Well, Bowdoin did ask most, if not all, potential recruited athletes for test scores as part of a read pre-read package (not sure that’s changed.)
So that’s about 1/4-1/3 of the class that they had visibility to scores even if the athlete was told to apply TO.
Agree on all counts, but the SAT, like the LSAT and MCAT provided a standardized measure which admittedly is flawed in many ways but does have an element of fairness, everyone takes the same test, has to study and use their best acumen to do the best they can.
I think you’ve maybe covered this before, but since we’ve renewed the conversation, indulge me a question: why is it this an important point for you? I’m genuinely curious.
So, you think it’s fair. But is the lack of it unfair? Is it fair, for example, for a kid with great academic potential and preparation to pay such a dear price for not doing well on one test on one given day? OTOH, what about kids who didn’t really commit all that much during secondary school who are great test takers and therefore score highly? How do we treat them? I personally know of a handful of those kids. One could argue that my youngest was one of those kids, and in her case it’s even worse because she was a pretty heavily recruited athlete. Athlete + high test score + middling HS grades equaled A LOT of elite school opportunity. Not sure that was perfectly fair either.
I’m just curious so my question to you is not rhetorical. You say you’re worried that the NESCAC (well really you’re worried about Williams) “falling behind”. So then what do you think about Bowdoin College? They’ve been TO forever.
I’d guess that if they were high they’d have submitted them. I think it’s almost axiomatic that if you included tests that were not submitted for consideration the overall profile would go down.
We HAVE to acknowledge that there are very smart people who don’t have high CB test scores. There are myriad reasons why kids do poorly on those exams and we could be here all day discussing them. But the point is that TO policies allow exceptional students who don’t have great scores an opportunity to stand on the foundation of what they’ve done in actual school.
I’m pretty sure Wesleyan asks all students who didn’t submit for admission to submit after the fact and I’d be surprised if Bowdoin didn’t do the same. I think they do it for research purposes.
I don’t understand how a defense of the SAT and its ‘fairness’ is a response to my post simply stating Bowdoin required test scores as part of pre-read packages.
CC has had dozens of threads discussing the ‘fairness’ of SAT/ACT, so you might post on one of those.
I finally read that https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w33570/w33570.pdf
study to figure out why IVY(+) went back to requiring testing. It took a bit to dissect the flaws in the study, but there are several that would require its own thread. The low variance of the GPA’s and the larger SAT variance in the accepted kids that led to the conclusion that 1200 SAT scorers were 5x more likely to struggle academically was not correctly analyzed. I also don’t think that the difference in first year outcomes, basically the difference between an A- and B+ (0.43) is significant; nor do they look at the student’s 4 year GPA and future success.
So I completely agree with you that GPA is still quite important in the long term and favor the test flexible and test optional schools like Bowdoin where S24 began his junior year.
Out of curiosity, why is it ok that some IVY (+)/UC schools ignore freshman high school GPA but then turn 180 degrees to use this study of first year GPA to require SAT/ACT, or in California’s case, move in that direction? ( Also probably a new thread–no intent to hijack).
What I am saying, though, is that the overall profile in the CDS-- including the scores that were not submitted – was still quite high. Maybe the high-achievers didn’t submit their 1420 because they felt it didn’t truly represent them. And maybe that was recruits. Really, no idea. Whatever the case, Bowdoin’s enrollment of exceptional students seemed to somehow seemed to align with higher test scores, even when they didn’t see them.
I’m personally interested in the whole testing situation for several reasons.
)All of this to say, I agree with @cquin85 . Sure, standardized tests might have some value, but they 100% don’t give any real context.
I agree with all of this. And while a good test score from that average excellent student is helpfully to schools who want to improve their profile, so is TO – if they don’t publish those scores like Bowdoin did – because only the highest scores are included in the average.
When DS was applying ages ago, one of his schools announced that it would be TO in the coming year and told his CC that it is usually associated with a pop of 100-200 points in the profile. Whether the student body looked aa markedly different as the CDS is unknown.
Schools also have the choice to require scores and then weight them however they like rather than making kids try to figure out if they should submit. Of course some stellar kids test poorly. As do some kids who can’t do the work. And some kids who test well lack other skills to excel. And yet other students could test really well with tutoring but can’t get it. Just saying there are a lot of factors involved here, and in some ways, rather than sorting through those, the admissions offices have offloaded this to applicants. But we digress. The NESCAC schhols seem to be able to remain quite selective and to assemble the student bodies they want with whatever their policies are.
So true! Fellow Bates parent. They have no reason to require test scores because their formula for admitting really bright, interested, and engaged students is spot on.
I agree with your whole post and really appreciate your writing it. I will note only that as the parent of one child who was pretty bad at standardized testing (and went TO to Wesleyan, where the kid is KILLING it) and one kid who got a perfect test score (and is struggling a little academically in the early days of college, in a totally normal way that will pass but that my bad test taker never did), I have no illusions that testing is useful for…anything, really. 
Confirmed: Wesleyan does require students who enroll to submit test scores, even if they applied TO.
Glad to hear your S (as I recall it is your son) is thriving at Wesleyan, and I’m sure your other child will make the adjustment. One of mine had that experience her freshman year. In her case, the spectre of lost playing time in her sport was sufficient to jolt her out of whatever it was that informed her that continued “mailing it in” was going to keep working (as it had in high school).
Agreed the SAT is flawed, but it is only one factor along with the GPA that is considered in a holistic process that has worked well before the pandemic. Applicants below the stated score average are often admitted with high GPAs.
Once again, the NESCACs dominate the LACs (8 out of the top 20) ranked in Forbes’ “America’s Top Colleges” list:
This is an amazing initiative from Trinity College!
This program seems like it could be much more impactful than was Trinity’s former QuestBridge partnership, from which it withdrew.
It also looks as though Trinity has also done away with the $65 application fee for this year’s admissions cycle
Wait. Only two NESCACs make this “Best College Dining” list? Where’s Bowdoin!!!
The 20 Colleges With the Best Food, Campus Dining - Business Insider
Shout out Bates #6, Wesleyan #20.
Yeah, but where it is required, it is a disqualifying factor for those who for whatever reason don’t perform well on that test, even if they otherwise show they have the academic ability to excel. Once it’s in the mix, below specified or unspecified thresholds, a bad test score can bury you regardless of what else you proffer. Hence, “text flexible” or “test optional”. Let the adcoms look at the kid with the information that is presented and the context of what’s missing and let them decide.