Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. The people who really, really love TO the most are D1 coaches of men’s sports that are played internationally. It means they can now recruit young men who have been semi-pro in their home countries regardless of how paltry their high school education was (and often, it was very paltry) because there is no objective academic measure to be met. No 18-year-old US senior can compete against a 22-year-old semipro who doesn’t have to get a minimum SAT score any more, so TO is changing the face of D1 recruiting very quickly. Men’s swimming, water polo, tennis, golf, soccer, basketball, hockey, etc. are all impacted by this.

This is fascinating. Do you have any additional information or links to articles?

This will also apply to women’s sports as well I’m sure.

Just look at the sharply increased rates of international recruits on D1 teams, particularly the non-revenue sports, that track the rise of TO.

In the past, universities used non-revenue sports admits to bring up average incoming SAT scores for athletes as a whole. Essentially coaches in these sports had to look at SAT scores, which eliminated a lot of international applicants. Now that’s gone. The coaches only have to look at GPA which is almost impossible to ascertain for foreign academies, particularly the sports academies a lot of these folks attend.

TO has significantly changed the face of D1 athletic recruiting for non-revenue sports in particular, especially combined with the changes to the junior transfer protocol. The upshot is that academically solid athletes who used to be D1 material as high school seniors are now only competitive for D3 for men’s sports. It’s not really an issue on the women’s side.

Anonymous wrote:^^^They aren’t everything but they aren’t nothing either. And your anecdote about one student with mid 1400’s getting into Harvard is pretty meaningless without context such as URM, legacy, athlete or some other hook. The average 1450 even with perfect grades ain’t getting into Harvard.

Anonymous wrote:It is difficult to show rigor when everyone is in Honors English and many kids graduate over 4.0 (MCPS)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think if you have you good scores you always send them to bolster your case, and if you don’t then you don’t. My DD applied TO last year because she was below the mid range for all her schools and we didn’t want to give them a reason to say no. She had good grades and GPA so we wanted them to judge her off of those. We also aimed for schools she was qualified to attend and no real reaches. She got in everywhere.

The problem with TO (and will continue) is the fact that the acceptable “range” continues to skyrocket to a ridiculous high level. It used to be a 1400 SAT or 32 ACT was a great score-not anymore. Nowadays you need a 99th percentile score (1500 or 34 plus) to be “comfortable” at a top 25 school. This is wrong and indicative of a broken system, particularly for kids coming from the DMV.

TO has certainly skewed what the reported range is on paper, but that doesn't mean there aren't kids getting 1450s going to Harvard. Some just go TO, and the schools are fine with that because it elevates their data and statistics. Unfortunately it also makes kids who get a 1480, an incredible score, feel like underachievers, which is ridiculous.

All this being said my DD got a 1600 and rejected at Yale, so it is more than about scores. Her best friend got in the high 1400s and got into Harvard. She reported her scores in her application. Scores aren't everything.

There was a thing on TikTok last year (or maybe the year before?) where a girl was bragging that she was admitted to Cornell because she applied test optional. Then she showed that she actually had taken the SAT, but scored somewhere around 1200. Then she gave the camera the middle finger with both hands.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. The people who really, really love TO the most are D1 coaches of men’s sports that are played internationally. It means they can now recruit young men who have been semi-pro in their home countries regardless of how paltry their high school education was (and often, it was very paltry) because there is no objective academic measure to be met. No 18-year-old US senior can compete against a 22-year-old semipro who doesn’t have to get a minimum SAT score any more, so TO is changing the face of D1 recruiting very quickly. Men’s swimming, water polo, tennis, golf, soccer, basketball, hockey, etc. are all impacted by this.

This is fascinating. Do you have any additional information or links to articles?

This will also apply to women’s sports as well I’m sure.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think if you have you good scores you always send them to bolster your case, and if you don’t then you don’t. My DD applied TO last year because she was below the mid range for all her schools and we didn’t want to give them a reason to say no. She had good grades and GPA so we wanted them to judge her off of those. We also aimed for schools she was qualified to attend and no real reaches. She got in everywhere.

