Before they were TO, they were “test flexible”. So if your SAT/ACT wasn’t in range, it was better to use one of the other options (such as AP scores across a required range of subjects). So this is not really a new approach for them other than now having an option of not submitting any scores. But anyway, this isn’t really different from many other schools, is it? There’s a lot of focus on the middle 50 scores across schools, not just NYU, regardless of school context.
1 Like
At least they are honest. They also seem to care about pocket size more than test scores from our school.
2 Likes
I don’t think test optional means it isn’t better to submit a score, just that they’ll consider you as your application comes and not hold it against you. But I think there is plenty of evidence that those who ALSO submit high test scores do better. I know at UNC, 75% of kids who submit a test score (in state) are admitted, and only 30% who TO get in. A high score is a huge advantage there! (Yes, there may be other differences, but we also know TO kids who were in the top 5% of their class not get in, so a score definitely helps.) If you think about it, it should. It’s another confirmation they have the ability to do well. A lower score doesn’t mean they don’t, but it’s not another piece of evidence.
Haverford apparently also has a type of no harm sort of policy (per an online info session) where if you submit a test score that would lower your rating, they revert to what your rating would have been test optional. The stated point of the policy, and of making it public, was to take the stress off kids who have a pretty high score, but are not sure it was high enough.
And seeing the Dartmouth data, I can understand what they are thinking.
3 Likes
Of course, at test-optional schools, the test submitters are more likely to be those with high scores, so it is not surprising that they have higher admit rates. An applicant with a low test score may not gain an advantage from submitting the low test score.
The ones who say are “test optional” but you know are competitive and don’t care about finances are not really test optional. You need a high score for those. The ones who are not or maybe used to be competive and need your money are indeed TO.
1 Like
So again looking at the Dartmouth data for advantaged applicants, you can see that whether an advantaged applicant did or did not use a high test score did not appear to make any really significant difference in Dartmouth’s acceptance rate.
But at the same time, the acceptance rate did go up with the advantage applicants’ test scores. It just did that even in cases where Dartmouth did not use that high test score in admissions.
So one way to think of this, it is almost like Dartmouth Admissions somehow knew that these advantaged applicants had high test scores. Not literally (assuming Dartmouth is telling the truth about the data), but it appears they somehow knew the same things about these applicants as they would have learned from the high test score.
And I think you are basically explaining here part of how that works.
I do think transcripts and recommendations from some high schools can be way more informative for colleges like Dartmouth than from other high schools. In particular, I think they can be designed to do a better job discriminating among the top students such that a Dartmouth or such can more easily see the top of the top.
But sure, I think there could also be information in ECs and such. And in fact we know a lot of wealthier parents put significant financial resources, including the financial value of their own time, into supporting a variety of ECs for their kids.
OK, so it is not so much that there would be no information in high test scores for these kids if viewed in isolation.
It is more that between being sent to these special high schools, participating in these various ECs, and so on, that information is already also in the rest of their application, in ways a sophisticated entity like Dartmouth can extract. And so adding it in the form of a high test score too is largely redundant–for advantaged kids with those opportunities.
That being said, the Dartmouth data was aggregated, and for sure it is possible there are some cases where an advantaged kid would have all those other indicia but not quite the test score to match, and Dartmouth would decide to accept them as if they had a high test score. But those kids could just end up among the kids accepted with lower test scores, since the rate never dropped to zero in their data. And it would be virtually impossible to detect such an effect in data like this, if it was relatively rare.
As a final thought, it would be really cool if Dartmouth would republish these charts after gathering a few years of new data under test required, so we could see what happened. But I will not be holding my breath.
It depends on the school.
1 Like
Is Wake Forest truly test optional? What about University of Michigan SMTD?
Where does Wake Forest fall? University of Michigan SMTD?
My rule of thumb has been to check in the CDS the percentage of enrolled students who supplied test scores. If it is relatively high - you obviously need a high test score. Wake’s is on the somewhat low side with less than 50%. Similar to Emory, Tulane, etc. In my totally unqualified opinion, it is a a truly TO school. Great school by the way, D25 applied there RD. Not familiar with U Michigan SMTD but I would assume test scores would not be important to them.
1 Like
Thanks! Where is the CDS and how do I check it?
Section C under Freshman Profile
1 Like
CDS is the Common Data Set, something which almost every college participates in. You can either Google the college’s name + “common data set” or go to the college’s website and enter “common data set” in their search box.
3 Likes
I live in an area where kids test high, whether they attend private school or public. The vast majority of the kids who are reasonably competitive at elite schools generally have a score to match/send.
With many decisions released, what I am seeing, however, is not a testing issue but a major issue. So far, this cycle has been pretty brutal in our high SES area but kids focused on humanities seem to be faring much better than those applying for STEM which is the majority, with emphasis on pre-med and/or CS.
1 Like
We have been observed this or a while and makes choice of school, major, and second choice school major more important. In some institutions you can gather research on the admit rates by individual college. Business has become stem-light.
2 Likes
Agreed.
Is your premise that it used to be heavier stem or that stem is now starting to become more of a factor?
As someone with a business degree ('94 Undergrad, '08 Grad MBA/MSF) I would say generic business and any concentration that isn’t Finance has never had a quantitative focus and my sense is that it still doesn’t. If you get into Finance, it’s always been the case of being very quant heavy.
1 Like
Dont know this is true. My daughter deffered from Clemson. Submitted the ACT score and 3.8 unweighted.
1 Like
Oh, I was just thinking they meant almost as bad as STEM. Not quite, really, but pretty popular and therefore competitive. Maybe I am wrong but thats what I was thinking. But I am observing that, as a group, the students themselves are not quite tippy top - business is the next best thing if they don’t quite have the pure stats for CS/Engineering.
1 Like