Is it me or are test scores now more important than ever?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Despite (or perhaps because of) the rise of test optional, it seems there is more intense focus than ever on small differences in test scores. Thread after thread here, you see people saying things like a 33 disqualifies a student from a top 20 and maybe even a 34 (shouldn’t even submit!) This seems crazy and contrary to the idea of the test optional movement. But it also seems to suggest that test optional is only there to make admissions easier for a certain type of student (hooked). The result is that it makes testing even more important for the other types of applicants (unhooked) because the schools are leaning on these students so they can post a high median test score (among the 51 pct that submit). I actually believe in the value of these tests to a large extent but separating kids by a point or two is really ridiculous (esp given the abuses with untimed testing).

33 vs 34 on ACT is not a small difference on average (but there is random variation that blurs the difference) The scaled score range is very narrow.

Of the 33-34 cohort, half of them scored 34.

Of 4 million HS seniors, about 80K score 33, and 40K score 34 (or equivalent on SAT). Probably fewer, considering high school dropouts and others not taking the test.


About 50K enroll in a T20, but that's biased toward UCLA and UCB public schools in California, together admitting about 20K

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities


There is no abuse in untimed testing. The *timed* tests are abusive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, OP is correct. The way schools use test optional now, there is no difference between a 1200 and a 1500 (both are advised to apply test optional), but all the difference in the world between a 1500 and a 1520. Which puts kids scoring at the upper end of the test optional range under enormous pressure to get their objectively very good scores up to the reportable level.

I advise people to submit scores above 1300 except to t20. Most people aren't thinking about those schools in the first place. If the education you want can only be found at a t20 then anything over 1400 can be used. The odds are against you but going TO when you have a 1400 just let's the admissions officers assume you have a 1050.

Do you know how true this is? I always wondered about it. My kid has a 1480- which I think is a great score, but it seems like (based on what I read on this board), it is a test optional score for the top 30 schools. I keep hearing mixed things. Regardless - my kid sent her score to all the schools that she applied to- which includes a few in the top 20- we'll see what happens.

I hope you agree that acceptance to a top 20 is a crapshoot whether or not a test score is submitted. A test score is not the determining factor in admissions for such schools. This is what people either don't understand or want to accept.

So...if your DC with the 1480 warrants admission to a top 20 based on the totality of the application, great. If not, one can almost guarantee that an applicant with a 1580 got rejected too. That's just the way it is with these schools.

That's a really good point about the value of the test scores. Yeah - I told my kid that it's kind of like a lottery/shot in the dark these days. At this point, we know that even targets are difficult. We know people with her scores who got rejected to FSU and Clemson (these are some of the target schools that my kid is still waiting on). A few years ago, I used to think these schools were a safety. When we did our tour at UPenn, our guide had a similar SAT score as my kid and got waitlisted, and ultimately admitted (but she applied during the Covid when a lot of kids were getting off the waitlist due to applicants deferring). You're right, the totality of the application is so important.

Part of the crapshoot is increased applications per student and corresponding lower yield, with a letter group of non-mutually-comparable/rankable applications.

So instead of applying to 2 target or 1 safety, you need to apply to maybe 5 targets and 3 safeties. Same vacke result of you aren't focusing on 1 specific dream school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For colleges that are test optional, no - test scores are not "more important than ever."

Logic.

It’s amazing how many people today accept surface level explanations and don’t consider unintended consequences or ulterior motives.

Parents think they are smarter than the colleges and AOs. Especially when their DC gets deferred or rejected.

If colleges don't want to be test optional they won't state that they are. The highly selective schools have their pick of the students they want to shape the class they want in any given admissions cycle - test optional or not.

A few schools have recently made statements indicating they are test preferred. They are saying it.

Which schools? And where are they saying this?

And obscure podcasts don't count. Where is it on the college's website?

It’s not.

