Still no one with an example of a non-URM, non-first generation, and presumably non-recruited athlete getting accepted into a T20 without submitting test scores.

If such students do exist, they're unicorns or statistical anomalies. Have gone through two cycles in the past three years with our kids. Both go to T20 schools. Many of their friends also go to very selective schools. All of them studied really hard for the SAT or the ACT. No one in that cohort went TO.

I suspect beyond the top 40 or so schools, test scores don't really matter. Submit or don't submit. Whatever works best. But for unhooked kids from the burbs applying to T20 schools with single digit acceptance rates, test scores absolutely matter. And with averages in the stratosphere these days, taking the SAT or ACT is more stressful than it's ever been.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Think like an admissions person. What would make you take a kid with no scores, when you have a deluge of similar applicants who did submit and can also raise your institution’s average score? The non-submitter has to have something rare or hard to find that the school needs.

Or…you can take a TO candidate who is a great fit for your institution and have it make no impact on your average score in either direction.

That's what pp stated.

No. The PP is saying
AO: no test. Musta been an 1100. Deny

Vs what other is saying
AO. I like this kid. Impressive. And I don’t have to worry about some test score or how it impacts our data. Accept

No, neither is that I’m saying. I’m saying, for a kid who is an oboist from Montana, scores are irrelevant because that kid isn’t competing against other oboists from Montana with high scores. But if a kid offers the same things other kids offer (great kid, community service, full pay), and those other kids ALSO offer high scores, that’s an additional inducement to take them because it helps the college profile. If your scores aren’t high, don’t submit and find another way to distinguish yourself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Think like an admissions person. What would make you take a kid with no scores, when you have a deluge of similar applicants who did submit and can also raise your institution’s average score? The non-submitter has to have something rare or hard to find that the school needs.

Or…you can take a TO candidate who is a great fit for your institution and have it make no impact on your average score in either direction.

That's what pp stated.

No. The PP is saying
AO: no test. Musta been an 1100. Deny

Vs what other is saying
AO. I like this kid. Impressive. And I don’t have to worry about some test score or how it impacts our data. Accept

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Think like an admissions person. What would make you take a kid with no scores, when you have a deluge of similar applicants who did submit and can also raise your institution’s average score? The non-submitter has to have something rare or hard to find that the school needs.

Or…you can take a TO candidate who is a great fit for your institution and have it make no impact on your average score in either direction.

That's what pp stated.

Anonymous wrote:Think like an admissions person. What would make you take a kid with no scores, when you have a deluge of similar applicants who did submit and can also raise your institution’s average score? The non-submitter has to have something rare or hard to find that the school needs.

Or…you can take a TO candidate who is a great fit for your institution and have it make no impact on your average score in either direction.

Think like an admissions person. What would make you take a kid with no scores, when you have a deluge of similar applicants who did submit and can also raise your institution’s average score? The non-submitter has to have something rare or hard to find that the school needs.

Anonymous wrote:it's reported on the CDS. I dont think you can make the 25/50/75 artificially high - they are what they are. But it's moved them up a lot in the last few years, for sure. Common advice first two years was not to submit unless you're at 50% level or above. So everything shot up.

The CDS doesn't tell you which of the applicants didn't submit their scores but were not URM/1st Gen which is what OP wants to know.

Anonymous wrote:Do the schools report % of class that were TO?

I have to assume that TOs will make the 25-50-75 percentiles appear artificially high.

well, they don't appear high, they are high.

it's reported on the CDS. I dont think you can make the 25/50/75 artificially high - they are what they are. But it's moved them up a lot in the last few years, for sure. Common advice first two years was not to submit unless you're at 50% level or above. So everything shot up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’re very pointy. Is your kid very pointy? Then it’s not you.

What does pointy mean? Examples?

New around here. With a sophomore

NP but it's when the kid has a specific focus and all extra curriulars, research, internships, published writings and as many classes as possible relate to it. The more unique the interest, the better.

Anonymous wrote:They’re very pointy. Is your kid very pointy? Then it’s not you.

What does pointy mean? Examples?

New around here. With a sophomore

Anonymous wrote:Do the schools report % of class that were TO?

I have to assume that TOs will make the 25-50-75 percentiles appear artificially high.

It does.

Do the schools report % of class that were TO?

I have to assume that TOs will make the 25-50-75 percentiles appear artificially high.

They’re very pointy. Is your kid very pointy? Then it’s not you.

Curious about background/stories/hook /package for TO admitted students to T20 schools in last cycle who were not URM or 1st gen?

I’ve heard urban legends about how so many have gotten in test optional, but no real specifics and it’s no one I know.

Any lurkers on here from the last cycle ? Or is there an older post someone can link to?

Looking for profile of the kid, background /stats, where they ended up etc.