On the one hand, it makes logical sense to me that, with some exceptions like CA, an advantaged applicant not submitting an optional test score might be presumed to have scored below range for the school in question. On the other hand, I see what you are saying: at least in the first two years of test optional policies, the loud and clear message was that not submitting would not hurt an application. Perhaps that is the evolution over time, though there is some unfairness in the lack of clarity.
2 Likes
IMO, thatās exactly what happened, and it is unfair to say ātest optionalā for all, but not in practice.
1 Like
Regarding Clemson and CAā¦ we are form CA and yes, many kids either do not take it at all or take it once with little to no prep. That being said, I have a S23 who is a sophomore at Clemson, who submitted TO and was admitted EA and at that time our HS ranked. I also have a D25, applied TO who was just deferred EA with better GPA than my S23 and same high school as my D23 but now does NOT rank. Of the 10 or so friends D25 has that applied to Clemson, almost all applied TO and all were deferred, except 1 friend who did submit with a test score in the high 1200s.
Possible lesson here for Clemson: Rank is important, if that is not available then test scores would be a really nice to have. I am certain AOs make their best āguessā when there is no rank available, but I am pretty convinced that no rank and no test score makes a tough admit for EA at Clemson. I think RD will be different but letās see.
ehhā¦ not sure I agree here. Maybe the first year. The high test scores almost always come out better. But also, in most cases, the high test scorer will have more rigor and or stronger ECs when GPA is the same. I think as colleges lean into SES diversity, there are fewer spots for prep school/wealthy kids. TO is not going to cut it for this group when they are competing with each other.
2 Likes
If you are applying to an elite school, and lets be honest, these are the schools on peoples minds when having these conversations, one would imagine that no subject teaching is required. This is different from test practice.
The unfortunate reality is that the gap does exist, even when students have straight As, but if you cannot/did not master to do reasonably well you are probably not prepared enough to attend said university, regardless of potential/natural ability.
1 Like
You knowā¦ I used to think they kinda sorta were (but made my kids does it anyway) but at a presentation by the Brown Dean of Admissions, he used the video as an example of not really optional. What he was saying was not that its NOT optional, but that decisions are being made in the margins, and that you come in at a disadvantage one you donāt have a piece and the next five kids do.
4 Likes
Other random thought, with the major caveat that I am just a parent and have no clue how yield algorithms are used in admission decision-making: during the first year of test optional policies, for fall 2021 freshmen, some top colleges ended up overenrolled for multiple reasons, one of which seemed to be the failure of yield algorithms to recognize that test optional applicants tend to have a higher yield. I have wondered whether, at least back then, that algorithm could have increased some studentsā chance of admission, and whether that chance has changed as algorithms have been adjusted since then.
1 Like
Not always true. Students donāt have to major in STEM (and I use math for an example because thatās what Iāve personally seen more of in terms of gaps.) Iāve said this before but know students with average test scores (national average) who are doing/have done well at highly rejective schools. Thatās not possible at all schools though, say at MIT or Ga tech where everyone needs to get through calc.
But SAT also tests reading comp on some level. My kids have to read a tremendous volume of material for their non stem classes. That part requires no teaching and it still something you need for college success.
1 Like
I donāt disagree reading is important too. But my point still stands. I could go into all the reasons why disadvantaged students have learning gaps and/or poor test taking strategies, but weāve covered those things ad nauseum in other threads. The bottom line is that plenty of students with test scores that arenāt close to the published ranges at a given test optional selective school have been successful in classes and graduating on time, etc.
2 Likes
ALL kids are doing better at selective colleges these days because of the huge amount of 1st year classes, 1st year writing classes, tutoring, writing clinics, etc. that simply were not around in the 80s/90s. We either swam or we sank, and now that parents are paying so much in tuition, schools are working hard to keep kids there. That saidā¦I have a few friends who are professors at elite schools. They all say the kids who arenāt prepared like others sometimes struggle emotionally especially feeling less than as they try to keep up.
2 Likes
The more selective colleges are also more selective (in academic criteria) than they were in the 1980s/1990s. Stronger students coming in now tend to do better on average.
3 Likes
Maybe itās because many highly selective colleges have massive grade inflation and that most kids who make an effort will probably get an A. When 80% of your class gets an A, itās pretty hard not to do well.
No kidding. I am in awe of my own kids. I donāt think I could cut it these days.
Exactly. Which is why universities are realizing that a standardized metric is needed in an era where GPAs are overinflated and becoming meaningless. That metric is called SAT or ACT. Regardless of the mental gymnastics AOs engage in when talking about the subject. Yes, I agree that a bad test score is just a āsnapshot of a student overall ability and doesnāt give the whole pictureā. Sure, then take it again and again until you get a good score. Pretty simple.
1 Like
I agree with this. Itās not that the TO is being penalized in this scenario. Itās that the borderline applicant with a high test score can give them a boost whereas the same applicant without a high test score would have gotten a rejection.
And like everything else, it highly depends on the school. Some schools explicitly state that they have a no-harm test policy. For example, we talked to an AO at U of Washington who said they donāt even look at the test scores unless the applicant is borderline/rejected. They are looking for that boost to help push an applicant through. We also talked to an AO at NYU who said that if you donāt have good test scores, go TO because that would not penalize you, but a bad test score would not be ignored and could potentially hurt your chances. Different schools with very different TO policies.
The trick is what is bad? This is probably where the school profile really matters. A 1400 from a prep school where the average score is 1400 is different from a 1400 at an 1100 average school. When AOs say they consider test scores (and everything else) in context, listen to them.
IMO a successful application is one that tells a story. Consider what your test score says about YOUR story.
3 Likes
TBH, it didnāt sound like NY cared about the school profile in context of the score. They said that their range is published, so use it. LOL.
3 Likes
Sounds like a school that is playing the system to raise their own profile. That is a thing too.
1 Like
Not surprised! There is also another highly rejective school that told a zoom full of counselors that test scores in context are not a thing there.
3 Likes