So at our private, I personally know TO applicants who got into:

Vanderbilt
Cornell
Northwestern
Colgate
UofChicago (no surprise)

I’m sure there are others. I have a senior who’s friends with these folks. Don’t know any others.

So many insist that TO is for poor minorities. See above for more proof that even the well-to do apply TO successfully.

That is definitely California. None of the UCs or CalStates even look at test scores. So no one takes them anymore. It's been like for a few years now. But California is such a huge state with lots of very qualified students that it distorts the picture nationally.

People have been observing that Vanderbilt for instance takes nearly 40 percent of their class TO. You can assume at least half of those are from California. A more accurate understanding would be that outside of students applying from California, more than 80 percent of applicants submitted scores. And that strikes me as more intuitively correct. But California is so big that it creates misperceptions at the national level private universities.

Having shepherded two kids through the college application process recently, I have come to believe that the world is only test optional for recruited athletes, UMCs, the offspring of VIPs and major donors, and students from California. If you are applying to any school in the top 80 or so, and don't fall into one of those categories, going TO is a major strike against the applicant.

[Anonymous]

TO does benefit students (whether hooked or not) with high GPA and not correspondingly high SAT score. Those students can apply to sub T50 schools and get significant merit, even without having top rigor. Do well as a big fish in small pond in undergrad and save tuition $ for grad school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For colleges that are test optional, no - test scores are not "more important than ever."

Logic.

It’s amazing how many people today accept surface level explanations and don’t consider unintended consequences or ulterior motives.

Parents think they are smarter than the colleges and AOs. Especially when their DC gets deferred or rejected.

If colleges don't want to be test optional they won't state that they are. The highly selective schools have their pick of the students they want to shape the class they want in any given admissions cycle - test optional or not.

A few schools have recently made statements indicating they are test preferred. They are saying it.

Which schools? And where are they saying this?

And obscure podcasts don't count. Where is it on the college's website?

It’s not.

So at our private, I personally know TO applicants who got into:

Vanderbilt
Cornell
Northwestern
Colgate
UofChicago (no surprise)

I’m sure there are others. I have a senior who’s friends with these folks. Don’t know any others.

So many insist that TO is for poor minorities. See above for more proof that even the well-to do apply TO successfully.

That is definitely California. None of the UCs or CalStates even look at test scores. So no one takes them anymore. It's been like for a few years now. But California is such a huge state with lots of very qualified students that it distorts the picture nationally.

People have been observing that Vanderbilt for instance takes nearly 40 percent of their class TO. You can assume at least half of those are from California. A more accurate understanding would be that outside of students applying from California, more than 80 percent of applicants submitted scores. And that strikes me as more intuitively correct. But California is so big that it creates misperceptions at the national level private universities.

Having shepherded two kids through the college application process recently, I have come to believe that the world is only test optional for recruited athletes, UMCs, the offspring of VIPs and major donors, and students from California. If you are applying to any school in the top 80 or so, and don't fall into one of those categories, going TO is a major strike against the applicant.

Where did your 2 kids end up?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For colleges that are test optional, no - test scores are not "more important than ever."

Logic.

It’s amazing how many people today accept surface level explanations and don’t consider unintended consequences or ulterior motives.

Parents think they are smarter than the colleges and AOs. Especially when their DC gets deferred or rejected.

If colleges don't want to be test optional they won't state that they are. The highly selective schools have their pick of the students they want to shape the class they want in any given admissions cycle - test optional or not.

A few schools have recently made statements indicating they are test preferred. They are saying it.

Which schools? And where are they saying this?

And obscure podcasts don't count. Where is it on the college's website?

It’s not.

So at our private, I personally know TO applicants who got into:

Vanderbilt
Cornell
Northwestern
Colgate
UofChicago (no surprise)

I’m sure there are others. I have a senior who’s friends with these folks. Don’t know any others.

So many insist that TO is for poor minorities. See above for more proof that even the well-to do apply TO successfully.

