Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The theory is that it at least helps the school drag up the bottom end of the range.

Are there any circumstances where one would advise otherwise?

On principle, yes, unless you are from a disadvantaged background. TO is BS. GPAs alone mean nothing as there is no standardization across this country.

Standardized testing with the tutoring and superscoriing is BS too. And?

The status quo is no more. Get used to it. Submit the score. Or not. Unless you live in California.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The theory is that it at least helps the school drag up the bottom end of the range.

Are there any circumstances where one would advise otherwise?

On principle, yes, unless you are from a disadvantaged background. TO is BS. GPAs alone mean nothing as there is no standardization across this country.

Standardized testing with the tutoring and superscoriing is BS too. And?

The status quo is no more. Get used to it. Submit the score. Or not. Unless you live in California.

Way less BS that curricula that do not align at all in terms of rigor, retakes, etc. The list goes on. GPAs mean NADA these days.

The colleges love TO because it jacks up their range, making them look far more elite than they really are. What a joke.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The theory is that it at least helps the school drag up the bottom end of the range.

Are there any circumstances where one would advise otherwise?

On principle, yes, unless you are from a disadvantaged background. TO is BS. GPAs alone mean nothing as there is no standardization across this country.

Standardized testing with the tutoring and superscoriing is BS too. And?

The status quo is no more. Get used to it. Submit the score. Or not. Unless you live in California.

Way less BS that curricula that do not align at all in terms of rigor, retakes, etc. The list goes on. GPAs mean NADA these days.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The theory is that it at least helps the school drag up the bottom end of the range.

Are there any circumstances where one would advise otherwise?

On principle, yes, unless you are from a disadvantaged background. TO is BS. GPAs alone mean nothing as there is no standardization across this country.

Standardized testing with the tutoring and superscoriing is BS too. And?

The status quo is no more. Get used to it. Submit the score. Or not. Unless you live in California.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The theory is that it at least helps the school drag up the bottom end of the range.

Are there any circumstances where one would advise otherwise?

On principle, yes, unless you are from a disadvantaged background. TO is BS. GPAs alone mean nothing as there is no standardization across this country.

Anonymous wrote:The theory is that it at least helps the school drag up the bottom end of the range.

Are there any circumstances where one would advise otherwise?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Non-URM: submit if you are at 50 or above. Will slightly benefit at 75 and above.

URM, FGLI: Submit at 25 and above. Will help at 50 and above.

This is just wrong, elite college admissions officers are now saying they prefer scores.

The only schools where I would be stingy in submitting are Tulane and NE, because they openly say they want only high scores and admit a ton of kids test optional.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As all the contradictory yet confidently delivered advice here indicates, the whole test-scores thing is a mess. I've listed to dozens of podcasts and read several threads like this one, and the only conclusions I can draw is that things are very much in flux and it depends on the particular school. Here are some of the different flavors of test-optional advice out there.

(1) The Prevailing Wisdom: Most (but not all) AO's recommend submitting scores if they are between the 25%-75% averages of that school. Reasonable minds can differ as to whether to submit a test score that is just marginally below that 25%. Some argue that it's be better to submit a 33 to, say, Brown (34-36), than to go test optional because the AO might otherwise assume that the TO-applicant got a much worse ACT score (and a 33 is still a marvelous score). Others believe that certain schools are trying to keep their average test scores up for the sake of prestige such that they're likely to reject any applicant that pulls down their average.

(2) Test Preferred: As noted above, some schools like Yale and Dartmouth have indicated that they're "test preferred." I've heard that for such schools, it's a good idea to look at their pre-test optional test scores (e.g, from 2019) and submit the score if it's in the school's pre-Covid middle 50%. This makes sense to me. I doubt that withholding a good-but-not-great ACT score like a 32 or 33 is going to be better than going TO at a test-preferred school, which is a crapshoot anyhow.

(3) Only Median or Above: Some people recommend only submitting scores if they are at the school's median or above. I've never personally heard an AO recommend this on the record though. But I have heard anecdotally that this is the case for some schools. For example, I read somewhere that Northeastern's AOs have recommended this approach for NEU--e.g., if NEU's ACT median is a 34, then you shouldn't submit a 33 even though it's within NEU's middle 50%. Apparently, the philosophy is that the school is seeking to increase its average test scores for appearance's sake. That sounds insane to me, but it doesn't mean it's untrue.

