Test optional is a disaster

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid scored 1590 on the first try. Also NMS We love that there are many candidates who go TO. It does not harm us or them.

You are naive. My child with a similar score got waitlisted for HYPSM last year. If it wasn't test optional, I'm fairly certain they would have been accepted. The school has a small waitlist, and some TO kids have been accepted instead of my kid.

Maybe those TO kids were more interesting, wrote a better application, had better recs, or overall seemed to be a better fit for the school.

I'm not disputing they must have nice application, otherwise they would not have been accepted. But my kid also had a nice application, otherwise they would not be able to make it to a small waitlist. At the end, it is a number game. All I am saying, if TO acceptances revealed their scores, you would think SOME of those acceptances would become rejection. Why is this so hard to grasp

And that doesn’t translate into your kid getting in. Face it they were judged to be subpar. How hard is that to grasp.

[Anonymous]

We are in CA. The kids here don't even take the tests any longer. Plenty of kids going to top schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are in CA. The kids here don't even take the tests any longer. Plenty of kids going to top schools.

Seems like they are going to be at a disadvantage then. Yes, kids can go to top schools test optional, just not at the same rate as kids who submit scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are in CA. The kids here don't even take the tests any longer. Plenty of kids going to top schools.

Seems like they are going to be at a disadvantage then. Yes, kids can go to top schools test optional, just not at the same rate as kids who submit scores.

Another CA parent here. I think the colleges know that CA kids are taking the tests at a lower rate. It would be interesting to see the difference in participation rate in CA/WA/OR where schools are test blind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are in CA. The kids here don't even take the tests any longer. Plenty of kids going to top schools.

If the College Board were to disappear, that would be the only good thing to come out of TO in my opinion

[Anonymous]

Test optional is only a thing for students at elite high schools or URM/first gens. All other kids need a good score for top schools - period. That means you give up a summer and study all summer while the kids at the elite schools participate in prestigious internships their parents got for them - it just increases inequities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid scored 1590 on the first try. Also NMS We love that there are many candidates who go TO. It does not harm us or them.

You are naive. My child with a similar score got waitlisted for HYPSM last year. If it wasn't test optional, I'm fairly certain they would have been accepted. The school has a small waitlist, and some TO kids have been accepted instead of my kid.

Maybe those TO kids were more interesting, wrote a better application, had better recs, or overall seemed to be a better fit for the school.

This whole thing about "fit" seems somewhat preposterous to me. As though there is one place each of our kids "fits"....or that colleges and universities cater to one "type" of student.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Test optional is only a thing for students at elite high schools or URM/first gens. All other kids need a good score for top schools - period. That means you give up a summer and study all summer while the kids at the elite schools participate in prestigious internships their parents got for them - it just increases inequities.

It is not benefitting kids at elite high schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are in CA. The kids here don't even take the tests any longer. Plenty of kids going to top schools.

Seems like they are going to be at a disadvantage then. Yes, kids can go to top schools test optional, just not at the same rate as kids who submit scores.

Another CA parent here. I think the colleges know that CA kids are taking the tests at a lower rate. It would be interesting to see the difference in participation rate in CA/WA/OR where schools are test blind.

It seems that yiu are raising another issue with the fairness of test optional. Why should the review process be different depending on state of origin?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test optional is only a thing for students at elite high schools or URM/first gens. All other kids need a good score for top schools - period. That means you give up a summer and study all summer while the kids at the elite schools participate in prestigious internships their parents got for them - it just increases inequities.

It is not benefitting kids at elite high schools.

How do you know that? Anecdotally? Many AO's have said test scores don't tell them anything new with kids from top high schools but help evaluate preparedness or rigor of kids from lesser known schools. Seems to me if you want to stand out from a lesser known school you need the test score - and you probably need strong AP scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test optional is only a thing for students at elite high schools or URM/first gens. All other kids need a good score for top schools - period. That means you give up a summer and study all summer while the kids at the elite schools participate in prestigious internships their parents got for them - it just increases inequities.

It is not benefitting kids at elite high schools.

How do you know that? Anecdotally? Many AO's have said test scores don't tell them anything new with kids from top high schools but help evaluate preparedness or rigor of kids from lesser known schools. Seems to me if you want to stand out from a lesser known school you need the test score - and you probably need strong AP scores.

That’s not true. Kids from top stem high schools needs high SAT and AP scores as well.

It’s true There are some kids who pad their LinkedIn account getting unpaid stem internships every summer from uncle’s and family friend’s small programming company or doctor’s office/lab. There are some kids who sound impressive because parents have stem connections and some research opportunities are provided from colleagues. There are some kids that have older siblings and cousins that “help” with projects submitted for awards.
But many students earn it from NIH/NASA/NAVY/ect… My kid did. We had no stem at all to help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am seeing recommendations that you should only submit your score if you are at or above the mean for the college.
The reason is that colleges want to look good in national stats, so they don't want students who will lower their numbers.

However, not every student will be at exactly the mean, so this means the average for that college will go up.
The next year, only students who score at or higher than that new higher average will be reporting their scores, producing a still higher average.
Pretty soon only 1600s will be reporting their scores. The colleges will be getting no information except for this small group.

How about if they are going to be test optional, the College Board reports the average for each college's acceptances and enrolled students in the aggregate?
That way you at least don't have this vicious cycle.

I agree, OP. Either accept tests or don't accept them. Optional is a gray area that is untenable. Add to that how unmotivated many teens are to study for a test that is "optional." And really, when you think of all the time and money spent on a test that is "optional", it's such a waste. I'd rather my DC spend his time study for school or doing an extracurricular or getting a job. Or cleaning his room and walking the dog.

Woof !

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My prediction is that starting with this year’s ED, kids with test scores are going to start winning more seats, particularly at selective schools.

ED is about locking down your full payers. TO will make it easier to so.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My prediction is that starting with this year’s ED, kids with test scores are going to start winning more seats, particularly at selective schools.

ED is about locking down your full payers. TO will make it easier to so.

Recruited athletes too.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My prediction is that starting with this year’s ED, kids with test scores are going to start winning more seats, particularly at selective schools.

That has been the case for the past years as well. If you have two candidates and one submits a good score and one is test optional, reason suggests the first one gets the slot.

Except that with holistic review, you won’t have candidates exactly alike. There will be other factors.

What are the most relevant of the other factors?