That is definitely California. None of the UCs or CalStates even look at test scores. So no one takes them anymore. It's been like for a few years now. But California is such a huge state with lots of very qualified students that it distorts the picture nationally.

People have been observing that Vanderbilt for instance takes nearly 40 percent of their class TO. You can assume at least half of those are from California. A more accurate understanding would be that outside of students applying from California, more than 80 percent of applicants submitted scores. And that strikes me as more intuitively correct. But California is so big that it creates misperceptions at the national level private universities.

Having shepherded two kids through the college application process recently, I have come to believe that the world is only test optional for recruited athletes, UMCs, the offspring of VIPs and major donors, and students from California. If you are applying to any school in the top 80 or so, and don't fall into one of those categories, going TO is a major strike against the applicant.

Where did your 2 kids end up?

Guessing MIT and Georgetown

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of us have been saying this for 2 years, test optional is for institutional priorities and tests still matter for everyone else. At the most selective schools.

Schools that are truly test optional include usc, Tulane and NE.

Vanderbilt.

Not sure about that, Vandy seems to follow the pack and as other schools say they prefer test scores, I expect them to follow.

~40% of accepted Vanderbilt applicants in last cycle went TO.

If that's following the pack, then TO will be a fixture going forward across most schools, including the elite ones.

Isn’t it actually 40% of the enrolled class, and not acceptances (which we don’t know based on the CDS).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Neo wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, OP is correct. The way schools use test optional now, there is no difference between a 1200 and a 1500 (both are advised to apply test optional), but all the difference in the world between a 1500 and a 1520. Which puts kids scoring at the upper end of the test optional range under enormous pressure to get their objectively very good scores up to the reportable level.

Very true, in the recent Dartmouth ED round.. two identical profiles from same school, they accepted one with 1560 and rejected the 1540. Even though, 1540 was a shade better in ECs.

Are you a school counselor or the parent of twins who applied to Dartmouth? If not, how would you know any of this, most especially the quality of their essays, recommendations and coursework taken by these two different students?

+1 I think the PP is off the mark.

I do think OP is onto something about test scores mattering, but the PP about 1540 vs 1560 at Dartmouth, not buying it. The advice not to submit a 1500 is bad advice. The PP should listen to the Dartmouth admissions podcast on standardized test scores.

This is a marginal difference in scores with no information about essays or recommendation content, or what either kid presented as bringing to the school community. The different outcomes reveal nothing except that you don’t automatically beat out a kid by scoring a little higher in the SAT, which we all already knew.

[Anonymous]

As if Asians don’t get into top schools TO also. I really don’t understand the woe is me mentality here.

The reality is there are too many aspiring CS/neuroscience major kids applying from the same regions with the same profiles and expecting to hit the T20 lottery. These kids stand out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of us have been saying this for 2 years, test optional is for institutional priorities and tests still matter for everyone else. At the most selective schools.

Schools that are truly test optional include usc, Tulane and NE.

Vanderbilt.

Not sure about that, Vandy seems to follow the pack and as other schools say they prefer test scores, I expect them to follow.

~40% of accepted Vanderbilt applicants in last cycle went TO.

If that's following the pack, then TO will be a fixture going forward across most schools, including the elite ones.

Isn’t it actually 40% of the enrolled class, and not acceptances (which we don’t know based on the CDS).

Think you are correct. Augments the test optional practice even more IMO.

[Anonymous]

