Yes. If they are capable of ignoring the lack of a submitted score under their 6 sub-category system, then they are equally capable of ignoring a low submitted score under that system.
But instead of telling all applicants to submit a score and letting their experienced admissions department decide whether the score is helpful for a particular candidate, they tell 17 year old kids to decide whether their own score is helpful and submit accordingly.
I find it difficult to believe that Duke actually thinks that a 17 year old applicant experiencing the college admissions process for the first time in their life is better positioned to determine whether a score should be used in an evaluation than its own admissions department that reviews thousands of applications every year.
I think it is more plausible to assume that how Duke wants to portray its test optional policy to the public is not the same as how its test optional policy works in practice.
I donât disagree with this, but if they require a test many FGLI and URM students just wonât apply (data show this).
I doubt Duke admissions thinks this either. Experienced counselors arenât always sure whether a student should submit tests or not to a given schoolâŠand these schools know that.
It seems clear some TO schools believe that getting more applicants from the types of students that they are trying to reach takes priority over the confusion/should-I-submit-or-not dilemma that test optional policies have created.
Indeed, this is likely why the few remaining colleges that wanted SAT subject tests before discontinuation mostly listed them as ârecommendedâ instead of ârequiredâ.
Could it be that the majority of admitted students (35%) who didnât submit test scores to Duke come from areas that are outside of high-stat school districts?
Encouraging increased diversity in terms of geographic, socioeconomic, ethnic background, and non-scholastic achievements/attributes has been a long-standing institutional priority for schools like Duke.
Implementing a test optional policy where the test result (if submitted) is evaluated in the context of each individualâs application is in keeping with their holistic policy.
A test optional policy helps accomplish many institutional goals without encumbering the institution with a paper trail that risks a scenario in which unfair bias can be claimed.
Itâs possible that only kids who are not in high-stat school districts get in test optional. However, several other posters in this thread have guessed the opposite â itâs only kids who are from well known high schools (HSs that typically have high average scores) that get in test optional, so if the college doesnât know your HS well, you wonât get it without scores. Some posters have also guessed that it primarily relates to hooks/diversity, so only kids who fulfill special institutional needs get in test optional, and unhooked ORMs have to submit scores, regardless of their HS. Itâs also possible that there is no secret agenda and Duke largely does what they say they do, which is base evaluations of the 5 available broad categories instead of 6, with the 6th is not available. I see no reason to assume Duke is lying, if there is no evidence supporting such accusations besides speculation about what is possible.
How does one efficiently and effectively compare 2 large groups of individuals that have a dissimilar number of characteristics to evaluate?
Are you suggesting that they ignore the 6th characteristic when the comparison is with an individual who only has 5? If so, no applicant should submit a test score unless the result is the absolute highest value.
How does one efficiently and effectively compare 2 large groups of individuals that have a dissimilar number of characteristics to evaluate?
Are you suggesting that they ignore the 6th characteristic when the comparison is with an individual who only has 5? If so, no applicant should submit a test score unless the result is the absolute highest value.
How did they previously compare applicants when some submitted varying types of AP/IB/AMC/⊠scores and others did not? I expect they evaluated based on the varying combination of material this is available in the application docket, rather than base evaluations on estimations of scores that are not present in the application.
Dukeâs website implies they do something similar for test optional. The 2 readers rate the applicants on a scale of 1-5 in 5+ broad categories for test optional applicants and 6+ categories if the reader submits scores. They do not list a rating for scores, unless scores are submitted. I added the â+â because some applicants submit additional material to be considered, such as portfolios to be reviewed, which also receives a rating on the same 1-5 scale.
This implies that students should submit scores, if the score adds to the profile beyond the available 5+ sections that would be used in the evaluation, if no scores were present. And the student should not submit scores, if the score hinders the profile beyond the available 5+ sections that would be used if no scores were present (or if they donât take the test, which is the case for many students). This isnât the same as saying, âno applicant should submit a test score unless the result is the absolute highest value.â
[/quote]
I see no reason to assume Duke is lying, if there is no evidence supporting such accusations besides speculation about what is possible.
