Agree and if they didn’t care about test scores they would go “test blind” but I don’t see that happening this year at most colleges.
If the ACT/SAT are offered this summer and fall, I would think that the expectation of adcoms would be that the majority of students would submit scores.
in past 4 to 5 years in our local high school, each year they had over a dozen students out for class of 500 students who went to selective schools. couple dozens went to state flagship university. But each year, there still over handful had ACT 35 & 36 who did not get into selective school. I know one kid who had ACT 36, UWGPA 4.0 and top score in AP Physics, (top score = actual top raw score, not 5) but got rejected by top20 school but ended up to a descent college in MA.
What I like to say is ACT 35, 36 , all 5s in AP didn’t guarantee anything to selective schools even before Covid-19. Be clam. We all proud with our kids who got 35, 36, even 30, and 32. I understand this. But focus too much in fairness is a waste of time.
Each year, there are 100s 4.0 and 35 ACT do not get in the selective school while some who have 30 or 32 are still admitted. Of course the proportion is different.
It is similar to EC, why a Tennis state champion can get in but not a tennis player lost in regional or divisional? Could it be the champ can afford $100 of private coaching? The answer is we don’ know. It might or it might not. Broad brush on ACT 33+ because of their affluence background is a blame game. I knew half a dozen parents in our school district, whose kid had 34+, none of them hired tutor or did more them buying their kids few more prep books.
My advice is , do what you can do, get what you will get. We can write 1000 posts but when you wake up next day, things are still the same.
I have some suggestion. Instead of hoping the selective school the change the rule fit each of our situation, we advocate other people don’t apply to selective school or even question should everyone go to college. I know there is topic about whether $100,000 or $250,000 worth a degree. Many years ago, Ivy league admission rate was as high as 20%. If we want we our kid can get in easy, we need less applicant to compete, just a thought.
If a test optional college has said that they don’t care about scores, I haven’t seen the reference. Continuing with the Colby example, a press release from when they went test optional in 2018 is at https://www.colby.edu/news/2018/09/24/colby-eliminates-standardized-testing-requirement/ . It uses phrases like: below
Colby says that the predictive ability of standardized tests is “limited” and “modest”, as well as “students from under-resourced backgrounds are disadvantaged.” None of these statements imply that they don;'t care at all about scores. The statements instead imply that the tests add a positive benefit to ability to predict academic success at Colby, but that benefit adds relatively little predictive ability beyond the combination of the many other criteria used in Colby’s admission process. It’s not that the tests don’t matter, but that the degree of benefit is relatively small.
A similar statement could be made about many of the other admission criteria that Colby cares about. For example, one might say that LORs add relatively little predictive ability beyond the other combination of the other criteria used in admission, yet LORs were not dropped. The press release implies that tests were singled out rather than other components as as part of a “comprehensive program” to encourage lower income students to apply. Other parts of this program included no expected parental contribution for lower income families (families making less than the approximate US median income at the time).
Increasing applications by removing possible application barriers is part of a larger pattern with Colby. Several years before going test optional, Colby removed their application fee and supplemental essay requirement.
I don’t see stat external publications beyond fall 2018, so it’s too early to access the impacts of these policy changes. Colby’s internal press releases mentions a noteworthy increase in applications, but similar degrees of increases occurred in the recent years prior to going to test optional as well.
Going back to the original topic, if a college goes test optional, rather than test blind; I think it is safe to assume test scores will be considered if submitted, so a high scoring applicant who submits test scores would most likely have some degree of a positive benefit in admissions. That degree of that benefit may (or may not) be substantially smaller than the admissions benefit from a high score at a test required college. The score is often one relatively small part of the many criteria considered in the holistic admission decision, so admission decisions may appear to be “random” and not follow scores to an external observer, even though the score was considered.
How would they have an advantage? Colleges won’t know which students would have scored high and which wouldn’t. The applications have to stand on their own. Even if students could submit scores if they had them, there’s no guarantee that a student with high test scores would get admitted over one who scored lower or who chose not to submit them.
The disadvantage of test optional is that it’s more competitive for everyone because students aren’t automatically excluded based solely on scores, so more students have an opportunity to be considered for acceptance.
If I understand what you’re saying, it’s pretty selfish. You want to limit the futures of other people’s children to increase the chances that your own can attend an Ivy?
Test optional probably affect the following types of applicants the most:
A. Otherwise strong applicant with poor test scores relative to the college’s test score range.
B. Otherwise strong applicant with test scores in the lower middle range of the college’s test score range.
C. Applicant who was unable to sign up for a test (e.g. due to cancellation due to COVID-19 or other factors) or otherwise had difficulty being able to take the test (as opposed to difficulty with the test).
Group C at least has a chance under test optional that would not exist if tests were required.
Under test required, group B would have an advantage over group A, but under test optional, these groups would likely not submit test scores and therefore not find group B to have that advantage over group A.
Not surprised. It increases the number of applications, and the number of students they can reject, which helps them move up the USNWR rankings. Lots of colleges try this tactic. Colleges love to say this is the best interest of students, but they don’t mention it’s also in their own best interest.
