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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i was the one who botched the calculation for vandy - thank god there was a horde to immediately point out my error lol

my point remains valid

56% applied with scores 61% accepted

negligible difference - even less so when reasonable to expect test submitters have stronger overall apps

meaning = submitting tests means nothing at vandy

Yeah, not so impressed with your reasoning there or here. Just slightly less than two thirds of the accepted class submitted test scores. That suggests it’s an advantage.

it’s a 5% advantage guy - as said above “negligible”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My white upper middle class daughter applied TO and was accepted everywhere. We knew it was a gamble but her scores were not representative of her ability and we didn’t want to give schools a reason to say no to her. She has ADHD and is a poor test taker. Her best scores she could manage on the ACT test dates were 4-5 points lower than the scores she was getting on her practice tests. They were lower than the mid range for all her schools even though her GPA was fine. She was aiming for safeties and matches, not top 50 or anything like that.

Glad things worked out for your DD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i was the one who botched the calculation for vandy - thank god there was a horde to immediately point out my error lol

my point remains valid

56% applied with scores 61% accepted

negligible difference - even less so when reasonable to expect test submitters have stronger overall apps

meaning = submitting tests means nothing at vandy

Yeah, not so impressed with your reasoning there or here. Just slightly less than two thirds of the accepted class submitted test scores. That suggests it’s an advantage.

Please stop, analyzing statistics is not your thing. You’ve done it incorrectly again.

it’s a 5% advantage guy - as said above “negligible”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i was the one who botched the calculation for vandy - thank god there was a horde to immediately point out my error lol

my point remains valid

56% applied with scores 61% accepted

negligible difference - even less so when reasonable to expect test submitters have stronger overall apps

meaning = submitting tests means nothing at vandy

Yeah, not so impressed with your reasoning there or here. Just slightly less than two thirds of the accepted class submitted test scores. That suggests it’s an advantage.

DP. I’m not a statistician either but a 5 percent difference in acceptance rates isn’t negligible at all. Besides, who do you think those 5 percent are? You know who.

Please stop, analyzing statistics is not your thing. You’ve done it incorrectly again.

it’s a 5% advantage guy - as said above “negligible”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i was the one who botched the calculation for vandy - thank god there was a horde to immediately point out my error lol

my point remains valid

56% applied with scores 61% accepted

negligible difference - even less so when reasonable to expect test submitters have stronger overall apps

meaning = submitting tests means nothing at vandy

Yeah, not so impressed with your reasoning there or here. Just slightly less than two thirds of the accepted class submitted test scores. That suggests it’s an advantage.

it’s a 5% advantage guy - as said above “negligible”

It’s a 10 point advantage., not 5, hardly negligible,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i was the one who botched the calculation for vandy - thank god there was a horde to immediately point out my error lol

my point remains valid

56% applied with scores 61% accepted

negligible difference - even less so when reasonable to expect test submitters have stronger overall apps

meaning = submitting tests means nothing at vandy

Yeah, not so impressed with your reasoning there or here. Just slightly less than two thirds of the accepted class submitted test scores. That suggests it’s an advantage.

it’s a 5% advantage guy - as said above “negligible”

It’s a 10 point advantage., not 5, hardly negligible,

And I would assume that a good chunk of the TO acceptances are students with a hook, such as athletes and first gen., so even less applicable to unhooked UMC kids.

FWIW, my DC is submitting their 1490 even though it is under 1500. DC has a 780 verbal, so generally in the top 25 for verbal and just under or at the middle 50 for math for reaches but not interested in STEM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i was the one who botched the calculation for vandy - thank god there was a horde to immediately point out my error lol

my point remains valid

56% applied with scores 61% accepted

negligible difference - even less so when reasonable to expect test submitters have stronger overall apps

meaning = submitting tests means nothing at vandy

Yeah, not so impressed with your reasoning there or here. Just slightly less than two thirds of the accepted class submitted test scores. That suggests it’s an advantage.

it’s a 5% advantage guy - as said above “negligible”

It’s a 10 point advantage., not 5, hardly negligible,

And I would assume that a good chunk of the TO acceptances are students with a hook, such as athletes and first gen., so even less applicable to unhooked UMC kids.

FWIW, my DC is submitting their 1490 even though it is under 1500. DC has a 780 verbal, so generally in the top 25 for verbal and just under or at the middle 50 for math for reaches but not interested in STEM.