[/quote]
Conversely, I see no reason to assume Duke is telling the truth, given the long history of deception in college admission practices (not just at Duke).
At an extremely competitive school like Duke where admitted applicants can be expected to have superlative scores (5), why would any applicant submit a score of 4 or lower and take the risk of hindering his/her profile? In essence, arenât we saying the same thing?
I imagine that many universities consider applicants in context. An applicant who attends a HS school that does not offer AP courses is not penalized for not taking the class or exam. However, an applicant who attends a HS school that offers a plethora of AP courses and does not take many AP courses (when competing applicants from the same HS do) might be penalized for not demonstrating sufficient academic rigor.
Isnât it possible that they are doing the same with the SAT/ACT exam- evaluating the test result and the decision to submit in context of the individual?
The 1-5 ratings I am referring to are admission officer short-hand ratings of applicants, which are used to distinguish applicants from one another. Most (no?) applicants get straight 5âs in all categories. Matriculating students who have asked to review their admission file often see some 3âs.
In any case, prospective applicants donât see these internal admission officer ratings of applicants. They do see the previously referenced class profile page that lists score ranges, and some do use them as a reference to help decide whether to submit scores or not. Itâs one factor, but far from the only factor.
For example, the study at https://edworkingpapers.com/sites/default/files/ai23-843.pdf found that among kids whose test scores were at the published 25th percentile of class profile, ~80% submitted scores if the collegeâs website language suggested scores were important compared to only ~25% if the collegeâs website language suggested scores were not important.
The 3 dimensions by which the websiteâs score importance language was evaluated were:
Why does the college say they are test optional?
What does the college say is the testâs role in admission?
Does the college encourage applicants to submit scores?
Isnât it possible that they are doing the same with the SAT/ACT exam
As discussed earlier, itâs certainly possible that Duke is doing that or a plethora of other things besides what they claim they are doing, but itâs just speculation without any evidence.
"Three Dartmouth economists and a sociologist then dug into the numbers. One of their main findings did not surprise them: Test scores were a better predictor than high school grades â or student essays and teacher recommendations â of how well students would fare at Dartmouth. The evidence of this relationship is large and growing, as I explained in a recent Times article.
A second finding was more surprising. During the pandemic, Dartmouth switched to a test-optional policy, in which applicants could choose whether to submit their SAT and ACT scores. And this policy was harming lower-income applicants in a specific way.
The researchers were able to analyze the test scores even of students who had not submitted them to Dartmouth. (Colleges can see the scores after the admissions process is finished.) Many lower-income students, it turned out, had made a strategic mistake.
They withheld test scores that would have helped them get into Dartmouth. They wrongly believed that their scores were too low, when in truth the admissions office would have judged the scores to be a sign that students had overcome a difficult environment and could thrive at Dartmouth."
Hereâs the gift link to the Dartmouth decision, below. I support Dartmouth doing what is best for them.
I find this point interesting:
As the four professors â Elizabeth Cascio, Bruce Sacerdote, Doug Staiger and Michele Tine â wrote in a memo, referring to the SATâs 1,600-point scale, âThere are hundreds of less-advantaged applicants with scores in the 1,400 range who should be submitting scores to identify themselves to admissions, but do not under test-optional policies.â
The issue is these students arenât going to apply at all when they see Dartmouthâs mid 50% test score ranges. Lots of prior data support they wonât apply. Many of these studentsâ HS counselors will also tell the students not to apply. Not sure how Dartmouth intends to make sure they are getting some proportion of these students to apply.
Regardless, as the saying goes, I am sure Dartmouth will continue to attract many applicants, and could fill their class many times over with the high proportion of qualified applicants in the pool.
I am well aware of that. I am aligned with the findings of the report and remained convinced that any and all universities are better with more standardized tests and less personal opinion from AOs.
Dartmouthâs policy will have interesting impact wrt to a state like California which has eliminated testing for the in-state public UC/CSU. As a result, only the top kids aiming for private or OOS schools will sit for the test. Even if the test is free, and offered at their HS, Iâd bet few âless advantagedâ students will sit for it; just not worth the time to send an app to a highly selective school when the instate publics are available.