In what way would this suggestion encourage more applications? These schools are already test optional so any current “projected range” provided by the school is irrelevant now. Actually, I would argue that the current ranges provided by schools is entirely misleading as often only a fraction of the current applicants are providing a score, thus causing the range to elevate.
Perhaps it might be better to think of a test score as a hook - like being a tuba player. A high test score may (like being a tuba player) assist your admissions chances. Schools do not publish how many tuba players were admitted, why publish their enrollees’ test score range.
But, I fail to see how not publishing enrollees’ test scores will cause a flood of applications.
Wasn’t that why you made the suggestion? To encourage more applications from kids who otherwise would be discouraged by the published ranges, because some of those kids could be great fits? I am saying I agree with you — you would encourage more applications from those kids. But you aren’t just going to encourage great fits. You also would be encouraging applications from candidates who have no realistic shot of getting in.
The other factor is that it would be harder for college applicants to create a balanced list of target schools. Greater uncertainty around the probabilities of getting into the schools on a list would translate into longer lists.
No, trying to encourage or discourage applications was not at all why I made the suggestion. I’m largely agnostic on the number of apps colleges receive, but I am skeptical of their stated reasons for encouraging more applications.
Rather, after reading this thread and other similar threads, my position on TO has shifted somewhat. Earlier, I was pro-test, primarily because I took the test way back when (if I had to do it, everyone else should by God!) and because my child took the test recently and did well enough that she should be competitive everywhere (so it shouldn’t really matter for her). I do personally have a hard time wrapping my head around the notion of test blind for most colleges (excepting Cal Tech), but have grown to accept that as well.
But, if a college is going to be test optional, and it checks the box on the CDS that tests are “Considered” (i.e., they do not consider them important), then why publish the info. They are already TO so I do not see how not publishing their enrollees’ test ranges would materially affect the number of applications. It would, however, in my opinion reduce the angst as to whether to submit a test score or not. If you are proud of your score and think it supports your app (like being the drum major or NHS president) then submit your score; if you do not think it supports your app, then don’t submit and have other things that do show that you are qualified and capable of doing well at that college.
Again, in a different thread I noted my concern with the kids the past few years agonizing over whether to include their scores (usually between a 32 and 34 ACT or similar on the SAT). Their angst was solely because the score range reported by the college to which they were applying had risen 2 points or so over the past few years, BUT the percentage of those submitting scores had fallen from 100% to 50%. Those kids were going to submit an application an application regardless. I see no reason for the college to hype a legitimate yet highly flawed score range to boost their own image while creating significant anxiety on the applicants.
Ultimately, I do not have the answers and will be glad when this is behind us.
Here is the freshman class profile from last year that Duke published:
They seem awfully proud of their sky-high SAT & ACT scores. Duke is test optional. Is it possible to argue that Duke doesn’t value standardized tests when they are shouting these scores from the social media mountaintops?
I suspect they have institutional goals and needs, so there are “buckets” based on location, SES, special skills (athletes/musicians), etc. Schools that take need into account may also have “full pay” and “peasant” (hehe) buckets. The applicants in each bucket are judged against each other until X quota is met. Then, who knows, once the need/goal thresholds are met, maybe it’s a free-for-all.
I believe schools like Duke prefer TO because the test deters applicants who fulfill their institutional needs from applying. Having a poor test score on file could also dissuade the AO from accepting that applicant - which isn’t their goal.
However, if the applicant is the typical high-stat applicant without any institutional hook and lives in an area where there are a lot of high-stat applicants applying to the same school with submitted high test scores, that applicant should submit a test score.
They say they are evaluating all applications in context.
I think that this is spot on. We got some insight into this type of thinking during my D’s academic pre-reads. Coaches always asked if test scores were available and wanted to know the scores BUT they typically did not want them submitted to the portals until they gave approval. One coach at a T20 LAC actually said “if it is there it cannot be unseen but if it is in my hand someone can nod yes or no”. To me that was a pretty clear indication that a poor test score could become a barrier for AO’s that they wanted to avoid.
So, test optional isn’t truly optional for everyone. It depends on context.
I had posed this question on this thread, and there are a mix of responses.
(I agree with you)
Here’s another way of looking at it.
Suppose you are the Duke AO and you are reviewing applications from students who attend a school (or a district) that sends 20 or more applications to your office every year. If 18 out of 20 applicants submitted test scores (all very high) and 2 applicants didn’t and assuming all of the applications are otherwise similarly strong without any hooks, why would you give the single opening for next year’s class to an applicant who didn’t submit a test score?
But, in reality the idea of ‘similarly strong’ isn’t necessarily a thing. There can be significant differences in applicant strength and/or desirability even among the top unhooked GPA earners in a given cohort.
Quotas by HS are not a thing. Some years a given HS’s cohort is strong, sometimes less so. Acceptances often reflect that (among selective schools).
My point is merely a theoretical exercise.
As I wrote in a much earlier thread, an AO at a top 20 school made a similar point when addressing visitors to the school.
Yes, submitting test scores is based on a wink and nod-the coach or guidance counselor can check with admissions as to whether the college really wants them for that applicant or not, informally.
Because Duke considers far more than just test scores in the admission decision. As of 2023, Duke ranks applicants on a scale of 1 to 5 in six broad categories, 5 of which have nothing to do with scores. Admission decisions are well correlated with the combination of ratings in those six category scores. It’s not just a matter of choosing the applicant with the highest test scores. It’s certainly possible that an app reader might think someone who does not submit test scores is likely to have lower scores than typical admit, rather than considering that than a good portion of HS students choose to not take the SAT/ACT and have no scores to submit; but even if that assumption is made, it’s not the end all for admission decisions.
Duke’s website states the following for whatever it’s worth, and stats suggest a significant portion of the class is admitted without scores.
Students who apply without SAT or ACT scores this year will not be at a disadvantage in our consideration of their applications. Our decisions are based on a student’s comprehensive application materials, with or without test scores.
A college with a heavy emphasis on class rank could have something like a soft quota by high school. For example, getting into UT Austin with a class rank below top 6% would be a reach.
Duke was originally singled out because Duke lists a high score range in their class profile, which could be interpreted as showing off the high scores of test submitters. While I don’t assume everything a college says is true, is that a good reason to assume Duke must be lying and they really only admit hooked kids without scores, instead of using the admission system with 6 broad sub-category ratings that has been described and appears in students’ admission dockets when reviewed?
Looking in more detail about the high test scores, the specific ACT ranges for recent classes is below. While the test scores are indeed high, it’s not a huge increase over recent test required years. It’s more that test submitters at Duke continue to have high scores upon going test optional, like they did when they were test required. Applicants who choose to submit are expected to have scores in a similar range to admitted students, so the high score range should not be assumed to mean that Duke is focusing on having top scores over other admission criteria. Dean of Admissions Guttentag wrote that 35% were admitted without scores. With more than 1/3 of the class admitted without scores, that would need to be a lot of special hook cases, if they only admit special hooked kids without scores.
Test Required 2020: 60% submit SAT / 61% submit ACT, 25/75 range = 34 to 35 (matriculating students)
Test Optional 2023: “35% of admitted students applied without submitting standardized test scores”, 25/75 range = 34 to 35 (accepted students, matriculating may be lower)