BTDT Test Optional...

[Anonymous]

Do people who are applying TO without having taken an official SAT/ACT alert the universities to that fact in their application? I feel like openly stating that fact would help clarify any AO assumption that they simply did worse than their classmates at a competitive DMV school.

[Anonymous]

Would you submit an 1190 SAT to Penn State if trying for University Park?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do people who are applying TO without having taken an official SAT/ACT alert the universities to that fact in their application? I feel like openly stating that fact would help clarify any AO assumption that they simply did worse than their classmates at a competitive DMV school.

I don’t think that makes the student look any better. If they thought they would do well, they would take the test.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, my son was in this situation for nearly all of the colleges he applied to last year. He submitted the scores. He was admitted to 8 of 10.

Being a little below the median score means the student is typical, not that they're inferior.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If you’re white or Asian, student is going to do well test optional at the top schools unless they have something else exceptional on their resume. If urm or first gen, likely to do well with test optional.

Do you have any stats or even one quote from an AO to support this?

Look at the increase in URM and first gen admissions in the past two years of test optional and do the math. No school is going to say this out loud, it’s how they are going to get around the imminent end of AA. They are not going to invite the next series of law suits.

And this is what we were told by two different sets of counselors, one school, one private.

Yep. It's a completely rational theory, and supported by circumstantial evidence, but no university is going to release the data to verify that it's true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do people who are applying TO without having taken an official SAT/ACT alert the universities to that fact in their application? I feel like openly stating that fact would help clarify any AO assumption that they simply did worse than their classmates at a competitive DMV school.

I don’t think that makes the student look any better. If they thought they would do well, they would take the test.

Agree that it would not necessarily help. For what it’s worth, I’m in California and many kids in my DC’s class are not taking the tests, so in some places, it’s not uncommon to skip it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do people who are applying TO without having taken an official SAT/ACT alert the universities to that fact in their application? I feel like openly stating that fact would help clarify any AO assumption that they simply did worse than their classmates at a competitive DMV school.

No.

Whether you did not take the SAT/ACT at all, or took it but did not submit, it's the same on the common app. No scores submitted or N/A.

No need to add any context.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do people who are applying TO without having taken an official SAT/ACT alert the universities to that fact in their application? I feel like openly stating that fact would help clarify any AO assumption that they simply did worse than their classmates at a competitive DMV school.

I don’t think that makes the student look any better. If they thought they would do well, they would take the test.

Agree that it would not necessarily help. For what it’s worth, I’m in California and many kids in my DC’s class are not taking the tests, so in some places, it’s not uncommon to skip it

but are they URM, first-generation or otherwise hooked? Big difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do people who are applying TO without having taken an official SAT/ACT alert the universities to that fact in their application? I feel like openly stating that fact would help clarify any AO assumption that they simply did worse than their classmates at a competitive DMV school.

I don’t think that makes the student look any better. If they thought they would do well, they would take the test.

Agree that it would not necessarily help. For what it’s worth, I’m in California and many kids in my DC’s class are not taking the tests, so in some places, it’s not uncommon to skip it

but are they URM, first-generation or otherwise hooked? Big difference.

I think they are of all races. The UC and CalState system went test-blind so there’s no Eason to take the SAT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do people who are applying TO without having taken an official SAT/ACT alert the universities to that fact in their application? I feel like openly stating that fact would help clarify any AO assumption that they simply did worse than their classmates at a competitive DMV school.

I don’t think that makes the student look any better. If they thought they would do well, they would take the test.

Agree that it would not necessarily help. For what it’s worth, I’m in California and many kids in my DC’s class are not taking the tests, so in some places, it’s not uncommon to skip it

but are they URM, first-generation or otherwise hooked? Big difference.

No. They are mostly rich white kids from private school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If you’re white or Asian, student is going to do well test optional at the top schools unless they have something else exceptional on their resume. If urm or first gen, likely to do well with test optional.

Do you have any stats or even one quote from an AO to support this?

Look at the increase in URM and first gen admissions in the past two years of test optional and do the math. No school is going to say this out loud, it’s how they are going to get around the imminent end of AA. They are not going to invite the next series of law suits.

And this is what we were told by two different sets of counselors, one school, one private.

Yep. It's a completely rational theory, and supported by circumstantial evidence, but no university is going to release the data to verify that it's true.

This. of course it's true. All you have to do is go back and read the results here in this forum for particular schools Ed, EA and RD results and where TO is mentioned you will see that it gives a leg up only to URM, first-generation, etc. Now no college or university is actually going to tell you that, but that is what is happening. That's why the UC system has done away with testing - it knows what SCOTUS is going to do and knows this is the way (not requiring testing) that it can still engage in social engineering. Colleges and universities in America don't want a meritocracy. They want to be able to do social engineering. So getting rid of TO is a step in the right direction, according to them. Read up on this. Chronicle of Higher Education and other sources. Do not believe what admissions directors tell you - they are - above all else - now marketing people for the college. Their job isn't to tell you (the applicant's parents) the truth - their job is to push the college up USNWR rankings whether that be just by lying to you to get your kid to apply in order to reject them (thereby increasing the numbers of applicants and pushing down the acceptance percentage) or other means.

[Anonymous]

Personally, if my child chose not to take the SAT or ACT, I'd make it clear in the apps for TO schools avoid any misconception. It is true that not everyone is taking the SAT or ACT at this point. +1 to the CA comment after having lived there recently.

