Are colleges secretly factoring test scores into decisions for test-optional applicants?

[Anonymous]

If colleges said they were TO, they're TO. They are trained not to read btw the lines (as stated in this podcast OP posted).

however, I think plenty of colleges now have hinted that things are changing and once this cycle is over, expect lots of top schools to switch to "test aware" for class of 2025.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But doesn't it also depend on the school? For example, if you're at a DMV private do you want to be the applicant who has no test score? That's what I'd be worried about.

My kid went TO and got in everywhere. Most of the schools he applied to have been TO for years. People just need to stop applying to so many reach schools. Do you homework so your kid will have plenty of choices that they actually like.

But where

Not PP, but my white DC was accepted at Northwestern TO from a DMV private. Sibling attending a Top 20 school also TO (I'm not saying where for anonymity purposes). I'm starting to wonder if all of these anti-TO posts are from the College Board and tutoring companies that have a vested interest in testing.

It’s definitely not the CB; I see these sentiments everywhere. I think a lot of parents are having a really hard time understanding what holistic admissions means and why test scores are no more or less important than many other factors an applicant presents. Our generation (parents) were raised to believe that a high SAT/ACT score = objective measure of intelligence, and it’s really hard to convince them that it’s just a three-hour test. Why should that three hour test count for more than a single three-hour AP exam, for example? Why should that three-hour test count for more than a recommendation from a teacher who has observed a kid every day for a year? Why should the absence of that three-hour test matter more than strong rigor/grades + ECs + recs + service?

A strong test score is a single factor that some kids will have and some kids won’t, just as some kids will have strong leadership and some won’t. The combination of factors is what matters. But I really do think parents cannot get past that old conception of the SAT/ACT that we grew up with and see it as somehow more important than other elements. It’s a very widespread belief, as every conversation about it on DCUM makes clear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But doesn't it also depend on the school? For example, if you're at a DMV private do you want to be the applicant who has no test score? That's what I'd be worried about.

My kid went TO and got in everywhere. Most of the schools he applied to have been TO for years. People just need to stop applying to so many reach schools. Do you homework so your kid will have plenty of choices that they actually like.

But where

Not PP, but my white DC was accepted at Northwestern TO from a DMV private. Sibling attending a Top 20 school also TO (I'm not saying where for anonymity purposes). I'm starting to wonder if all of these anti-TO posts are from the College Board and tutoring companies that have a vested interest in testing.

It’s definitely not the CB; I see these sentiments everywhere. I think a lot of parents are having a really hard time understanding what holistic admissions means and why test scores are no more or less important than many other factors an applicant presents. Our generation (parents) were raised to believe that a high SAT/ACT score = objective measure of intelligence, and it’s really hard to convince them that it’s just a three-hour test. Why should that three hour test count for more than a single three-hour AP exam, for example? Why should that three-hour test count for more than a recommendation from a teacher who has observed a kid every day for a year? Why should the absence of that three-hour test matter more than strong rigor/grades + ECs + recs + service?

A strong test score is a single factor that some kids will have and some kids won’t, just as some kids will have strong leadership and some won’t. The combination of factors is what matters. But I really do think parents cannot get past that old conception of the SAT/ACT that we grew up with and see it as somehow more important than other elements. It’s a very widespread belief, as every conversation about it on DCUM makes clear.

Except you have Presidents of Ivies, MIT, etc., coming out this year with data saying that Test scores are the single most predictive indicator of success in college. Collected data over the past 4-5 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But doesn't it also depend on the school? For example, if you're at a DMV private do you want to be the applicant who has no test score? That's what I'd be worried about.

My kid went TO and got in everywhere. Most of the schools he applied to have been TO for years. People just need to stop applying to so many reach schools. Do you homework so your kid will have plenty of choices that they actually like.

But where

Not PP, but my white DC was accepted at Northwestern TO from a DMV private. Sibling attending a Top 20 school also TO (I'm not saying where for anonymity purposes). I'm starting to wonder if all of these anti-TO posts are from the College Board and tutoring companies that have a vested interest in testing.

It’s definitely not the CB; I see these sentiments everywhere. I think a lot of parents are having a really hard time understanding what holistic admissions means and why test scores are no more or less important than many other factors an applicant presents. Our generation (parents) were raised to believe that a high SAT/ACT score = objective measure of intelligence, and it’s really hard to convince them that it’s just a three-hour test. Why should that three hour test count for more than a single three-hour AP exam, for example? Why should that three-hour test count for more than a recommendation from a teacher who has observed a kid every day for a year? Why should the absence of that three-hour test matter more than strong rigor/grades + ECs + recs + service?

