Test Optional?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TO will not be a great look for a someone w your DCs stats. Not too hard to bump up sat. I would have him work on that. Superscoring to at least 1500 will be straightforward. Good luck.

+1 With his stats, TO will look like his test scores are not 1500+, especially with 4/5 on all his AP tests. So yes, it will look "fishy" to the AO. So unless you are form a Low income zip code, it will be assumed he didn't do well on the SAT/ACT.

That's the thing, TO is not really TO at most schools. If you are from a zipcode where everyone can easily take the tests, then you should take it and submit

What is your support for this? I would agree if school says "test recommended," but most who say TO are explicit that nothing will be assumed by not submitting, it's just 1 data point.

wrong. human nature assumes the kid is a poor test taker and is hiding something. What is college? Four years of testing. So colleges only want the kids that fit the profile they are seeking (URM, first generation, etc.) for test optional slots. This is obvious. Your public high school counselor might be embarrassed to admit this but ask any private counselor and they will tell you - especially if you are in a tony private - to submit test scores if you can. If you can't, it will be assumed that they are poor and you will not get into top schools

Who's wrong? The admissions offices that say no inferences are made? Because that was my point. What's wrong is you making statements based on nothing more than your own hunches.

Folks, this landscape is perpetually shifting. Find out from tge schools' admissions offices what they think about no score.

The schools HAVE to say that being TO since they are making hundreds of thousands more dollars being TO. Doesn't mean that don't make inferences. It's human nature as someone said. No one would go TO if they scored well.

But it’s working. Kids are getting into T25 as a TO candidate.
And you are pissed - Tiger mom - that it’s working. Why?

It isn’t working for unhooked students at our well regarded local private. What school are you talking about specifically?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TO will not be a great look for a someone w your DCs stats. Not too hard to bump up sat. I would have him work on that. Superscoring to at least 1500 will be straightforward. Good luck.

+1 With his stats, TO will look like his test scores are not 1500+, especially with 4/5 on all his AP tests. So yes, it will look "fishy" to the AO. So unless you are form a Low income zip code, it will be assumed he didn't do well on the SAT/ACT.

That's the thing, TO is not really TO at most schools. If you are from a zipcode where everyone can easily take the tests, then you should take it and submit

What is your support for this? I would agree if school says "test recommended," but most who say TO are explicit that nothing will be assumed by not submitting, it's just 1 data point.

wrong. human nature assumes the kid is a poor test taker and is hiding something. What is college? Four years of testing. So colleges only want the kids that fit the profile they are seeking (URM, first generation, etc.) for test optional slots. This is obvious. Your public high school counselor might be embarrassed to admit this but ask any private counselor and they will tell you - especially if you are in a tony private - to submit test scores if you can. If you can't, it will be assumed that they are poor and you will not get into top schools

Who's wrong? The admissions offices that say no inferences are made? Because that was my point. What's wrong is you making statements based on nothing more than your own hunches.

Folks, this landscape is perpetually shifting. Find out from tge schools' admissions offices what they think about no score.

The schools HAVE to say that being TO since they are making hundreds of thousands more dollars being TO. Doesn't mean that don't make inferences. It's human nature as someone said. No one would go TO if they scored well.

Again, these are your hunches with no factual support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TO will not be a great look for a someone w your DCs stats. Not too hard to bump up sat. I would have him work on that. Superscoring to at least 1500 will be straightforward. Good luck.

+1 With his stats, TO will look like his test scores are not 1500+, especially with 4/5 on all his AP tests. So yes, it will look "fishy" to the AO. So unless you are form a Low income zip code, it will be assumed he didn't do well on the SAT/ACT.

That's the thing, TO is not really TO at most schools. If you are from a zipcode where everyone can easily take the tests, then you should take it and submit

What is your support for this? I would agree if school says "test recommended," but most who say TO are explicit that nothing will be assumed by not submitting, it's just 1 data point.

wrong. human nature assumes the kid is a poor test taker and is hiding something. What is college? Four years of testing. So colleges only want the kids that fit the profile they are seeking (URM, first generation, etc.) for test optional slots. This is obvious. Your public high school counselor might be embarrassed to admit this but ask any private counselor and they will tell you - especially if you are in a tony private - to submit test scores if you can. If you can't, it will be assumed that they are poor and you will not get into top schools

Who's wrong? The admissions offices that say no inferences are made? Because that was my point. What's wrong is you making statements based on nothing more than your own hunches.

Folks, this landscape is perpetually shifting. Find out from tge schools' admissions offices what they think about no score.

