No, test optional isn’t the reason your kid didn’t get in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BUT---Test Optional IS the reason your kid got in.

Even with all of that prep they still couldn't get competitive scores and NEVER would have applied, much less gotten in.

Which is why they are so defensive Oh--act and sat are so subjective blah, blah,,,,yet I paid for tutors and test preps and Susie still couldn't crack 50% at top 50 schools.

The richies love TO! They can buy their way into a top school now with fake ECs and "Big Three, grade deflation" BS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BUT---Test Optional IS the reason your kid got in.

Even with all of that prep they still couldn't get competitive scores and NEVER would have applied, much less gotten in.

Which is why they are so defensive Oh--act and sat are so subjective blah, blah,,,,yet I paid for tutors and test preps and Susie still couldn't crack 50% at top 50 schools.

The richies love TO! They can buy their way into a top school now with fake ECs and "Big Three, grade deflation" BS.

you really do come across as so bitter and even unhappy

[Anonymous]

Can someone explain why schools continue to be test optional when the research shows it doesn’t increase the number of URM students and the data published from the latest CDS’s from most T100 schools show that 30 to 50% of students were admitted test optional and statistically, there are not enough URM‘s to explain this difference? Meaning that the majority of tests optional students got in were non-URM’s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BUT---Test Optional IS the reason your kid got in.

Even with all of that prep they still couldn't get competitive scores and NEVER would have applied, much less gotten in.

Which is why they are so defensive Oh--act and sat are so subjective blah, blah,,,,yet I paid for tutors and test preps and Susie still couldn't crack 50% at top 50 schools.

Actually, the defensive people are the ones insisting scores equate to intellect because they are the ones who have invested in enrichment, whether test specific or no. They want a recipe for admissions, and TO interferes with that.

[Anonymous]

The workplace is figuring out that school brands are kind of meaningless -and testing at all levels is on the rise. My daughter is a recruiter in finance and top employers now require a LOT of testing just to get in the door, including personality, math, logic and writing assessments. You can't prep for these tests or take them over again - and there are no accommodations. Candidates (of all races and backgrounds), including the sort of "elite" credentials many DCUMers salivate over here, often bomb or don't get by the tests. Top employers want proof that the candidate is as good as they look on paper, because degrees don't prove much of anything these days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The workplace is figuring out that school brands are kind of meaningless -and testing at all levels is on the rise. My daughter is a recruiter in finance and top employers now require a LOT of testing just to get in the door, including personality, math, logic and writing assessments. You can't prep for these tests or take them over again - and there are no accommodations. Candidates (of all races and backgrounds), including the sort of "elite" credentials many DCUMers salivate over here, often bomb or don't get by the tests. Top employers want proof that the candidate is as good as they look on paper, because degrees don't prove much of anything these days.

Interesting. I hire inside counsel and we give an assignment (small legal/analytical written piece). We want to see how people think and reason and make sure they can write coherently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The workplace is figuring out that school brands are kind of meaningless -and testing at all levels is on the rise. My daughter is a recruiter in finance and top employers now require a LOT of testing just to get in the door, including personality, math, logic and writing assessments. You can't prep for these tests or take them over again - and there are no accommodations. Candidates (of all races and backgrounds), including the sort of "elite" credentials many DCUMers salivate over here, often bomb or don't get by the tests. Top employers want proof that the candidate is as good as they look on paper, because degrees don't prove much of anything these days.

That testing might be found discriminatory/illegal at some point, too. Especially if it violates ADA compliance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain why schools continue to be test optional when the research shows it doesn’t increase the number of URM students and the data published from the latest CDS’s from most T100 schools show that 30 to 50% of students were admitted test optional and statistically, there are not enough URM‘s to explain this difference? Meaning that the majority of tests optional students got in were non-URM’s.

Because maybe that's not the reason they went TO. Its just what people assume is the reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's a ZERO SUM GAME.

If a lower score kid got lucky and got in with TO when otherwise wouldn't have even applied, there's another kid with higher score didn't get in.