A strong test score is a single factor that some kids will have and some kids won’t, just as some kids will have strong leadership and some won’t. The combination of factors is what matters. But I really do think parents cannot get past that old conception of the SAT/ACT that we grew up with and see it as somehow more important than other elements. It’s a very widespread belief, as every conversation about it on DCUM makes clear.

Except you have Presidents of Ivies, MIT, etc., coming out this year with data saying that Test scores are the single most predictive indicator of success in college. Collected data over the past 4-5 years.

This is also related to the rampant grade inflation across America. 250 kids out of 500 in our HS had ABOVE a 4.0 last year. All were valedictorians. With the re-takes this has rendered GPAs fairly meaningless indicators.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just take a look at the thread titled Bad Choices today about the student with a 3.7 uw who is disappointed with her options. Not to pick on that poster, but more generally, since the rapid move to TO, there are assumptions made by applicants and their families that they never would have made under a tests-required scenario, assumptions that don't quite verge on entitlements, but not recognizing that to college AOs, TO = low score.Some colleges also pretend that this isn't true, but it is a simple fact that TO applicants scored "low"

If a kid scores 1550+ in a practice SAT, what are the disadvantages of taking the actual test and reporting it?

Exactly. If they had the potential for a good score, they would have tested.

However, I'd argue that what is sufficient to submit is far less than 1550. I think some people got bad advice on that this season.

Many high schools have averages under 1200. If you have 100+ points better than your school average then consider submitting them. If you have 200+ better then absolutely submit them. If your school average is 1300+ and you have 1300+ then guess what? Still submit them! If you don't the admissions officer may assume your scores are below your schools average.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TO is here to stay for many schools but some will start requesting tests again. The recent NYT article had quotes from presidents of top schools saying there was a role for testing.

A lot of the Ivy Presidents have 4-5 year studies showing testing is the best predictor of future college success, over everything else and that crosses privilege, race, wealth lines, etc.

Many alluded this cycle that it is going to be more and more important.

Will wait for official changes from the top schools (similar to what MIT did). The timely drop of NYT article coincided with a standardized testing conference attended by such "Ivy League" type colleges, and hosted by - that's right- the College Board.

Until then, test optional it is. Each parent / applicant can choose accordingly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not California. You guys are paranoid.
TO is everywhere.

Then it’s fiction, because outside of one or two posters here, I don’t hear good things about kids applying test optional to the most selective colleges , and I have kids at two academically rigorous private schools. In fact, this cycle, we had a presentation about testing in which they strongly encouraged against applying test optional based on what they are seeing and hearing from the most selective schools.

I have a Senior and his HS college counseling staff told us when he was a Sophomore to TEST. Always test. That kids from good schools, good backgrounds have the opportunity and options to test and the only reason somebody won't submit scores in those situations is because they didn't score well.

They said think of it as "Test aware" not Test optional. Test optional was designed to bring in First Gen and disadvantaged URMs, not MC-UMC-Rich kids with all the advantages in life.

This is what people need to remember. It was queued up when they knew SC AA would be overturned. Covid TO was going to be temporary, but the SC looming decision stretched it out.

AND they saw the added benefit of driving up the number of Applicants (collecting more $80/ a pop) while helping to drive down acceptance rates letting them appear more competitive/selective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just take a look at the thread titled Bad Choices today about the student with a 3.7 uw who is disappointed with her options. Not to pick on that poster, but more generally, since the rapid move to TO, there are assumptions made by applicants and their families that they never would have made under a tests-required scenario, assumptions that don't quite verge on entitlements, but not recognizing that to college AOs, TO = low score.Some colleges also pretend that this isn't true, but it is a simple fact that TO applicants scored "low"

I think this might vary by high school. Our school encourages TO for everyone under about 1520-30 for the most competitive schools. I don’t think of a 1500 as low or “low” even.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TO has to be TO, at least for this year, based on the admissions this fall/winter. It has seemed like anything submitted under a 1550 is considered worse than TO, both for admission and for merit awards/honors colleges. My daughter has friends that have gotten in TO to Yale, Brown, Michigan, Vanderbilt, Duke, Northwestern, Bowdoin, and Notre Dame and that’s just off the top of my head. So hard to know how to proceed with a current junior.

how does your junior know that many seniors' college admissions results as well as their testing status? And then comes home and tells you? Just wondering how this works.

