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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My opinion: if you don't have a score in range for a college, then consider that college a reach for you, just as you would have back when tests were required.

If you are applying to all schools TO, then you only have reaches on your list. Add targets and safeties where you can comfortably submit your score.

Submit anywhere that your score is close to the 25th percentile or above.

This is demonstrably untrue (and very stupid). Many students don’t even take standardized tests. We can debate how important scores are to the most selective schools, but the idea that all schools need/expect test scores is untrue.

Outside of CA, the only students who don't take the test are those who know they won't perform well compared to their GPA. That might be for a variety of reasons, of course.

Again outside of CA, are there students who would have scored well but chose not to take the test? Now THAT would be stupid.

Because they don’t want to spend time and mental energy on it? That was my kid.

Regardless, you concede that there are plenty of schools that are safeties without scores? Because your assertion otherwise is what I was calling stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

+1

[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.

💯 agree. And it’s why private school kids that I know with really good grades/stories package are not submitting their 33 or 1480.
Bc it’s the weakest point in their app.

And they are still having success. Not sure if this continues though after this year.
Prob will at certain schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My opinion: if you don't have a score in range for a college, then consider that college a reach for you, just as you would have back when tests were required.

If you are applying to all schools TO, then you only have reaches on your list. Add targets and safeties where you can comfortably submit your score.

Submit anywhere that your score is close to the 25th percentile or above.

This is demonstrably untrue (and very stupid). Many students don’t even take standardized tests. We can debate how important scores are to the most selective schools, but the idea that all schools need/expect test scores is untrue.

Outside of CA, the only students who don't take the test are those who know they won't perform well compared to their GPA. That might be for a variety of reasons, of course.

Again outside of CA, are there students who would have scored well but chose not to take the test? Now THAT would be stupid.

Because they don’t want to spend time and mental energy on it? That was my kid.

Regardless, you concede that there are plenty of schools that are safeties without scores? Because your assertion otherwise is what I was calling stupid.

The bolded says a lot about motivation and drive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

+1

They are trained in talking points. If their published policy is 'TO', do you really think they will come out and say that they now like to see test scores? No. They can't. It's contrary to their published material even if they are now starting to become more 'test aware' or using cutoffs to pass high test score/high gpa to the next round first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

+1

They are trained in talking points. If their published policy is 'TO', do you really think they will come out and say that they now like to see test scores? No. They can't. It's contrary to their published material even if they are now starting to become more 'test aware' or using cutoffs to pass high test score/high gpa to the next round first.

Smart, successful people don't leave anything to chance. If test are offered: they'll take them. If interviews are offered: they'll accept.

It is idiotic to me to not even try to take the test. If you had a major illness and missed your junior year, etc., yeah--but for the kid that is spending hours on video games and sports and studying---adding a 3 hour test isn't a hardship. If it is, you aren't cut out for the selective schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My opinion: if you don't have a score in range for a college, then consider that college a reach for you, just as you would have back when tests were required.

If you are applying to all schools TO, then you only have reaches on your list. Add targets and safeties where you can comfortably submit your score.

Submit anywhere that your score is close to the 25th percentile or above.

This is demonstrably untrue (and very stupid). Many students don’t even take standardized tests. We can debate how important scores are to the most selective schools, but the idea that all schools need/expect test scores is untrue.

Outside of CA, the only students who don't take the test are those who know they won't perform well compared to their GPA. That might be for a variety of reasons, of course.

Again outside of CA, are there students who would have scored well but chose not to take the test? Now THAT would be stupid.

Because they don’t want to spend time and mental energy on it? That was my kid.

Regardless, you concede that there are plenty of schools that are safeties without scores? Because your assertion otherwise is what I was calling stupid.

The bolded says a lot about motivation and drive.

It’s just a rationalization. Kids who do well on the PSAT, which everyone takes, are going to take the SAT or ACT, unless they are in CA and targeting the UCs.

[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"

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.