“Colleges won’t know which students would have scored high and which wouldn’t. The applications have to stand on their own.”
They would definitely know who scored high as those testers would submit their scores. They know the kids who didn’t submit their scores may not have done well, but won’t hold it against them. As I posted on another thread these test optional colleges have pretty high averages, esp if you start including colleges like Chicago who just recently went t/o. The students not submitting their scores would need to stand on their own.
Isn’t the reason they aren’t going “test blind” is because they want to avoid lawsuits? Some students started preparing for the SATs and ACTs the summer of before their juniors years. This wasn’t an issue then. I can envision many angry parents who have spend thousands of dollars sending their child to SAT prep classes. They want to avoid all problems; therefore, “test optional” is the only suitable options for both circumstances concerning the Coronavirus and early birds.
Does anyone know how colleges will implement this? Like will they ask for the test scores of all tests taken like Princeton does, or ask if one has taken the tests? Depending on what questions are asked, I can see various scenarios
Until very recently (as in last week), going test blind would have kept them out of the USNWR rankings. That just changed. TB colleges will now be included. However I don’t believe they have announced the new methodology yet. As of now, if 75% of accepted students don’t submit test scores, the college is penalized. So few colleges are willing to take the leap to TB not knowing how it is going to affect their rank. Lots of egos and alumni money tied up with that. TO was the best possible compromise given so many test dates were canceled, and some schools only appeared to go along because of public relations pressure.
I doubt lawsuits were a concern. To have a case, students would have to prove they were harmed. That’s nearly impossible to do as far as admissions is concerned, especially at schools claiming a holistic review. The student contract would have been with the test prep business, not the college, which would be another barrier to a successful lawsuit.
The situation being discussed was the perceived disadvantage to students who would have scored high if they were able to take the test. The assumption was that, due to Covid, those who aren’t submitting scores would include students who couldn’t take the test as well as those who chose not to or scored below the school’s average.
“the wealth benefit comes from performing higher than you would if you didn’t have the resources.”
It’s not wealth even though there is a correlation it’s actually education level the parents attained has a stronger correlation than income though they are related. In the bay area where I am, most families are actually middle class or upper middle class but given the parents having gone to college (here or outside of US), the kids do better on the tests, generally of course.
According to https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/how-us-news-calculated-the-rankings , “student excellence” is 10% of the rating. Of that 7.75% is SAT/ACT scores, and 2.25% is percentage of frosh in the top 10% or 25% of their HS classes (depending on the college rating group). They probably chose those measures and weighted them that way due to convenience (SAT/ACT are much more consistent and comparable across students, HSs, and colleges than other measures like HS GPA, even though they may not be the best measure of “academic excellence”).
The direct benefit of wealth is also there. First of all, if the prep courses are helpful, the ability to pay for one will definitely result in a higher SAT score. Second, the ability to pay for testing a second, third, fourth, etc time is also dependent on wealth. In the most affluent school district in Chicagoland, students took the ACT test, on average, about three times.
The reason that the correlations is not always clear is that the effects of wealth flatten out after a certain level of income. Once parents can afford to pay $3,000 or so for test prep and another $100 for two more tests, the effect of these is reduced.
However, when the income starts getting into the top 10%, other benefits kick in, like easy access to doctors and therapists who are willing to sign off on 504s for the flimsiest of reasons. Evidently 1/3 of all kids at Newton North High School are getting some sort of accommodation for testing, while fewer than 2% of the kids at low income schools are receiving these accommodations. At the high school district I mentioned above, where on average students take the ACT three times, 24% are receiving accommodations. So of course the average test scores are going to be higher in schools districts in which students get more time to do the test.
All of this indicates that the correlation between education and test scores is much likely to be the result of income + the fact that parents with a higher education are more likely to pay for test prep, make sure that their kids takes the test multiple times, and understand how to get those accommodations. Wealth provides the opportunities, and education provides the understanding of how to take advantage of these opportunities.
@MWolf. What you wrote is so true of many of the elite schools in Chicago especially private ones. I will add that many of the kids “do” have learning issues and really need the help but when getting an appointment with an educational psychologist that the school recommends is over a 6 month delay and it seems like everyone has a 504 for something can’t argue with what you said.
“All of this indicates that the correlation between education and test scores is much likely to be the result of income + the fact that parents with a higher education are more likely to pay for test prep, make sure that their kids takes the test multiple times, and understand how to get those accommodations.”
Attributing that doing well on the tests is because of income and gaming the system is pretty disingenuous. Most of the Asian parents here have no idea you could even have an IEP or ask for extended time on tests and many don’t even know you can take it more than once, especially if it’s their first child going through the US educational system. It would only be at the teachers’ suggestion that an IEP, accommodations could be helpful.
Testing advice is typically taken from the guidance counselor who will say to take the SAT/ACT once by jr year and one in sr year if you don’t like your scores. Some may say to take the SAT and ACT if you’re not sure and retake the one you want to improve your score in.