Our school isn’t that big. Are your juniors not close with seniors? And we’re in CT, not California.

Not close enough to know if kids submitted test scores. I asked my senior who is super social with a group of maybe 6 very close friends and a dozen close friends and she said "I have no idea what my friends scored, we don't talk about GPAs or scores."

This sounds odd to me but it also sounds very healthy! My kids’ school basically becomes a war zone on the first day of junior year and everyone knows everyone else’s grades, rigor, test scores and what schools they apply to. It’s literally all they talk about and I hate it so much. It’s so unhealthy. My kids are in 9th and 11th grades and if I had know what junior year was like I would have sent my younger daughter elsewhere. But that being said, we do have tons of admissions info because of the environment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But doesn't it also depend on the school? For example, if you're at a DMV private do you want to be the applicant who has no test score? That's what I'd be worried about.

My kid went TO and got in everywhere. Most of the schools he applied to have been TO for years. People just need to stop applying to so many reach schools. Do you homework so your kid will have plenty of choices that they actually like.

But where

Not PP, but my white DC was accepted at Northwestern TO from a DMV private. Sibling attending a Top 20 school also TO (I'm not saying where for anonymity purposes). I'm starting to wonder if all of these anti-TO posts are from the College Board and tutoring companies that have a vested interest in testing.

It’s definitely not the CB; I see these sentiments everywhere. I think a lot of parents are having a really hard time understanding what holistic admissions means and why test scores are no more or less important than many other factors an applicant presents. Our generation (parents) were raised to believe that a high SAT/ACT score = objective measure of intelligence, and it’s really hard to convince them that it’s just a three-hour test. Why should that three hour test count for more than a single three-hour AP exam, for example? Why should that three-hour test count for more than a recommendation from a teacher who has observed a kid every day for a year? Why should the absence of that three-hour test matter more than strong rigor/grades + ECs + recs + service?

A strong test score is a single factor that some kids will have and some kids won’t, just as some kids will have strong leadership and some won’t. The combination of factors is what matters. But I really do think parents cannot get past that old conception of the SAT/ACT that we grew up with and see it as somehow more important than other elements. It’s a very widespread belief, as every conversation about it on DCUM makes clear.

Except you have Presidents of Ivies, MIT, etc., coming out this year with data saying that Test scores are the single most predictive indicator of success in college. Collected data over the past 4-5 years.

Sure, a few are saying this. And plenty of tippy top schools—e.g. Amherst, Bowdoin, Pomona—are enrolling classes where the majority did not submit test scores. My personal suspicion is that the Ivies are so swamped with applications that they want the SAT/ACT as a sorting mechanism.

Regardless, the predictive power a few Ivy presidents are alluding to is not being seen at far more, equally selective and rigorous schools. Why is that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But doesn't it also depend on the school? For example, if you're at a DMV private do you want to be the applicant who has no test score? That's what I'd be worried about.

My kid went TO and got in everywhere. Most of the schools he applied to have been TO for years. People just need to stop applying to so many reach schools. Do you homework so your kid will have plenty of choices that they actually like.

But where

Not PP, but my white DC was accepted at Northwestern TO from a DMV private. Sibling attending a Top 20 school also TO (I'm not saying where for anonymity purposes). I'm starting to wonder if all of these anti-TO posts are from the College Board and tutoring companies that have a vested interest in testing.

It’s definitely not the CB; I see these sentiments everywhere. I think a lot of parents are having a really hard time understanding what holistic admissions means and why test scores are no more or less important than many other factors an applicant presents. Our generation (parents) were raised to believe that a high SAT/ACT score = objective measure of intelligence, and it’s really hard to convince them that it’s just a three-hour test. Why should that three hour test count for more than a single three-hour AP exam, for example? Why should that three-hour test count for more than a recommendation from a teacher who has observed a kid every day for a year? Why should the absence of that three-hour test matter more than strong rigor/grades + ECs + recs + service?

A strong test score is a single factor that some kids will have and some kids won’t, just as some kids will have strong leadership and some won’t. The combination of factors is what matters. But I really do think parents cannot get past that old conception of the SAT/ACT that we grew up with and see it as somehow more important than other elements. It’s a very widespread belief, as every conversation about it on DCUM makes clear.