I disagree, there are a couple of active threads currently where test optional kids with high gpas are underperforming in admissions compared to their classmates. Yes, kids with high test scores also get rejected, [/b]but all things being equal, the evidence shows it’s harder to get on test optional for upper middle class kids[b]. Which is why probate schools are back to encouraging testing.

What data are you using to make this statement? Is there a national study out there on test optional outcomes filtered by family income and school type?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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"

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.

I disagree, there are a couple of active threads currently where test optional kids with high gpas are underperforming in admissions compared to their classmates. Yes, kids with high test scores also get rejected, [/b]but all things being equal, the evidence shows it’s harder to get on test optional for upper middle class kids[b]. Which is why probate schools are back to encouraging testing.

What data are you using to make this statement? Is there a national study out there on test optional outcomes filtered by family income and school type?

No it’s the same ardent testing poster who’s just making shit up

[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"

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.

I disagree, there are a couple of active threads currently where test optional kids with high gpas are underperforming in admissions compared to their classmates. Yes, kids with high test scores also get rejected, but all things being equal, the evidence shows it’s harder to get on test optional for upper middle class kids. Which is why probate schools are back to encouraging testing.

What is that evidence? Please post it.

[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.

💯 agree. And it’s why private school kids that I know with really good grades/stories package are not submitting their 33 or 1480.
Bc it’s the weakest point in their app.

And they are still having success. Not sure if this continues though after this year.
Prob will at certain schools?

And that’s the problem with having test optional at all. A 33 should be submitted. It used to be submitted before 2020.
And now no one submits 33’s to T20 schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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"

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.

I disagree, there are a couple of active threads currently where test optional kids with high gpas are underperforming in admissions compared to their classmates. Yes, kids with high test scores also get rejected, [/b]but all things being equal, the evidence shows it’s harder to get on test optional for upper middle class kids[b]. Which is why probate schools are back to encouraging testing.

What data are you using to make this statement? Is there a national study out there on test optional outcomes filtered by family income and school type?

Our school, an academically rigorous school in Maryland, is advising underclassman based on prior results of test optional students. It doesn’t require a national study. For what it’s worth, we have a private college counselor based in DC, who also encourages submitting test scores. Both these sources have better info than anonymous posters on DCUM, many of whom don’t even live in the DMV.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

+1

They are trained in talking points. If their published policy is 'TO', do you really think they will come out and say that they now like to see test scores? No. They can't. It's contrary to their published material even if they are now starting to become more 'test aware' or using cutoffs to pass high test score/high gpa to the next round first.

Smart, successful people don't leave anything to chance. If test are offered: they'll take them. If interviews are offered: they'll accept.

It is idiotic to me to not even try to take the test. If you had a major illness and missed your junior year, etc., yeah--but for the kid that is spending hours on video games and sports and studying---adding a 3 hour test isn't a hardship. If it is, you aren't cut out for the selective schools.

+100

[Anonymous]

But if you’re wondering why competitive candidates are TO at all, it’s because a 33 has been deemed to be unacceptable - especially at places like Wash U or Vanderbilt where nearly half of the incoming class did not submit a score last year.

And w/that score, together, with a strong application and profile, you now have better odds going test optional than you do submitting.

Why is any of this so hard to understand? Now this doesn’t support a 3.7uw applying TO unless there’s something else tremendous in the kid’s profile….but a 3.85-3.95 - at a competitive private? Sure, as a reach. Especially when things are so uncertain kids are applying to 20-30 schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But if you’re wondering why competitive candidates are TO at all, it’s because a 33 has been deemed to be unacceptable - especially at places like Wash U or Vanderbilt where nearly half of the incoming class did not submit a score last year.

And w/that score, together, with a strong application and profile, you now have better odds going test optional than you do submitting.

Why is any of this so hard to understand? Now this doesn’t support a 3.7uw applying TO unless there’s something else tremendous in the kid’s profile….but a 3.85-3.95 - at a competitive private? Sure, as a reach. Especially when things are so uncertain kids are applying to 20-30 schools.

I think this is the really messed up part of TO. 33 should be competitive for those schools and because of TO it's not and causes great anguish for kids on deciding whether to submit it or not. They should be proud of that score.