I’m just here to thank the last few posters. It didn’t even occur to me that I could ask for extended time to test.
“Asians, the ideal minority” is a racist trope.
To begin with, there is inherent racism in assigning positive traits based on race. Second, clumping together people from more than a dozen countries, vastly different background and cultures, as though they are a single group is also highly problematic.
Most importantly, the main use of this trope is, and has always been, to “prove” that Black and Hispanic kids should be blamed for their own predicament. After all, if “Asians” can do it, why can’t poor Black and Hispanic kids, amirite? The implication here is that Black and Hispanic kids are inherently worse at academics.
Let us, though, explore whether it is even true that the Asian kids that we see with high SATs are the kids of poor immigrants who, succeeded because Hard Work.
Well, to begin with, “Asians” are not only wealthier than Black and Hispanics, many arrived at the USA with education and money.
So the wealthiest group from Asia are Indian Americans. The majority of immigrants from India are educated, and the numbers point to a very large percent coming to the USA for graduate school or for their undergraduate, and staying. These are not poor immigrants, trying to struggle in a culture they don’t understand. These are highly educated, middle class or wealthier, people who are pretty familiar with the educational system here, and will avail themselves to whatever opportunities allow their kids to compete with their peers. They also do not have any type of language barrier. They constitute 20% of people who are designated “Asian”
The same is true for a large proportion of the immigrants from China. These are immigrants who came for grad school and stayed. Like the Indian Americans, they are highly educated and well versed in American college culture. Japanese Americans are mostly USA born, and grew up here in affluent or middle class communities.
Indians, Chinese, and Japanese together make up more than half of the people who would be designated “Asian”.
Of course there are also many Asian Americans who are in poor neighborhoods, and are having a very difficult time. There are many communities who are pretty poor. In fact, income inequality among Asian Americans is far higher than in the general population and among any other ethnic or racial group in the USA.
Asian immigrants are doing just as well and as poorly as any immigrant, once you control for wealth, education, and how much racism they face.
It is high time that the “Asians, the Ideal Minority (compared to Blacks and Hispanics)” trope be retired, especially here on CC.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/08/key-facts-about-asian-americans/
https://prosperitynow.org/blog/racial-wealth-snapshot-asian-americans
There are other factors in why Asians are doing better than anybody. However, it is in part because Asians are more likely to pay for test prep. That’s great, but est prep doesn’t actually help students do better in college.
And yes, low income Asians often live in more affluent areas to have access to better schools. That’s great, but not really a good option for low income Black or Hispanic families. We’ve seen a long series of cases where Black men and women are harassed in affluent communities, and in at least one case, murdered. Living in an affluent majority White or Asian school district is usually not an option for Black or Hispanic families.
https://www.propublica.org/article/get-out-black-families-harassed-in-their-own-homes
That being said, income plays a very large part in the higher test scores that Asian kids have, and test prep definitely plays a large part.
BTW, there is an entire industry in Asia dedicated to finding ways to hack the testing system:
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/college-sat-one/
Do you have any data to support this claim? I have found absolutely NO evidence which indicates that Asian students in these same affluent neighborhoods do not have the same level of IEPs as their wealthy White neighbors.
Furthermore, this an enormous Red Herring, since Asians are not the majority of students who are being accepted to selective schools.
“These are highly educated, middle class or wealthier, people who are pretty familiar with the educational system here,”
They still had to take time to learn the system because if they came just for a job, they would have little idea how things work. They know there’s a standardized test, but not things like athletics, early plans, housing. Even if they came here for grad school, they wouldn’t know much about the K-12 and undergrad experience until their kids started school.
That being said, my point was that education of the parents was more correlated with test scores than income, though all three are related. Educated parents (regardless of race) have kids that generally do better in academics, which you also mention:
“the fact that parents with a higher education are more likely to pay for test prep, make sure that their kids takes the test multiple times, and understand how to get those accommodations.”
Typically the higher education level the higher the wealth, that’s why I wrote that all three are correlated.
“That’s great, but est prep doesn’t actually help students do better in college.”
Right, so wouldn’t these Asians not do well, or do they also use expensive tutors while in college?
“Do you have any data to support this claim? I have found absolutely NO evidence which indicates that Asian students in these same affluent neighborhoods do not have the same level of IEPs as their wealthy White neighbors.”
I only know a few schools IEP participation so it’s definitely anecdotal, however the Asian kids on IEP match or are below the Asian population (60-80%, depending on hs). But you can get accommodations without being on an IEP, though it helps.
Seeing how so many wealthy parents help their kids game the system, I’m amazed my DD earned a very high SAT score just using free testing materials, taking the test a single time, and under normal testing conditions. Her score was in the 1450-1500 range.
BUT she needed a lot of financial aid and was an unhooked candidate. So like many other students in the same situation, she was accepted to excellent colleges but not to the top 20 ranked colleges.
When this happened to an older sibling, it was a surprise. This time, we understood what happened. It’s a common story for the unhooked middle class kid.