Anonymous wrote:Yes, OP is correct. The way schools use test optional now, there is no difference between a 1200 and a 1500 (both are advised to apply test optional), but all the difference in the world between a 1500 and a 1520. Which puts kids scoring at the upper end of the test optional range under enormous pressure to get their objectively very good scores up to the reportable level.

I advise people to submit scores above 1300 except to t20. Most people aren't thinking about those schools in the first place. If the education you want can only be found at a t20 then anything over 1400 can be used. The odds are against you but going TO when you have a 1400 just let's the admissions officers assume you have a 1050.

Anonymous wrote:Agree. With grade inflation, etc., test scores are a way — the only way? — to substantiate a kid’s academic achievements. And the thing about test scores, as I’ve seen with my DS, anyone can get a 1500 if they’re willing to put in the work.

The bolded is incorrect.

Anonymous wrote:

Neo wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, OP is correct. The way schools use test optional now, there is no difference between a 1200 and a 1500 (both are advised to apply test optional), but all the difference in the world between a 1500 and a 1520. Which puts kids scoring at the upper end of the test optional range under enormous pressure to get their objectively very good scores up to the reportable level.

Very true, in the recent Dartmouth ED round.. two identical profiles from same school, they accepted one with 1560 and rejected the 1540. Even though, 1540 was a shade better in ECs.

Are you a school counselor or the parent of twins who applied to Dartmouth? If not, how would you know any of this, most especially the quality of their essays, recommendations and coursework taken by these two different students?

+1 I think the PP is off the mark.

I do think OP is onto something about test scores mattering, but the PP about 1540 vs 1560 at Dartmouth, not buying it. The advice not to submit a 1500 is bad advice. The PP should listen to the Dartmouth admissions podcast on standardized test scores.

Agree. With grade inflation, etc., test scores are a way — the only way? — to substantiate a kid’s academic achievements. And the thing about test scores, as I’ve seen with my DS, anyone can get a 1500 if they’re willing to put in the work.

Neo wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, OP is correct. The way schools use test optional now, there is no difference between a 1200 and a 1500 (both are advised to apply test optional), but all the difference in the world between a 1500 and a 1520. Which puts kids scoring at the upper end of the test optional range under enormous pressure to get their objectively very good scores up to the reportable level.

Very true, in the recent Dartmouth ED round.. two identical profiles from same school, they accepted one with 1560 and rejected the 1540. Even though, 1540 was a shade better in ECs.

Are you a school counselor or the parent of twins who applied to Dartmouth? If not, how would you know any of this, most especially the quality of their essays, recommendations and coursework taken by these two different students?

Anonymous wrote:Yes, OP is correct. The way schools use test optional now, there is no difference between a 1200 and a 1500 (both are advised to apply test optional), but all the difference in the world between a 1500 and a 1520. Which puts kids scoring at the upper end of the test optional range under enormous pressure to get their objectively very good scores up to the reportable level.

It's really crazy and just completely substantiates the not so conspiracy conspiracy theory that TO is a mechanism to facilitate DEI type goals. It doesn't make sense to say on the one hand, test scores really aren't meaningful and shouldn't be a roadblock to top notch education, but then on the other hand care about the difference between one or two questions right on the SAT (for a certain group of applicants). If test scores are seen as unreliable because they are just a reflection of socioeconomic circumstances, they can't also be so reliable as to be a precise measure of ability within a pool of candidates from the same socioeconomic circumstances.

Anonymous wrote:Yes, OP is correct. The way schools use test optional now, there is no difference between a 1200 and a 1500 (both are advised to apply test optional), but all the difference in the world between a 1500 and a 1520. Which puts kids scoring at the upper end of the test optional range under enormous pressure to get their objectively very good scores up to the reportable level.

Very true, in the recent Dartmouth ED round.. two identical profiles from same school, they accepted one with 1560 and rejected the 1540. Even though, 1540 was a shade better in ECs.

Anonymous wrote:TO is just a mechanism to let schools cherry pick the reason they accept students without having supporting data to show their bias in selection. Lets them shape the class they want without providing ammunition for lawsuits by Asian students.

I wonder how liberally they are using TO with recruited athletes now. I'm aware of an excellent athlete who was recruited to a top 25 national university (the type that generally requires 1500+ and a 4.0) as a junior with one AP class under his belt (foreign language). Not a particularly bright kid at all, and not URM. But a truly excellent athlete. Had to be TO.

As they should be.

TO has been around since 1970.

TO is just a mechanism to let schools cherry pick the reason they accept students without having supporting data to show their bias in selection. Lets them shape the class they want without providing ammunition for lawsuits by Asian students.

Yes, OP is correct. The way schools use test optional now, there is no difference between a 1200 and a 1500 (both are advised to apply test optional), but all the difference in the world between a 1500 and a 1520. Which puts kids scoring at the upper end of the test optional range under enormous pressure to get their objectively very good scores up to the reportable level.

yup

Just because dcum harps on small test score differences doesn't mean admissions offices do.

Despite (or perhaps because of) the rise of test optional, it seems there is more intense focus than ever on small differences in test scores. Thread after thread here, you see people saying things like a 33 disqualifies a student from a top 20 and maybe even a 34 (shouldn’t even submit!) This seems crazy and contrary to the idea of the test optional movement. But it also seems to suggest that test optional is only there to make admissions easier for a certain type of student (hooked). The result is that it makes testing even more important for the other types of applicants (unhooked) because the schools are leaning on these students so they can post a high median test score (among the 51 pct that submit). I actually believe in the value of these tests to a large extent but separating kids by a point or two is really ridiculous (esp given the abuses with untimed testing).