The schools HAVE to say that being TO since they are making hundreds of thousands more dollars being TO. Doesn't mean that don't make inferences. It's human nature as someone said. No one would go TO if they scored well.

Except now what is considered a good score is much higher than it used a be. A 33 ACT is no longer good - you need a 35 or 36 to stand out. So a lot of kids who scored scored well (like a 33) won't send it in. So it's all kind of meaningless now. Before test optional, you would have been proud to send in that score.

Bingo. And this is the issue. Most colleges will assume a score like 33 for private school kids - not a really low one (like 28) - if they are assuming at all….
Why? Bc for some schools, not many are submitting unless 34-36; 1530+

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TO will not be a great look for a someone w your DCs stats. Not too hard to bump up sat. I would have him work on that. Superscoring to at least 1500 will be straightforward. Good luck.

+1 With his stats, TO will look like his test scores are not 1500+, especially with 4/5 on all his AP tests. So yes, it will look "fishy" to the AO. So unless you are form a Low income zip code, it will be assumed he didn't do well on the SAT/ACT.

That's the thing, TO is not really TO at most schools. If you are from a zipcode where everyone can easily take the tests, then you should take it and submit

What is your support for this? I would agree if school says "test recommended," but most who say TO are explicit that nothing will be assumed by not submitting, it's just 1 data point.

wrong. human nature assumes the kid is a poor test taker and is hiding something. What is college? Four years of testing. So colleges only want the kids that fit the profile they are seeking (URM, first generation, etc.) for test optional slots. This is obvious. Your public high school counselor might be embarrassed to admit this but ask any private counselor and they will tell you - especially if you are in a tony private - to submit test scores if you can. If you can't, it will be assumed that they are poor and you will not get into top schools

Who's wrong? The admissions offices that say no inferences are made? Because that was my point. What's wrong is you making statements based on nothing more than your own hunches.

Folks, this landscape is perpetually shifting. Find out from tge schools' admissions offices what they think about no score.

The schools HAVE to say that being TO since they are making hundreds of thousands more dollars being TO. Doesn't mean that don't make inferences. It's human nature as someone said. No one would go TO if they scored well.

Except now what is considered a good score is much higher than it used a be. A 33 ACT is no longer good - you need a 35 or 36 to stand out. So a lot of kids who scored scored well (like a 33) won't send it in. So it's all kind of meaningless now. Before test optional, you would have been proud to send in that score.

Bingo. And this is the issue. Most colleges will assume a score like 33 for private school kids - not a really low one (like 28) - if they are assuming at all….
Why? Bc for some schools, not many are submitting unless 34-36; 1530+

So don’t submit 1500 and 3.95 but go TO….
Crazy world we live in.

[Anonymous]

Again. I’d like the poster claiming lots of kids getting into T20 unhooked to identify the private because I personally think it’s bs or she is in California.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He's not aiming for Harvard. I am asking for people's experience with it, not your opinion on how it looks. Thanks, though.

Looks great to me!

My kid with similar stats applied to very few places. I can say they got into UMD and that’s not a given these days.

They were rejected from schools with high rejection rates, such as Michigan and UNC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Again. I’d like the poster claiming lots of kids getting into T20 unhooked to identify the private because I personally think it’s bs or she is in California.

New York highly regarded private.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He's not aiming for Harvard. I am asking for people's experience with it, not your opinion on how it looks. Thanks, though.

Looks great to me!

My kid with similar stats applied to very few places. I can say they got into UMD and that’s not a given these days.

They were rejected from schools with high rejection rates, such as Michigan and UNC.

What private schools? They will be more holistic….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am very skeptical about this whole optional thing. What happens if two similar kids apply one with TO and the other with good/decent test score. Which one of them are the schools going to pick?

The one with the sob story in their essay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TO will not be a great look for a someone w your DCs stats. Not too hard to bump up sat. I would have him work on that. Superscoring to at least 1500 will be straightforward. Good luck.

+1 With his stats, TO will look like his test scores are not 1500+, especially with 4/5 on all his AP tests. So yes, it will look "fishy" to the AO. So unless you are form a Low income zip code, it will be assumed he didn't do well on the SAT/ACT.

That's the thing, TO is not really TO at most schools. If you are from a zipcode where everyone can easily take the tests, then you should take it and submit

What is your support for this? I would agree if school says "test recommended," but most who say TO are explicit that nothing will be assumed by not submitting, it's just 1 data point.

wrong. human nature assumes the kid is a poor test taker and is hiding something. What is college? Four years of testing. So colleges only want the kids that fit the profile they are seeking (URM, first generation, etc.) for test optional slots. This is obvious. Your public high school counselor might be embarrassed to admit this but ask any private counselor and they will tell you - especially if you are in a tony private - to submit test scores if you can. If you can't, it will be assumed that they are poor and you will not get into top schools

Who's wrong? The admissions offices that say no inferences are made? Because that was my point. What's wrong is you making statements based on nothing more than your own hunches.

