Bowdoin has been test-optional since 1971, Bates has been test optional since 1885, Denison since 2008, and I haven’t seen that they have been suffering all that much. American University has been test optional since 2010, and GWU has been test optional since 2016, and they also don’t seem to have issues with placing their graduates.
5 Likes
I agree with this but it’s probably only to help certain students get into more selective schools. If you are upper middle class, a high standardized test score probably wont help you.
It’s basically a lose/lose for suburban kids. Score poorly, it’ll negatively affect your application. Score well, and it’s immaterial, as it’s to be expected.
2 Likes
Exactly how? If colleges remain test optional or test blind, their scores won’t matter, but if they reinstate them, they will, once again, have all the benefits of an affluent life helping them.
Moreover, a kid who has their own room, help with homework and a quiet place to do it, who has the time and money for extracurricular activities, who sees doctors and dentists regularly, who had vacation time, etc., is already two laps ahead.
So they have already won a great K-12, and have won great conditions to take tests. In general, they have won in life, compared to lower income kids in the same situation.
2 Likes
Doesnt it depend on how schools actually use the SAT scores. For example, if a school reinstates mandatory SAT, then it can punish higher income kids with a 1460 and give a huge bump up for lower income kids who score a 1430 and it may not affect the upper income kids who gets a 1550.
Just because an upper income kid scores higher doesn’t mean it will actually help them in the admissions process.
You are saying, “It can” and “may not”. Do you have anything on which you based this “fear”?
I am also puzzled why you are so worried that low income kids may get a bump.
1 Like
Per this article, it seems clear that schools are trying to bring out low income kids who don’t submit SAT scores because their scores are far below the median score. Otherwise, they would submit.
Im not “worried”. Im saying it’s a lose/lose for the suburban kid no matter how high they score. It’s a waste of time and resources and hand wringing over a test which isnt going to help them at all. Why even bother if people just “expect you to do well”.
Let’s just be honest about what’s happening.
2 Likes
I am always telling my kids how lucky they are to have these things (my childhood was a bit more chaotic), but they just roll their eyes 
I disagree. It’s only a “lose” situation for affluent kids with poor/mediocre scores. How is it a lose situation for high-scoring suburban kids? At worst it’s neutral.
A good score is still a win for kids from affluent backgrounds, even if you assume it’s expected, because they’re now ahead of those mediocre/low scorers instead of equal to them (in that one metric. And scores will always be only one metric of many used to evaluate a student.)
It’s a lose/lose because of the cost/benefit.
They have to prepare for a test that will probably at best be neutral. And at worst, could hurt them if they don’t do well.
It’s a waste of time and resources that yields very little for that demographic group, especially at elite universities.
That’s their job. They will appreciate it. Eventually. Most likely when their kids are growing up.
What’s happening is that somebody cares about the futures of low income kids.
I fail to see what’s wrong with colleges trying to provide more opportunities for people who have had few opportunities in the lives, and yet have done a good amount. I also fail to see why people who have been afforded a lot of opportunities need to get upset by this.
No, what they’re saying is that they need to stand out compared to the other 10,000 kids from the top 20% by income with similar advantages of wealth, and similar test scores. Why should a private college admit yet another wealthy suburban kid with an SAT with the college’s mid-50% range, compared to a kid from a lower income family who is standing out among all other kids of similar SES?
You are again falling into th etrap of believing that admission to this small group of very popular private colleges is a prize to the kids with the highest GPAs and test scores. They all want students who stand out, in one way or another. For a kid from a suburban family which makes $250,000 a year, getting a 1510 on their third SAT after prep is not something that will make them stand out. For a kid from the bottom 40% by income, who needs to work to help support the family, who has untreated medical issues which are too expensive, and who shared a room with two much younger siblings, and still has a GPA of 4.0, and SAT score of 1480 makes them stand out.