Yes, so you think you're kid does better without competition, that's always true, that's not a TO issue. (Like my realtor who's method was always get a contract in before the open house.)

[Anonymous]

But ultimately – colleges can choose the criteria they want for admitting potential students. (As long as it's legal.)

There's a widespread and wrong belief that each college should only want the most absolutely brilliant students. When what they really want a variety of kids who'll probably accept their admission, stay for four years, graduate, and go on to good careers, being future ambassadors for the schools (and hopefully generous alumni). Of course that means taking some very top students, but also well-rounded, curious and enthusiastic kids. "Diversity" isn't just about ethnic or geographical backgrounds.

And yeah – my 1500+ SAT kid was rejected from most top schools. He's enthusastic about his slightly lower-ranked choice, and I think he'll grow a lot there, get to know lots of different people and have great opportunities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain why schools continue to be test optional when the research shows it doesn’t increase the number of URM students and the data published from the latest CDS’s from most T100 schools show that 30 to 50% of students were admitted test optional and statistically, there are not enough URM‘s to explain this difference? Meaning that the majority of tests optional students got in were non-URM’s.

Because TO is not meant to increase URM admissions. You see the data yourself and you see the results. The trolls can spin it all they want but the numbers tell their own story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The workplace is figuring out that school brands are kind of meaningless -and testing at all levels is on the rise. My daughter is a recruiter in finance and top employers now require a LOT of testing just to get in the door, including personality, math, logic and writing assessments. You can't prep for these tests or take them over again - and there are no accommodations. Candidates (of all races and backgrounds), including the sort of "elite" credentials many DCUMers salivate over here, often bomb or don't get by the tests. Top employers want proof that the candidate is as good as they look on paper, because degrees don't prove much of anything these days.

That testing might be found discriminatory/illegal at some point, too. Especially if it violates ADA compliance.

Huh? How is it illegal to give the candidates tasks to do before you choose a hire? They have to be able to perform the job well or I don't have to hire that candidate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So every school announcing record high applications and record low admissions is just … lying?

They’re all lying when they announce that they’ve admitted 50% of their class test optional?

+1 When our school's head admitted publicly that admissions weren't as expected this year - that was huge. They never admit anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain why schools continue to be test optional when the research shows it doesn’t increase the number of URM students and the data published from the latest CDS’s from most T100 schools show that 30 to 50% of students were admitted test optional and statistically, there are not enough URM‘s to explain this difference? Meaning that the majority of tests optional students got in were non-URM’s.

Because maybe that's not the reason they went TO. Its just what people assume is the reason.

+1. I'd say a big one is that tests were never more than a tie breaker, or first strike. But explaining that to applicants is clearly much more trouble than it could ever be worth. Sure who wouldn't want a scrap of paper that guarantees a spot, but it's never worked like that. Yet there's an entire testing industry stoking this belief. Needless to say that industry does target immigrants (and foreign applicants) from high stakes testing cultures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The workplace is figuring out that school brands are kind of meaningless -and testing at all levels is on the rise. My daughter is a recruiter in finance and top employers now require a LOT of testing just to get in the door, including personality, math, logic and writing assessments. You can't prep for these tests or take them over again - and there are no accommodations. Candidates (of all races and backgrounds), including the sort of "elite" credentials many DCUMers salivate over here, often bomb or don't get by the tests. Top employers want proof that the candidate is as good as they look on paper, because degrees don't prove much of anything these days.

That testing might be found discriminatory/illegal at some point, too. Especially if it violates ADA compliance.

Huh? How is it illegal to give the candidates tasks to do before you choose a hire? They have to be able to perform the job well or I don't have to hire that candidate.

I interviewed for a coding job in the 2010s. Wrote some code. Did not get the job. Later on I found out my co-worker interviewed for the same job. Same deal. We compared notes and finally realized I had coded half of a solution and he had done the other half!

Not germane to this thread - but neither was your comment