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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Great post.

It's funny that people can acknowledge how problematic high stakes testing is and raise hell when something goes wrong for THEIR kid's test day, but then get mad when there's a move away from these things. The tests are bad in so many ways. Good riddance!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That is how it was supposed to work until everyone started prepping, causing scores to go up. Now, if you can’t afford to prep, you are likely out of the game (except for some exceptionally skilled test takers that hve the natural ability to score very high).

[Anonymous]

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.

Exactly. The middle 50 is gonna be crazy high.

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

No, research shows otherwise, including test scores as a factor, along with gpa, increases a school’s ability to predict college success.

There are so many schools with crazy inflated grades only made worse with Covid inflation. Standardized tests allow colleges a check against this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Test scores do tend to reflect abilities, colleges just don't like the results and parents don't like the fact that poor test taker actually means weak in that subject

[Anonymous]

Testing most closely correlates to income. Income is tied to success in the education system. Stop pretending testing gives everyone a fair shot just because there's an anecdote about a poor kid going to college. They probably didn't get in just because of tests, but because they had a good story.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/03/rich-students-get-better-sat-scores-heres-why.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Testing most closely correlates to income. Income is tied to success in the education system. Stop pretending testing gives everyone a fair shot just because there's an anecdote about a poor kid going to college. They probably didn't get in just because of tests, but because they had a good story.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/03/rich-students-get-better-sat-scores-heres-why.html

I guess the admissions teams at MIT are just idiots who haven't read CNBC like they should

https://news.mit.edu/2022/stuart-schmill-sat-act-requirement-0328

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Testing most closely correlates to income. Income is tied to success in the education system. Stop pretending testing gives everyone a fair shot just because there's an anecdote about a poor kid going to college. They probably didn't get in just because of tests, but because they had a good story.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/03/rich-students-get-better-sat-scores-heres-why.html

If you look at actual research, like the comprehensive UC study, you would learn that test scores are predictive of success even when controlling for demographics.

[Anonymous]

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.

Exactly. It should be all applicants submit tests or none do, for each college.

[Anonymous]

I read on here about kids with 4.0uw GPAs and a 29 on the ACT or 1300 on the SAT. I mean, come on. If your kid can’t even crack 30 or 1400, no way their 4.0 is actually reflective of a school or education that is rigorous.

[Anonymous]

Know a white private school kid had a high GPA, did not submit test score (because test score was low). This kid was rejected/waitlisted from all schools applied. Got off from waitlist from only one safety school (the lowest ranking college among the 12+ colleges applied).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Testing most closely correlates to income. Income is tied to success in the education system. Stop pretending testing gives everyone a fair shot just because there's an anecdote about a poor kid going to college. They probably didn't get in just because of tests, but because they had a good story.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/03/rich-students-get-better-sat-scores-heres-why.html

If you look at actual research, like the comprehensive UC study, you would learn that test scores are predictive of success even when controlling for demographics.

+1 There is so much data confirming this. The UC study showed that including essays in the holistic evaluation process tilted results in favor of higher income students to a greater degree than the standardized tests did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Testing most closely correlates to income. Income is tied to success in the education system. Stop pretending testing gives everyone a fair shot just because there's an anecdote about a poor kid going to college. They probably didn't get in just because of tests, but because they had a good story.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/03/rich-students-get-better-sat-scores-heres-why.html

If you look at actual research, like the comprehensive UC study, you would learn that test scores are predictive of success even when controlling for demographics.

Did you read the article? It basically summarizes research and links to articles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Testing most closely correlates to income. Income is tied to success in the education system. Stop pretending testing gives everyone a fair shot just because there's an anecdote about a poor kid going to college. They probably didn't get in just because of tests, but because they had a good story.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/03/rich-students-get-better-sat-scores-heres-why.html

If you look at actual research, like the comprehensive UC study, you would learn that test scores are predictive of success even when controlling for demographics.

Tests being predictive of limited amounts of college success, especially through only the first few years, is still being too shortsighted IMO. These top schools should be looking for long-term leaders who will add to the classroom and campus life and who will represent the school with distinction well beyond their time on campus.

MIT amuses me because when you see or hear their staff, you'd think they were Caltech in how they approach "hook" admissions. However, their athletic department has a lot of leeway with admissions (and is large with 32 total teams, including a big football team) and though they don't directly consider legacies, they are happy to consider large donors/development cases!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I read on here about kids with 4.0uw GPAs and a 29 on the ACT or 1300 on the SAT. I mean, come on. If your kid can’t even crack 30 or 1400, no way their 4.0 is actually reflective of a school or education that is rigorous.

This is the dumbest take on this forum but don’t worry, you’re not alone. Every school is different and kids’ GPAs are judged against their peers.

Yes, consistently working hard and doing well over the course of a semester matters more than a three hour snapshot

[Anonymous]

Test Optional en mass isn't going away.

There will be an option to submit a standardized test - OR not submit.

Vanderbilt - Top 20 college - extending TO another 2 years and accepting 39% of TO applicants is noteworthy and will be a harbinger of things to come in admissions.

And...a lot of white kids will get accepted via TO just based on numbers alone: it's not just a URM / first gen dynamic.