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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It will really be interesting to see the data of admitted students who were “test optional” in the selective schools CDS this year.

[Anonymous]

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.

+1

The test score itself isn't the determining factor folks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But it’s not! That’s the whole point.

The data shows that Vanderbilt (and certain others) will not admit you if you submit that 33. You have a much better shot of admission if you don’t submit a 33 assuming the rest of the application is strong.

[Anonymous]

Last year a college advisor shared a powerpoint slide at a school meeting showing admit rates for various schools for no-test vs. submitted students. I assume the data were from Scoir or something. I remember, for example, that for Colgate it was like 10% for no-test and 30% for test. They were all like that. Now, some of that might be because test optional are worse students on average (they are)... but some of it must be the test. I think admissions officers are simply doing the following math: "At my school, the lowest SAT we see is 1400. If someone doesn't submit, I'm assuming it's below that--probably 1350. So, mentally, I'll pencil that in." I think it's dishonest and nasty that these schools remain test-optional when it's clear that in most cases, it's about encouraging kids who have no shot to apply, decreasing acceptance rates for the sake of the U.S. News arms race.

[Anonymous]

My DD is at a NY private school and her school just released TO stats from last year. About half the kids went TO and still got in ED to many top universities including plenty of top 20 schools. We will still have DD take the SATs but it was good to hear actual facts about how TO works and affects admissions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But it’s not! That’s the whole point.

The data shows that Vanderbilt (and certain others) will not admit you if you submit that 33. You have a much better shot of admission if you don’t submit a 33 assuming the rest of the application is strong.

You just don’t know that without knowing the demographics of kids who are accepted test optional. And no school releases that.

[Anonymous]

The situation is in flux. What may have been true for last year may not be true this year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The situation is in flux. What may have been true for last year may not be true this year.

Very true. Makes it a bit hard to plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My DD is at a NY private school and her school just released TO stats from last year. About half the kids went TO and still got in ED to many top universities including plenty of top 20 schools. We will still have DD take the SATs but it was good to hear actual facts about how TO works and affects admissions.

None of this is relevant to students in the dmv. And the argument isn’t that kids don’t get in test optional. It’s that unhooked kids don’t get in test optional. A NY private is going to have plenty of legacy, high donors, urm and athletic recruits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But it’s not! That’s the whole point.

The data shows that Vanderbilt (and certain others) will not admit you if you submit that 33. You have a much better shot of admission if you don’t submit a 33 assuming the rest of the application is strong.

You just don’t know that without knowing the demographics of kids who are accepted test optional. And no school releases that.

I know the kids from our school accepted test optional at T20 schools so have made my assumptions. Small sample size I know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My DD is at a NY private school and her school just released TO stats from last year. About half the kids went TO and still got in ED to many top universities including plenty of top 20 schools. We will still have DD take the SATs but it was good to hear actual facts about how TO works and affects admissions.

Can you say which school ?

[Anonymous]

Most T20s have a relatively small fraction of the enrolled class having applied TO. Check the college's latest CDS.

If I recall, Vandy and Cornell have a bigger fraction of the enrolled class having applied TO. And some of Cornell's schools are test blind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most T20s have a relatively small fraction of the enrolled class having applied TO. Check the college's latest CDS.

If I recall, Vandy and Cornell have a bigger fraction of the enrolled class having applied TO. And some of Cornell's schools are test blind.

There’s a whole post on this a month+ ago …I saved the list for the future for my daughter whose PSAT was atrocious

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But it’s not! That’s the whole point.

The data shows that Vanderbilt (and certain others) will not admit you if you submit that 33. You have a much better shot of admission if you don’t submit a 33 assuming the rest of the application is strong.

You just don’t know that without knowing the demographics of kids who are accepted test optional. And no school releases that.

I know the kids from our school accepted test optional at T20 schools so have made my assumptions. Small sample size I know.

What school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DD is at a NY private school and her school just released TO stats from last year. About half the kids went TO and still got in ED to many top universities including plenty of top 20 schools. We will still have DD take the SATs but it was good to hear actual facts about how TO works and affects admissions.

None of this is relevant to students in the dmv. And the argument isn’t that kids don’t get in test optional. It’s that unhooked kids don’t get in test optional. A NY private is going to have plenty of legacy, high donors, urm and athletic recruits.

For the rejective colleges, most unhooked kids don’t get in - period.

If you're unhooked AND have a substandard test score ( below 25%), it would beehove you to apply elsewhere.