Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The message I’m getting from admissions tours now is that test optional really means test optional. Test scores are inflated because fewer students are submitting and those who do are strong test takers.

That is not true. Its just speculation on your part.

This was a verbatim quote from an admissions tour last week at AU. Sorry.

AU is not the benchmark of success in SAT scores. Also it's just one person's opinion, barely better than yours.

Anonymous wrote:
My kid with severe ADHD chose to prepare intensely for the ACT, which cost a non-negligible amount of money, since with his disability he needed a one-on-one tutor, and I believe that thanks to this and his academically strong profile, he was offered significant merit aid at most of his choices. He was also offered a spot in an academically-rigorous program that surely would not have picked him had he not submitted his ACT and AP scores.

We are also Asian, no hooks, no athletics, and we did not want to risk a test-optional candidacy in that context, before the Supreme Court decision. Now... who knows. Word to the wise - old habits die hard. It will take more than a SC decision to make the common Admissions Officer mortal (usually a young graduate from the same college, the kind that couldn't get a job elsewhere) conceive that Asians don't need higher scores than other students to get in.

I know there are plenty of bright kids who get stellar scores with minimal self-preparation. But if your child has trouble, and you think for some reason that the score can make a difference, as it did for us, then you really need to pay for a reputable private tutor. The group sessions that "guarantee points or your money back" are by definition not the right ones - otherwise they wouldn't need to sell themselves like this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The message I’m getting from admissions tours now is that test optional really means test optional. Test scores are inflated because fewer students are submitting and those who do are strong test takers.

That is not true. Its just speculation on your part.

How Colleges Benefit

Colleges benefit in another major way from a test-optional system. When they admit students without considering test scores, scores aren’t averaged in with other students who did submit them. Those who don’t submit tend to have scores from 100 to 150 points lower than test-submitters. So, unreported, uncounted scores make schools average test scores look higher than they are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The message I’m getting from admissions tours now is that test optional really means test optional. Test scores are inflated because fewer students are submitting and those who do are strong test takers.

That is not true. Its just speculation on your part.

This was a verbatim quote from an admissions tour last week at AU. Sorry.

AU is not the benchmark of success in SAT scores. Also it's just one person's opinion, barely better than yours.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I would be reluctant to send a “terrible test taker” to college without finding out the reason for the terrible test-taking —- anxiety, depression, adhd, learning disability - I would want to discover and accommodate these before starting college. Many, many college classes consist of only test grades and often as few as 2 - a midterm and a final. That is not great for a “terrible test taker”.

Different poster here, but do you really think that a parent of a “terrible test taker” in high school is just now wondering why? And what, exactly, do you imagine can be done to solve it? My kid has learning disabilities in reading, math, and writing. He’s also very smart. All the accommodations in the world won’t change his testing abilities. But he can still benefit from college! He can still read great books and thing and write about them, do science experiments, and do projects of all sorts. And get a whole bunch of Bs, some Cs, and a flame out D here and there. College is still worth it, if the kid wants to go.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The message I’m getting from admissions tours now is that test optional really means test optional. Test scores are inflated because fewer students are submitting and those who do are strong test takers.

That is not true. Its just speculation on your part.

This was a verbatim quote from an admissions tour last week at AU. Sorry.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In many of the good schools, the percentage of kids admitted who have submitted standardized test scores is higher than kids who have not. I guess not submitting scores is an indicator that the scores were not good.

Can you share this data? I honestly assumed this would be the case, but if this is borne out by the facts, it'll be useful for conversations.

DP but you can find this information on the "admitted freshman" page of college websites. They tell you the average GPA, the median SAT and % of students who presented an SAT

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The message I’m getting from admissions tours now is that test optional really means test optional. Test scores are inflated because fewer students are submitting and those who do are strong test takers.

That is not true. Its just speculation on your part.

Anonymous wrote:The message I’m getting from admissions tours now is that test optional really means test optional. Test scores are inflated because fewer students are submitting and those who do are strong test takers.

Anonymous wrote:

I would be reluctant to send a “terrible test taker” to college without finding out the reason for the terrible test-taking —- anxiety, depression, adhd, learning disability - I would want to discover and accommodate these before starting college. Many, many college classes consist of only test grades and often as few as 2 - a midterm and a final. That is not great for a “terrible test taker”.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In many of the good schools, the percentage of kids admitted who have submitted standardized test scores is higher than kids who have not. I guess not submitting scores is an indicator that the scores were not good.

Can you share this data? I honestly assumed this would be the case, but if this is borne out by the facts, it'll be useful for conversations.

Anonymous wrote:In many of the good schools, the percentage of kids admitted who have submitted standardized test scores is higher than kids who have not. I guess not submitting scores is an indicator that the scores were not good.