Folks, this landscape is perpetually shifting. Find out from tge schools' admissions offices what they think about no score.

The schools HAVE to say that being TO since they are making hundreds of thousands more dollars being TO. Doesn't mean that don't make inferences. It's human nature as someone said. No one would go TO if they scored well.

Except now what is considered a good score is much higher than it used a be. A 33 ACT is no longer good - you need a 35 or 36 to stand out. So a lot of kids who scored scored well (like a 33) won't send it in. So it's all kind of meaningless now. Before test optional, you would have been proud to send in that score.

Bingo. And this is the issue. Most colleges will assume a score like 33 for private school kids - not a really low one (like 28) - if they are assuming at all….
Why? Bc for some schools, not many are submitting unless 34-36; 1530+

We were told not to submit to Vandy as well (34).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again. I’d like the poster claiming lots of kids getting into T20 unhooked to identify the private because I personally think it’s bs or she is in California.

New York highly regarded private.

Why do you keep posting here. It imply isn’t relevant. And my guess is the kids you are claiming arent hooked are legacies, donors, and urm.

You are really doing people a disservice by not qualifying you aren’t local every time you post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again. I’d like the poster claiming lots of kids getting into T20 unhooked to identify the private because I personally think it’s bs or she is in California.

New York highly regarded private.

Why do you keep posting here. It imply isn’t relevant. And my guess is the kids you are claiming arent hooked are legacies, donors, and urm.

You are really doing people a disservice by not qualifying you aren’t local every time you post.

Maybe you should be pushing your CCO on test Optional stats and what specific AO stance are for your school?

[Anonymous]

Not submitting a 34 to Vandy is comical. All I know who went TO there didn't get in.

Most all I know who applied to state schools (UMD Ohio Wisconsin Michigan UGA UF) all submitted if 31 or higher. A few deferred from Michigan but got in most others (still waiting on UF)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again. I’d like the poster claiming lots of kids getting into T20 unhooked to identify the private because I personally think it’s bs or she is in California.

New York highly regarded private.

Why do you keep posting here. It imply isn’t relevant. And my guess is the kids you are claiming arent hooked are legacies, donors, and urm.

You are really doing people a disservice by not qualifying you aren’t local every time you post.

Maybe you should be pushing your CCO on test Optional stats and what specific AO stance are for your school?

Why? I know the kids submitting scores are the ones getting in to the T20 and ou cod is encouraging using scores. I’m not swayed by some anonymous poster from a school likely teeming with legacies and extremely high net worth families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TO will not be a great look for a someone w your DCs stats. Not too hard to bump up sat. I would have him work on that. Superscoring to at least 1500 will be straightforward. Good luck.

+1 With his stats, TO will look like his test scores are not 1500+, especially with 4/5 on all his AP tests. So yes, it will look "fishy" to the AO. So unless you are form a Low income zip code, it will be assumed he didn't do well on the SAT/ACT.

That's the thing, TO is not really TO at most schools. If you are from a zipcode where everyone can easily take the tests, then you should take it and submit

What is your support for this? I would agree if school says "test recommended," but most who say TO are explicit that nothing will be assumed by not submitting, it's just 1 data point.

wrong. human nature assumes the kid is a poor test taker and is hiding something. What is college? Four years of testing. So colleges only want the kids that fit the profile they are seeking (URM, first generation, etc.) for test optional slots. This is obvious. Your public high school counselor might be embarrassed to admit this but ask any private counselor and they will tell you - especially if you are in a tony private - to submit test scores if you can. If you can't, it will be assumed that they are poor and you will not get into top schools

Who's wrong? The admissions offices that say no inferences are made? Because that was my point. What's wrong is you making statements based on nothing more than your own hunches.

Folks, this landscape is perpetually shifting. Find out from tge schools' admissions offices what they think about no score.

The schools HAVE to say that being TO since they are making hundreds of thousands more dollars being TO. Doesn't mean that don't make inferences. It's human nature as someone said. No one would go TO if they scored well.

Again, these are your hunches with no factual support.

DP. What exactly do you expect in terms of 'factual support'. A recording of two AOs discussion how they fooled all the parents? Why would anyone care to get that (even if possible) to satisfy a rando (you) on the internet? Take it leave it! Who gives a F?