I don't understand why some here aiming for highly selective colleges just take the tests for the heck of it or after taking practice tests where they haven't regularly been scoring where they expect to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If you’re white or Asian, student is going to do well test optional at the top schools unless they have something else exceptional on their resume. If urm or first gen, likely to do well with test optional.

Do you have any stats or even one quote from an AO to support this?

Look at the increase in URM and first gen admissions in the past two years of test optional and do the math. No school is going to say this out loud, it’s how they are going to get around the imminent end of AA. They are not going to invite the next series of law suits.

And this is what we were told by two different sets of counselors, one school, one private.

Yep. It's a completely rational theory, and supported by circumstantial evidence, but no university is going to release the data to verify that it's true.

This. of course it's true. All you have to do is go back and read the results here in this forum for particular schools Ed, EA and RD results and where TO is mentioned you will see that it gives a leg up only to URM, first-generation, etc. Now no college or university is actually going to tell you that, but that is what is happening. That's why the UC system has done away with testing - it knows what SCOTUS is going to do and knows this is the way (not requiring testing) that it can still engage in social engineering. Colleges and universities in America don't want a meritocracy. They want to be able to do social engineering. So getting rid of TO is a step in the right direction, according to them. Read up on this. Chronicle of Higher Education and other sources. Do not believe what admissions directors tell you - they are - above all else - now marketing people for the college. Their job isn't to tell you (the applicant's parents) the truth - their job is to push the college up USNWR rankings whether that be just by lying to you to get your kid to apply in order to reject them (thereby increasing the numbers of applicants and pushing down the acceptance percentage) or other means.

This may be true at the “top” schools, but there are May kids and lower tier schools that are using TO to improve their stats. Look at the admissions test score averages, they have gone way up. Have those schools attracted better candidates ? No. They are telling students below the midpoint not to submit. That increases their average because they don’t have to count (and never seen) the lower scores. They are admitting mostly the same students, just TO so they look better. I’ve been to several second and third tier schools lately and they have all said don’t submit unless you are at the 50% score.

So your race conspiracy theory only holds true at the top 25-50 schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If you’re white or Asian, student is going to do well test optional at the top schools unless they have something else exceptional on their resume. If urm or first gen, likely to do well with test optional.

Do you have any stats or even one quote from an AO to support this?

Look at the increase in URM and first gen admissions in the past two years of test optional and do the math. No school is going to say this out loud, it’s how they are going to get around the imminent end of AA. They are not going to invite the next series of law suits.

And this is what we were told by two different sets of counselors, one school, one private.

Yep. It's a completely rational theory, and supported by circumstantial evidence, but no university is going to release the data to verify that it's true.

This. of course it's true. All you have to do is go back and read the results here in this forum for particular schools Ed, EA and RD results and where TO is mentioned you will see that it gives a leg up only to URM, first-generation, etc. Now no college or university is actually going to tell you that, but that is what is happening. That's why the UC system has done away with testing - it knows what SCOTUS is going to do and knows this is the way (not requiring testing) that it can still engage in social engineering. Colleges and universities in America don't want a meritocracy. They want to be able to do social engineering. So getting rid of TO is a step in the right direction, according to them. Read up on this. Chronicle of Higher Education and other sources. Do not believe what admissions directors tell you - they are - above all else - now marketing people for the college. Their job isn't to tell you (the applicant's parents) the truth - their job is to push the college up USNWR rankings whether that be just by lying to you to get your kid to apply in order to reject them (thereby increasing the numbers of applicants and pushing down the acceptance percentage) or other means.

This may be the intent of TO but the data shows that it's not working to significantly increase diversity:

Slay’s work gives us a rare, unvarnished glimpse inside college admissions offices. It’s especially significant now because a college admissions case is currently before the Supreme Court that could strike down affirmative action, a practice that gives preferences to groups that have been discriminated against. As colleges experiment with alternative solutions, these interviews help shed light on why test-optional policies haven’t been helpful for increasing diversity on college campuses.

Earlier quantitative studies found that the test-optional movement, which has spread to over 1,700 colleges, failed to substantially raise the share of low-income students or students of color. For example, one study published in 2021 found that the share of Black, Latino and Native American students increased by only 1 percentage point at about 100 colleges and universities that adopted the policy between 2005-06 and 2015-16. A separate study of a group of selective liberal arts colleges that adopted test-optional policies before 2011 didn’t find any diversity improvements on those campuses.

https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-colleges-that-ditched-test-scores-for-admissions-find-its-harder-to-be-fair-in-choosing-students-researcher-says/?fbclid=IwAR3zjdseoxAVtQpUC3BPge5GLEVegplZyuGfVNbMQYWNlzc4_bVd2zX9by4

The data used in the article is older and I can't post a link to the current research discussed in the article (beyond a paywall) but the pandemic TO data I have seen as a faculty member at an R1 is consistent with pre-Covid TO data. What TO has done is significantly increase the diversity of the pool of applicants but has not significantly increased the number of URM students accepted and enrolled, especially at R1 public and private universities. The exception is test blind and the UC system which has significantly increased the pool of URM applicants (primarily Hispanic) and increased enrollment by 20-30% at Berkeley and UCLA.

[Anonymous]

Isn’t an answer what legacy status is for? Can you call the alumni office (or development if you give annually) and ask what they think? To me, this is the sort of answer they should be sharing with alumni who have kids hoping to go to Tulane.