Which school (s)? Top 30?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i was the one who botched the calculation for vandy - thank god there was a horde to immediately point out my error lol

my point remains valid

56% applied with scores 61% accepted

negligible difference - even less so when reasonable to expect test submitters have stronger overall apps

meaning = submitting tests means nothing at vandy

Yeah, not so impressed with your reasoning there or here. Just slightly less than two thirds of the accepted class submitted test scores. That suggests it’s an advantage.

it’s a 5% advantage guy - as said above “negligible”

It’s a 10 point advantage., not 5, hardly negligible,

And I would assume that a good chunk of the TO acceptances are students with a hook, such as athletes and first gen., so even less applicable to unhooked UMC kids.

FWIW, my DC is submitting their 1490 even though it is under 1500. DC has a 780 verbal, so generally in the top 25 for verbal and just under or at the middle 50 for math for reaches but not interested in STEM.

Which school (s)? Top 30?

Yes, DC is apply to a range of schools. Has something like a 3.9 UW and the schools include top 20 and top 30 as reaches.

[Anonymous]

Can also apply T.O. to schools that are not particularly hard to get into if student has a high enough GPA in challenging enough classes. If the school is not very selective, T.O. is probably fine.

Also, some Big State U's will have charts showing the GPA you need to receive merit money applying "test optional" versus GPA / test score needed to receive merit money when submitting scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Other schools will wonder why you're not submitting tests. For these, you'd better submit anything that is better than the published mid-range of scores (or in the upper range of that interval). If you don't, they will assume you tested poorly.

The problem with this is that kids are now scared to submit anything below the 50th percentile. And if this keeps happening, the number of kids who submit will go down and the test scores will go up. And then you left with (mostly likely) wealthy, well prepped kids submitting scores. Colleges must realize that and take that into account.

PP you replied to. Yes, which is why I'm expecting at some point that more colleges return to test-mandatory. If only some people submit tests, then nothing makes sense.

"at some point" won't be within the next 2 to 3 years - if at all.

Test Optional is pretty much here to stay. There won't be a major shift back to test mandatory. After the SCOTUS bans affirmative action, Test Optional will be the primary vehicle to consider diverse candidates.

The "test phase" of this has been happening since COVID hit a couple of years ago.

THIS

[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.

This is exactly why my DH is a fan of standardized testing. He came from a poor family, but was hard-working and smart. He did really well on the SAT (in 1992) without any prep, and in taking it just once. It allowed him to compete for a spot at the top schools, and he got admitted to a top school and also got a Pell Grant. The standardized tests were supposed to help the kids who went to "bad" high schools, to demonstrate that they have what it takes to succeed at a top school.

[Anonymous]

One school mailer advertised a scholarship and basically said not to include scores if they were below a certain number.

No. It’s for everyone. My kid applied TO and was already accepted somewhere.

AOs have said not to include it unless you want them considered. Not sure they’d lie about that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Other schools will wonder why you're not submitting tests. For these, you'd better submit anything that is better than the published mid-range of scores (or in the upper range of that interval). If you don't, they will assume you tested poorly.

The problem with this is that kids are now scared to submit anything below the 50th percentile. And if this keeps happening, the number of kids who submit will go down and the test scores will go up. And then you left with (mostly likely) wealthy, well prepped kids submitting scores. Colleges must realize that and take that into account.

Exactly. The middle 50 is gonna be crazy high.

If colleges know a high school profile, grades and rigor should be enough.

[Anonymous]

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.

Fair-minded Georgetown makes it easy by requiring the entire history of your scores (SAT/ACT and AP). That way they can weed out the ones who tested 10 times on their parents' dime in favor of someone who tested once, just because it was required.

Their mid-range of scores is very high.

I agree with PP that for very selective universities, not submitting a score means you have a bad one, unless the rest of the application is incredible.

Sounds like Georgetown doesn’t want persistent students who may have struggles at home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My white upper middle class daughter applied TO and was accepted everywhere. We knew it was a gamble but her scores were not representative of her ability and we didn’t want to give schools a reason to say no to her. She has ADHD and is a poor test taker. Her best scores she could manage on the ACT test dates were 4-5 points lower than the scores she was getting on her practice tests. They were lower than the mid range for all her schools even though her GPA was fine. She was aiming for safeties and matches, not top 50 or anything like that.

My kid is also smart and a poor test taker. While they are slow at math, they do just fine with extra time. However, we haven’t gone through the expensive testing to get more time on tests.

If you are white, rich, attend fancy public or private…if your kid has no learning differences, then you are very fortunate. Colleges want more than a sea of these types of people, which they make evident by offering TO.

I’m glad more students feel welcome to apply even if their test score doesn’t reflect their abilities. Too much emphasis is put on the 3-4 hours over which one test takes place. In poorer areas, the testing is a nightmare with late starts and interruptions. We are going to a different and richer county for the next test in the hopes they will have proctors who know what they are doing—or at least don’t take phone calls during the test.