Anonymous wrote:If your kid’s transcript is not very strong relative to their high school, a 1500 wasn’t going to get them into Swarthmore anyway. But a 3.85 UW and 1440ish SAT should find plenty of landing spots in the 26-50 range. The snobbery on the board generally produces a lot of dismissive talk about schools in this range but there are many really great options.

OP here - I agree with this, and I think my DD will be fine! There are many great schools in that band, and I trust she'll get into one and be happy there. It just struck me as ironic that, for us, test optional is actually magnifying the importance of test scores and limiting where she applies. I don't want to get into the minutiae of my kid's stats - she has some factors in her favor that compensate for a lowish GPA, IMO - but this is not specifically about her and her chances. It's also not just about Swarthmore-level colleges. Haverford, ranked 24, has a 1490 25th percentile, 1520 median for 2024 (with 26 percent submitting SAT, 13 percent ACT). Prior to test optional, as best I can determine, their 25th percentile was 1320, average 1420. That's a huge difference! (And I get there's been some inflation in scores, but I wonder if that's partly because students are taking the test more and more often to improve their scores.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tbh I would work hard to improve the test score. In this case, gpa is weak and the score is weak. Submitting the score doesn’t provide information that strengthens her academic profile.

She will need a good score to mitigate her gpa.

You mentioned it’s a grade inflated high school. How many kids have 4.0 uw? 15%? 20%? Gpa is viewed in the context of your high school. A 3.85 may look okay elsewhere but it may place you somewhere around 50 percentile at your school, then you need something else to showcase your academics. Take a look at your Naviance data for the schools DC is interested in.

There was a 4.0 uw/ 4.8 w test optional post yesterday, you can take a look at what people recommended there.

Anonymous wrote:Tbh I would work hard to improve the test score. In this case, gpa is weak and the score is weak. Submitting the score doesn’t provide information that strengthens her academic profile.

She will need a good score to mitigate her gpa.

You mentioned it’s a grade inflated high school. How many kids have 4.0 uw? 15%? 20%? Gpa is viewed in the context of your high school. A 3.85 may look okay elsewhere but it may place you somewhere around 50 percentile at your school, then you need something else to showcase your academics. Take a look at your Naviance data for the schools DC is interested in.

Anonymous wrote:If kid is Asian or white, and not high stats otherwise, TO will be tough.

This person loves to post this drivel. Definitely seen some examples this admissions cycle that contradict this statement.

OP, has she taken the most rigorous curriculum? How many APs and which? I don’t think a 3.85 is that bad, provided her transcript is challending

To the prior poster’s point, I think you are thinking about this incorrectly, or not viewing the score in the proper context. Where does the 3.85 UW fall relative to the HS class? Did DD take advantage of available APs, IB, or honors courses? The level of rigor and how the student performs relative to what the HS offers is generally a much more important factor than an SAT score for the SLACs. You don’t have to take my word for it, just look at section C of the CDSs. Similarly for the SAT score, where does it fall relative to high performing peers at the HS. For the top 20ish SLACs a good score that sort of falls below the peer group aspiring to selective schools will only hurt your candidacy no matter where it falls within the colleges middle 50. Farther down the selectivity ladder, things might be a little more forgiving. If you are likely full pay, that’s another thumb on the scale. It’s not really an impact on your kid at all. If your kid’s transcript is not very strong relative to their high school, a 1500 wasn’t going to get them into Swarthmore anyway. But a 3.85 UW and 1440ish SAT should find plenty of landing spots in the 26-50 range. The snobbery on the board generally produces a lot of dismissive talk about schools in this range but there are many really great options.

Tbh I would work hard to improve the test score. In this case, gpa is weak and the score is weak. Submitting the score doesn’t provide information that strengthens her academic profile.

She will need a good score to mitigate her gpa.

Anonymous wrote:If kid is Asian or white, and not high stats otherwise, TO will be tough.

Not true in what we've seen at our private HS for SLACs this past year!!

If kid is Asian or white, and not high stats otherwise, TO will be tough.

I agree with OP. Scores that are objectively very good have become useless for getting into college. This puts a ton of pressure on kids scoring in that mid-1400s range to take the test over and over and over again. I hate it.

I understand your overview. However, I'd suggest structuring your search practically. To start with, how many LACs report a 25th-percentile of, say, 1460 or higher? Perhaps 10? If your daughter were to eliminate these schools for this early stage of her search (pending further testing), how does she feel about the dozens of other LACs that might be suitable for her? If she finds some appealing choices in this zone, there may be little conflict between the current environment with respect to testing and the desirability of your daughter's college outcome. Also, as you suggested, this range of colleges may represent where your daughter may have landed even in the pre-TO era.

Anonymous wrote:It's her grades that make a top 20 LAC a huge reach, not her scores (since, as you note, many are accepted without scores).

I get that her grades are low for these schools and that they'd be a huge reach in any case. But they seem like an even bigger reach without SAT scores.

Not asking for sympathy - she has some great choices where I think she's competitive. And we're optimistic her math score can improve (EBRW is 99th percentile as it is). It just seems like a weird unintended consequence of test optional that we are focusing so much on this test and may end up not applying at all.

I would definitely apply.

Just want to add a comment. There is also a sat score inflation. In 2019, a 1480 score is the score that breaks into 98 percentile. In 2024, a 1500 score is the score that breaks into 98 percentile. So when looking at this, look at the numbers but also look at the percentiles.

It's her grades that make a top 20 LAC a huge reach, not her scores (since, as you note, many are accepted without scores).

My DD, who is interested in attending a SLAC, has mid-1400s SATs (higher in EBRW than math) and a 3.85ish UW GPA at a probably grade-inflated public. The 25th percentile at most top 10-20 LACs is in the high 1400s/low 1500s, so conventional wisdom would say that she should not submit at these schools. But without test scores, I don't think her academic profile looks strong enough. Therefore, I'm advising her to look more at 20-50 LACs. Even for those, in many cases her SAT doesn't look particularly competitive.

Here's the thing, though. Many of these LACs have far less than half the class submit scores. Pre-test optional, many had median SAT scores right around hers. In many, many cases, the 2024 25th percentile is 50+ points higher than the 2019 median. So if we were not in a test-optional world, she would probably apply. I get that they were still very competitive and she probably wouldn't have been admitted even then. But it seems like she'd have had a shot at them as reaches, whereas now they seem completely out of her league (unless she gets her score up, which she will work on).

Am I thinking about this correctly? It just seems like a weird impact on students with pretty good but not tippy-top SAT scores. For those students, it seems like it actually magnifies the importance of the test.