Everyone knows TO is mainly to allow schools to admit black students without creating evidence of racial discrimination. It is not complicated and let's not beat about the bush because it's the truth. It has never been about the quirky artsy suburban white girl who doesn't test well. Given that the SATs were already substantially rescored and dumbed down for the same reasons, leading to significant inflation in SATs, it makes it easier for the schools to now consider TO because they also know the rigor levels of the high schools the kids are coming from. Someone with a 3.8 from Sidwell or a strong magnet is going to be looked at differently than a 4.0 from an everyday high school and can likely get away without submitting scores. But the 4.0 from the everyday high school needs the high SAT to stand out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone knows TO is mainly to allow schools to admit black students without creating evidence of racial discrimination. It is not complicated and let's not beat about the bush because it's the truth. It has never been about the quirky artsy suburban white girl who doesn't test well. Given that the SATs were already substantially rescored and dumbed down for the same reasons, leading to significant inflation in SATs, it makes it easier for the schools to now consider TO because they also know the rigor levels of the high schools the kids are coming from. Someone with a 3.8 from Sidwell or a strong magnet is going to be looked at differently than a 4.0 from an everyday high school and can likely get away without submitting scores. But the 4.0 from the everyday high school needs the high SAT to stand out.

But the fact that URMs and athletes used to have to submit scores produced a wider band of SAT ranges and provided the schools more latitude to admit students with non-exceptional scores. Now that most of the URMs and athletes are TO, the schools are under more pressure to focus on scores with the remaining students in order to produce an acceptably high range.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone knows TO is mainly to allow schools to admit black students without creating evidence of racial discrimination. It is not complicated and let's not beat about the bush because it's the truth. It has never been about the quirky artsy suburban white girl who doesn't test well. Given that the SATs were already substantially rescored and dumbed down for the same reasons, leading to significant inflation in SATs, it makes it easier for the schools to now consider TO because they also know the rigor levels of the high schools the kids are coming from. Someone with a 3.8 from Sidwell or a strong magnet is going to be looked at differently than a 4.0 from an everyday high school and can likely get away without submitting scores. But the 4.0 from the everyday high school needs the high SAT to stand out.

You must have missed the large swath of UMC whites needing "accommodations," claiming ADHD, etc.

In sheer numbers, whites benefit more from TO. Some top schools have been TO for decades. But, continue to be ignorant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone knows TO is mainly to allow schools to admit black students without creating evidence of racial discrimination. It is not complicated and let's not beat about the bush because it's the truth. It has never been about the quirky artsy suburban white girl who doesn't test well. Given that the SATs were already substantially rescored and dumbed down for the same reasons, leading to significant inflation in SATs, it makes it easier for the schools to now consider TO because they also know the rigor levels of the high schools the kids are coming from. Someone with a 3.8 from Sidwell or a strong magnet is going to be looked at differently than a 4.0 from an everyday high school and can likely get away without submitting scores. But the 4.0 from the everyday high school needs the high SAT to stand out.

You must have missed the large swath of UMC whites needing "accommodations," claiming ADHD, etc.

In sheer numbers, whites benefit more from TO. Some top schools have been TO for decades. But, continue to be ignorant.

+1

Whenever someone says "everybody knows " suspect what follows is pure conjecture.

TO was created by the fancy liberal arts colleges in1970. Go check out their yearbooks. Play a drinking game. If you see a black student you take a sip.

You will be stone cold sober until the late 1990s.

Test optional was pioneered by and for the upper middle class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone knows TO is mainly to allow schools to admit black students without creating evidence of racial discrimination. It is not complicated and let's not beat about the bush because it's the truth. It has never been about the quirky artsy suburban white girl who doesn't test well. Given that the SATs were already substantially rescored and dumbed down for the same reasons, leading to significant inflation in SATs, it makes it easier for the schools to now consider TO because they also know the rigor levels of the high schools the kids are coming from. Someone with a 3.8 from Sidwell or a strong magnet is going to be looked at differently than a 4.0 from an everyday high school and can likely get away without submitting scores. But the 4.0 from the everyday high school needs the high SAT to stand out.

You must have missed the large swath of UMC whites needing "accommodations," claiming ADHD, etc.

In sheer numbers, whites benefit more from TO. Some top schools have been TO for decades. But, continue to be ignorant.

Even if more white students (since black students tend to be no more than ten percent of the student population) are accepted TO (perhaps as athletes mostly), it can still be true that TO is a technology developed to evade legal scrutiny over racial preferences.