(4) Good Test Score In Context: Many AOs recommend that an applicant submit a test score that is below the school's 25%-75% range if that score far exceeds the scores for the applicant's school. For example, an applicant from rural Appalachia should submit an ACT 31 to Yale if the average ACT score at their impoverished school is a 15.

(5) The Unfamiliar High School: If an applicant goes to a school with which AOs have no familiarity--e.g., home-schooled kids, an international school, or a brand new domestic charter school--a test score provides an objective measure of that student's potential aptitude that might be hard to discern from grades alone.

(6) Truly Test Optional: Some schools emphatically insist that withholding test scores will in no way prejudice an applicant. I'm inclined to believe any school that was test optional before Covid or any school where less than 50% of admitted/enrolled students submitted scores.

(7) Test Scores Not Considered at All: Some schools categorically do not consider test scores, such as Berkeley, UCLA, and the College of AAP at Cornell.

OP here. Thank you! That is a drop the mic post! I'm personally going to run with "If 25th percentile can be hit, then you must submit!" And then consider modifications to that on a case by case basis.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Neo wrote:It doesn't matter, SAT scores are just optics

What does matter, then? I'm not looking for what universities care about, because you presumably think they care about GPA and building/shaping their freshman class in a way they desire (and maybe rigor and ECs and LORs, demographics, etc.).

But why do those things really matter, or why do you think they SHOULD be a priority to universities? Most of those non-testing data points are far more prone to manipulation by the individual than standardized testing, and the lone item that isn't (essentially, the desire to enroll URM and lower SES applicants) just seems bizarrely removed from reality.

"I'm going to enhance the reputation of my university and ensure its financial future by finding the poorest kids from the lowest performing schools who performed better than their peers in those low performing schools (but without a standardized test to validate their grades), and they are going to blossom into high achievers in my competitive university, and eventually become generous donors in the future."

Taking the valedictorian from EBF High School's class of 79 students who is applying TO (with a 4.00 / 4.32) over the 71st ranked FP kid from a class of 500+ at a top performing school who also submits a test score of 36 / 1600 (with a 3.93 / 4.53) ... makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It just doesn't.

If you're looking for a cynical explanation based on institutional incentives, I would suggest this whole DEI/FG thing is based on staying in the good graces of the Democrats so they don't start taxing the endowments.

Anonymous wrote:

Neo wrote:It doesn't matter, SAT scores are just optics

What does matter, then? I'm not looking for what universities care about, because you presumably think they care about GPA and building/shaping their freshman class in a way they desire (and maybe rigor and ECs and LORs, demographics, etc.).

But why do those things really matter, or why do you think they SHOULD be a priority to universities? Most of those non-testing data points are far more prone to manipulation by the individual than standardized testing, and the lone item that isn't (essentially, the desire to enroll URM and lower SES applicants) just seems bizarrely removed from reality.

"I'm going to enhance the reputation of my university and ensure its financial future by finding the poorest kids from the lowest performing schools who performed better than their peers in those low performing schools (but without a standardized test to validate their grades), and they are going to blossom into high achievers in my competitive university, and eventually become generous donors in the future."

Taking the valedictorian from EBF High School's class of 79 students who is applying TO (with a 4.00 / 4.32) over the 71st ranked FP kid from a class of 500+ at a top performing school who also submits a test score of 36 / 1600 (with a 3.93 / 4.53) ... makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It just doesn't.

Anonymous wrote:

Neo wrote:It doesn't matter, SAT scores are just optics

What does matter, then? I'm not looking for what universities care about, because you presumably think they care about GPA and building/shaping their freshman class in a way they desire (and maybe rigor and ECs and LORs, demographics, etc.).

But why do those things really matter, or why do you think they SHOULD be a priority to universities? Most of those non-testing data points are far more prone to manipulation by the individual than standardized testing, and the lone item that isn't (essentially, the desire to enroll URM and lower SES applicants) just seems bizarrely removed from reality.

"I'm going to enhance the reputation of my university and ensure its financial future by finding the poorest kids from the lowest performing schools who performed better than their peers in those low performing schools (but without a standardized test to validate their grades), and they are going to blossom into high achievers in my competitive university, and eventually become generous donors in the future."

Taking the valedictorian from EBF High School's class of 79 students who is applying TO (with a 4.00 / 4.32) over the 71st ranked FP kid from a class of 500+ at a top performing school who also submits a test score of 36 / 1600 (with a 3.93 / 4.53) ... makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It just doesn't.

Neo wrote:It doesn't matter, SAT scores are just optics