The problem with TO (and will continue) is the fact that the acceptable “range” continues to skyrocket to a ridiculous high level. It used to be a 1400 SAT or 32 ACT was a great score-not anymore. Nowadays you need a 99th percentile score (1500 or 34 plus) to be “comfortable” at a top 25 school. This is wrong and indicative of a broken system, particularly for kids coming from the DMV.

TO has certainly skewed what the reported range is on paper, but that doesn't mean there aren't kids getting 1450s going to Harvard. Some just go TO, and the schools are fine with that because it elevates their data and statistics. Unfortunately it also makes kids who get a 1480, an incredible score, feel like underachievers, which is ridiculous.

All this being said my DD got a 1600 and rejected at Yale, so it is more than about scores. Her best friend got in the high 1400s and got into Harvard. She reported her scores in her application. Scores aren't everything.

Anonymous wrote:It is difficult to show rigor when everyone is in Honors English and many kids graduate over 4.0 (MCPS)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think if you have you good scores you always send them to bolster your case, and if you don’t then you don’t. My DD applied TO last year because she was below the mid range for all her schools and we didn’t want to give them a reason to say no. She had good grades and GPA so we wanted them to judge her off of those. We also aimed for schools she was qualified to attend and no real reaches. She got in everywhere.

The problem with TO (and will continue) is the fact that the acceptable “range” continues to skyrocket to a ridiculous high level. It used to be a 1400 SAT or 32 ACT was a great score-not anymore. Nowadays you need a 99th percentile score (1500 or 34 plus) to be “comfortable” at a top 25 school. This is wrong and indicative of a broken system, particularly for kids coming from the DMV.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. The people who really, really love TO the most are D1 coaches of men’s sports that are played internationally. It means they can now recruit young men who have been semi-pro in their home countries regardless of how paltry their high school education was (and often, it was very paltry) because there is no objective academic measure to be met. No 18-year-old US senior can compete against a 22-year-old semipro who doesn’t have to get a minimum SAT score any more, so TO is changing the face of D1 recruiting very quickly. Men’s swimming, water polo, tennis, golf, soccer, basketball, hockey, etc. are all impacted by this.

This is fascinating. Do you have any additional information or links to articles?

This will also apply to women’s sports as well I’m sure.

Anonymous wrote:Does it mean "Your test scores could help you but omitting them from your application won't hurt" or "admissions stuff presume that your scores were not good if you don't submit them and they will choose someone with decent/mediocre scores over someone who doesn't, all other things being equal"?

I may be skeptical, but I am starting to doubt the line given out by our school's counselors that the scores only matter if they help you. There's a negative deduction to be made there.

Any views?

Anonymous wrote:NP. The people who really, really love TO the most are D1 coaches of men’s sports that are played internationally. It means they can now recruit young men who have been semi-pro in their home countries regardless of how paltry their high school education was (and often, it was very paltry) because there is no objective academic measure to be met. No 18-year-old US senior can compete against a 22-year-old semipro who doesn’t have to get a minimum SAT score any more, so TO is changing the face of D1 recruiting very quickly. Men’s swimming, water polo, tennis, golf, soccer, basketball, hockey, etc. are all impacted by this.

Anonymous wrote:I think if you have you good scores you always send them to bolster your case, and if you don’t then you don’t. My DD applied TO last year because she was below the mid range for all her schools and we didn’t want to give them a reason to say no. She had good grades and GPA so we wanted them to judge her off of those. We also aimed for schools she was qualified to attend and no real reaches. She got in everywhere.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is difficult to show rigor when everyone is in Honors English and many kids graduate over 4.0 (MCPS)

Not true. There are plenty of kids in MCPS who don’t show rigor for UVA (or similar) but don’t realize it. They don’t take 4 years of language, or they don’t take AP science or AP Calc, etc. I see that with a lot of kids who think they have a rigorous transcript but it’s not rigorous enough and they don’t understand admissions at selective schools (see all the threads about dropping world language).