Finally, if you remember about “buckets” for admissions, you would also know that these colleges are not Rejecting a High-SAT Suburban Kid In Favor Of An Low-SAT Poor Kid. They are just increasing the pool of low income kids from which to select kids from their “low income family” bucket. The kids in the “wealthy but not super-wealthy” bucket compete with each other for places in the “bucket”. Since most of the kids who are considered for this bucket have high SAT scores, it becomes a requirement.
1 Like
Exactly. A suburban kid from an upper income family is not going to stand out with a 1510, 1530, 1560.
It pretty much doesnt matter how well they do. So why are they even bothering taking this test?? Why do they waste a single minute on test prep?
How is it a waste of time to “prove” their GPA is more than effort, by backing it up with a strong standardized score?
I’m not sure what you mean by cost/benefit. Surely all the other affluent boosts (private coaching for sports, private music lessons, private college counselor, private tutoring for classwork, etc.) cost more than taking the SAT and ACT a couple times each?
Not everyone prepares for the tests. My kids never took a SAT prep class nor tutoring and my current junior didn’t even use Khan or Bluebook, nor take any practice tests at home. They both had scores that wouldn’t knock them out of contention at any elite university.
I still say scores only hurt those with poor/mediocre scores; they don’t hurt affluent kids with high scores nor low ses kids with scores well above their school average.
Let me put it this way. Would you do something where if you do well, you will derive little to no benefit but could hurt you if you fail. If someone offered you this job, would you take it?
Yes. Because it means every other affluent kid is also taking these tests. Let’s cut out some of the competition because their score doesn’t meet the threshold.
eta: I disagree there’s little to no benefit. You snuck that edit in after I had replied;)
Requiring scores feels more fair, more like a meritocracy to me. All those other aspects that are evaluated in college admissions are more influenced by money than test scores when AO’s use them in context.
I think I only edited the part about, would you take the job part… No matter. It’s just a discussion.
If you see a university’s primary function as to be an engine of social mobility, that might make sense. And for some universities, that is their primary function. Those schools offer remedial high school classes to those enrolled, which is neither cost effective nor efficient but does allow a broad range of enrollment.
Some schools claim their mission is to advance the field of subject XYZ, or knowledge in XYZ, and if that’s the primary mission, then different criteria should be used rather than setting a minimum acceptable bar for admission at whatever level.
Regarding the idea that submitting scores don’t help upper income kids, they can only hurt them; based on the article you linked, I believe that conclusion is derived from the Dartmouth analysis. It compared admit rates between kids who submitted score and kids who applied with score, but requested that score not be considered. It found that among well advantaged kids, the admit rate was roughly the same regardless of whether students submitted score or not, throughout the score range. It didn’t matter if they scored 1300, 1350, 1400, 1450, 1500, 1550, or other value. The admit rate was roughly the same for both the affluent submitters and affluent non-submitters. This suggests a different conclusion from score doesn’t matter, unless you do poorly.
Of course, other colleges use scores differently than Dartmouth, so I wouldn’t assume this applies to all colleges. For example, Harvard’s lawsuit analysis suggests that scores influence chance of admission regardless of how high or how low, and regardless of whether the applicant is high or low income. A 1500 is better than a 1400, and a 1600 is better than a 1500. There wasn’t any threshold where scores don’t matter, regardless of high or low income. However, scores also only had a relatively small contribution to the overall application decision.
2 Likes
On the one hand, they’re saying SAT scores are a high predictor of academic success and yet they’re admitting affluent students at the same rate regardless whether they submitted a test or not?
“The SAT predicts first-year GPA at Dartmouth similarly for all subgroups we have examined.”
My understanding from @Data10’s post was: if Dartmouth had an admit rate of x% for affluent students with score y who submitted their scores, they found that the admit rate of affluent students with score y who did NOT submit their scores also happened to be x%. Is that correct @Data10?
1 Like
They are not going to come out and say “an Exeter education is a predictor of success”. Affluent kids tend to come from well known (to the AO) schools. They don’t need a test score to gauge true level of preparation.
4 Likes