealthy kids can be born smart and work hard, too.

You're correct, not all rich families hire tutors. Just like not all kids who do well on the SAT and/or ACT have had costly test prep. Lots and lots of kids who score well, mine included, did nothing to prepare except some free Khan Academy videos that anyone can access. So grades can reflect family wealth/resources just like standardized tests can.

+2 Some DCUM haters don’t like to admit that many very wealthy parents are wealthy because they are very smart. Very smart parents tend to have very smart kids, regardless of income.

So those posters are haters and not the ones whining that TO policies exists to get URMs and first gen applicants in the door? Because God forbid those kids actually have good enough scores. This site is disgusting.

[Anonymous]

i agree that most schools play it close to the vest with regards to TO stats.

but some don’t - and it’s kinda fascinating when the info is shared.

Vandy for example - sub 10% acceptance rate and definitely a “hot” school - in my DC’s group as well as NOVA cocktail parties, this school is spoken of in reverent tones typically reserved for the upper ivies - and i would say beats the bottom half of the ivies in terms of desirability (from my admittedly limited and anecdotal sampling lol)

56% of kids applied TO and 61% accepted - probably the closest ratio i’ve seen from the limited published info in this regard.

Accordingly, SAT avg of matriculants is 1520 - that’s a crazy number. But clearly Vandy is aok with TO, and kids aren’t penalized..

separately i wonder how US News factor this into their algorithms, when only a slight majority of kids submit

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's patent that applications without test scores signify poor test scores, whether due to lack of aptitude, lack of preparation, poor preparatory education, or something else. Consequently, there's little practical difference between submitting poor scores versus no scores.

The weight given to either scenario by any given school is difficult to know, since test scores are not the only factor in admissions decisions.

Wrong. You can't be judged on what you don't submit. Whereas if you submit a poor score, it's part of your application.

I was told "nobody is not submitting a 34-36 ACT or 1500+ SAT". If you are applying to the most selective schools it is going to be assumed you did not fall in their average test score acceptance rates which will only matter if you aren't First Gen or an URM, that is who they designed test optional for.

OP here - this is my original point - if it’s only a hook for first gen or URM,
colleges should be open and upfront about it - pretty disingenuous imo

The schools are up front about TO. DCUM doesn’t believe them. On every tour I attend they were very, very clear that they mean what they say. One (top school) went so far as to say that “no one is looking to invite a lawsuit.”

I’m confused, does your kid have a 34-36 ACT or 1500+SAT and you are debating if you should send them to a TO school where that score is within range?

No, I never said that. Several schools we toured stated “We are test optional. If you do not submit your score we will not hold if against you. If you did not get a score in the 50th percentile, don’t submit.”

If that’s a lie, it’s a pretty egregious lie.

And again, there are a lot of kids with scores that, pre-pandemic, would meet the 50th percentile range. TO drives up the scores and if they kids listen to the schools, they should go TO. My kid was admitted to UVA in 2019 and submitted an SAT score of 1360. We didn’t really think twice about the score based on the scores from 2018. Now my second kid, with a higher GPA, 14 APs/2 DEs, and a 1370 is weighing TO. Because that’s what TO is driving kids to do.

Grinnell stated there policy but they are only one school. Why do you think they are being honest and every other school is lying? Why are AOs, guidance counselor and college advisors all saying TO really is TO if that’s not true?

I really doubt any colleges admissions officer explicitly told you not to submit a score if not within top 50 percentile for school. If so, name the school.

Every information session I’ ve attended over the past year with my now senior, the admissions officers have been very fuzzy with respect to what is said about test optional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:i agree that most schools play it close to the vest with regards to TO stats.

but some don’t - and it’s kinda fascinating when the info is shared.

Vandy for example - sub 10% acceptance rate and definitely a “hot” school - in my DC’s group as well as NOVA cocktail parties, this school is spoken of in reverent tones typically reserved for the upper ivies - and i would say beats the bottom half of the ivies in terms of desirability (from my admittedly limited and anecdotal sampling lol)

56% of kids applied TO and 61% accepted - probably the closest ratio i’ve seen from the limited published info in this regard.

Accordingly, SAT avg of matriculants is 1520 - that’s a crazy number. But clearly Vandy is aok with TO, and kids aren’t penalized..

separately i wonder how US News factor this into their algorithms, when only a slight majority of kids submit

For what year? For class of 2025, test optional candidates will be very different from subsequent year. That year, many kids truly couldn’t access tests.