Except you have Presidents of Ivies, MIT, etc., coming out this year with data saying that Test scores are the single most predictive indicator of success in college. Collected data over the past 4-5 years.

This is also related to the rampant grade inflation across America. 250 kids out of 500 in our HS had ABOVE a 4.0 last year. All were valedictorians. With the re-takes this has rendered GPAs fairly meaningless indicators.

Unweighted 4.0? That would be truly shocking. At our public school where 75% of students go on to four-year colleges, only ~5% of students graduate with an unweighted 4.0.

But if your stat is weighted, then it’s very easy for AOs to distinguish among those 250 students using the transcript.

[Anonymous]

I think the poster who constantly argues in favor of test optional: (1) is trying to sabotage other applicants or (2) has a kid who got in test optional and is unhappy there is starting to be a stigma about such admissions.

I had a senior who went through the cycle last year from a rigorous private. A full third of the class got some type of national merit recognition for their test scores and those same kids got into the highest ranked schools as compared to the rest of the class.

If my younger kid bombed the SAT, sure, I would have them apply test optional. But only after having them do everything they could to bring the score up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is perfectly reasonable and logical for a college to assume that a test optional applicant has a score too low for that college.

And yet the podcast provided a number of reasonable and logical reasons why colleges are not making any assumptions about TO applicants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just take a look at the thread titled Bad Choices today about the student with a 3.7 uw who is disappointed with her options. Not to pick on that poster, but more generally, since the rapid move to TO, there are assumptions made by applicants and their families that they never would have made under a tests-required scenario, assumptions that don't quite verge on entitlements, but not recognizing that to college AOs, TO = low score.Some colleges also pretend that this isn't true, but it is a simple fact that TO applicants scored "low"

There are an equally large number of posts by people complaining that their kid had a "good enough" score to get in, but still got deferred or rejected.

It ain't the test score or lack thereof that's making the difference at highly rejective schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But doesn't it also depend on the school? For example, if you're at a DMV private do you want to be the applicant who has no test score? That's what I'd be worried about.

My kid went TO and got in everywhere. Most of the schools he applied to have been TO for years. People just need to stop applying to so many reach schools. Do you homework so your kid will have plenty of choices that they actually like.

But where

Not PP, but my white DC was accepted at Northwestern TO from a DMV private. Sibling attending a Top 20 school also TO (I'm not saying where for anonymity purposes). I'm starting to wonder if all of these anti-TO posts are from the College Board and tutoring companies that have a vested interest in testing.

It’s definitely not the CB; I see these sentiments everywhere. I think a lot of parents are having a really hard time understanding what holistic admissions means and why test scores are no more or less important than many other factors an applicant presents. Our generation (parents) were raised to believe that a high SAT/ACT score = objective measure of intelligence, and it’s really hard to convince them that it’s just a three-hour test. Why should that three hour test count for more than a single three-hour AP exam, for example? Why should that three-hour test count for more than a recommendation from a teacher who has observed a kid every day for a year? Why should the absence of that three-hour test matter more than strong rigor/grades + ECs + recs + service?

A strong test score is a single factor that some kids will have and some kids won’t, just as some kids will have strong leadership and some won’t. The combination of factors is what matters. But I really do think parents cannot get past that old conception of the SAT/ACT that we grew up with and see it as somehow more important than other elements. It’s a very widespread belief, as every conversation about it on DCUM makes clear.

Except you have Presidents of Ivies, MIT, etc., coming out this year with data saying that Test scores are the single most predictive indicator of success in college. Collected data over the past 4-5 years.

Sure, a few are saying this. And plenty of tippy top schools—e.g. Amherst, Bowdoin, Pomona—are enrolling classes where the majority did not submit test scores. My personal suspicion is that the Ivies are so swamped with applications that they want the SAT/ACT as a sorting mechanism.

Regardless, the predictive power a few Ivy presidents are alluding to is not being seen at far more, equally selective and rigorous schools. Why is that?

Bowdoin, like Wake Forest, has been test optional for a few decades. The California schools tend to take a lot of test optional because of the declining number of students in CA taking standardized tests due to the California public colleges going test blind. But at most other schools, the percentage of kids admitted test optional is not greater than the percentage of kids who are institutional priorities.