I don’t believe those are reported in the new format. They simply give you a total score. IIRC you don’t even know how many errors you made.
2 Likes
My two cents is it seemed to me some of the colleges recently going back to test required more or less confirmed what some long expected–if you don’t submit, they assume you were below their normal range. They just don’t know how low.
I personally think this means if you are an advantaged applicant you should likely submit down to at least the 25th, barring information to the contrary specifically for that college, because they are probably going to assume your score was even lower if you don’t submit. And if you are disadvantaged, you should probably submit even well below the 25th.
That said, there is also evidence for advantaged students, it may not make much difference what you decide. And I also think for colleges that were already test optional, or maybe are now very positive about it, it also likely does not matter much.
But again, personally, if you have a score 25th or above, I’d almost always submit that barring specific information from the college to the contrary.
9 Likes
I agree with this, in particular.
My S24 did not have a score to submit so went TO everywhere. He was admitted ED2 to Wesleyan. He was strong by every other measure (4.0 uw, high rigor, top 5% of the class, leadership, recs), and combined with the fact that Wes has long been TO, that 42% of admitted students in the class of 2027 did not submit scores, and that he was a full-pay boy applying ED, we had no concerns about a TO application there (or to Vassar, Macalester, and most of the other schools where he applied, which have similar profiles/approaches).
All of that said, if he’d had a 33, he absolutely would have submitted to all of his schools (LACs, a couple of OOS schools, and one Ivy). I think it could have made a difference, particularly at the Ivy, even though it would have been just below the 25 percentile there but validating of his otherwise very strong profile. And if he hadn’t been quite as strong otherwise, I suspect a 33 would have been meaningful at a school like Wes, which is very TO friendly but still has a significant portion of applicants submitting.
4 Likes
Honestly, it makes me wonder about Vassar (39%) and less so Mac (58%). Hamilton (50%), Tufts 53%.
Why are they getting less TO rates than state schools or Ivies or other top schools?
Are they really letting in top kids? Or top kids grade wise - which with grade inflation, who knows. And we know many of these are taking full pay families.
Yes, we can debate that - many will say yes. I’m not buying it through the ranks.
Bottom line though is - no one wants their average to go down - so while one could make a case for students from lesser means to submit below, why would anyone, in theory, submit a score below the bottom 25%.
A school accepting that student is saying, we’re ok with our stats falling.
That said, the Vassars of the world have done a nice job marketing themselves - because today the far bulk of these kids have scores - but not presentable scores…or they would submit.
I’m not sure I follow your argument in the first part of your answer, but in terms of “why would they let a kid in whose score is marginally lower than the 25% score,” the answer is: the schools we’re talking about practice holistic admissions, and a few 33s from super-strong candidates who have something the schools are looking for aren’t going to drag averages down much. And given the assumption that no score = bad score, a 33 (an objectively really strong score, especially if a couple of sub-sections are 34/35) could validate the application of a stellar candidate where no score could lead to doubts.
7 Likes
Bingo.
There is an entire group of colleges which are suffering tremendous financial and pricing pressures. THOSE are the colleges where there is a big tension between allowing their averages to go down vs. the need for more full pay bodies.
Is Vanderbilt’s academic reputation and financial security going to be at risk by admitting kids at or below the 25 percentile (mind you, they already have those kids in their institution-- these are last year’s statistics!)? They are doing what they have already been doing- picking the kids they want to form the class. And as long as each kid has a “reason for being”, every individual kid does not need to have everything.
Vanderbilt already went through its “transformation” under Gordon Gee (the WSJ and other publications reported on it extensively). It doesn’t need to do it again-- at least not for a few more years.
A bunch of kids with low scores but tremendous “other things” will not shake the apple cart…
5 Likes
I think you’re missing what I’m saying.
There was a discussion on Wellesley recently and a student has a 32. Some say submit. And that’s it’s malpractice to say otherwise.
I said - and a few agreed - heck no - because the 25% is at 33.
Same discussion on the Vandy, Tufts, Miami, Wake Forest chat - although more there were of the not submit below the 25th percentile camp. OP has a 33 and Vandy 25% is a 34.
My point is - a school has a # - 33 - 35.
They are not looking for that # to be reported lower next year.
If they submit a 32, in theory they need to submit no more than 1 in 4, a 32 or lower. But there are hooked kids for that.
So every 32 they accept from an unhooked student they are risking having to lower their statistics next year.
And no school wants to do that.
So in some ways, Wellesley is better to let in a TO candidate than a 32, even though that 32 is likely a higher score than the TO candidate.
That’s the argument I’m trying to make.
Holistic is a word people use. It’s a nice phrase, like a consultant would use. And yes most TO downplay the test to considered.
But from a marketing POV, everyone wants their stats higher.
Vassar doesn’t want to show a 29 - or they’d tumble in whoever is doing next year’s ranking. They want you to see a 33 / 35 even though less than 4 of 10 are submitting the test.
It’s a game…but guess what, Vassar admitted an unhooked 32 is a problem for them…for the reasons I mentioned above.
Holistic is a nice catch phrase - but that’s all it is - or it’s cover for, we’ll take you, even if you can’t demonstrate your chops (via a standardized test).
If holistic was true, they’d say - submit your 27 - and we’d still love to have you.
2 Likes
A bunch of kids that won’t impact the equation.
We don’t know what those 25% are - they might be 20s or 28s.
But you can rest assured they are not going to admit a class where they have to drop the 33 to a 32.
So that’s where we can disagree.
Heck, Vandy panicked when their rank fell - and others like WUSTL, Wake, Tulane really fell.
You think they’re not concerned with the metrics they are reporting that some ranking somewhere will be using?
Some schools are concerned about rankings, some aren’t. Again…blanket statements wrt to college admissions often don’t work. Same as saying with an air of certainty to not submit scores below last year’s 25%ile.
Note that in USNWR rankings, standardized tests are only 5% of the formula…and at schools where less than 50% of enrolled students reported a test score for the last two years, standardized tests are 0% of the formula. So Vassar, to take on example, wasn’t assessed on standardized tests at all.
https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/how-us-news-calculated-the-rankings
6 Likes
And thus Vassar is gaming the system to have improvement. Every 5% counts.
Some schools are concerned about the ranking - like 99%.
Yes, Southern Missouri State probably doesn’t give two hoots - but - if they had something to nibble on, like we’re the #3 rated directional school in the country, you’d bet it’d be plastered everywhere.
And even if we can agree that in most cases, a 5% weighting isn’t doing much, they are still publishing the #.
And that matters too.
When I took my daughter to the info session of the school she now attends, she was mortified that the ACT splits were 21/27 in state and 24/29 out of state and she was well above. Her love for the place overcame it but she could have easily dismissed it for that reason.
So I disagree.
It has impact on so many facets of a school - who will attend, how it’s perceived, etc. And there are other rankings besides US News. Yes it’s the most prominent one - but if someone scores high in a different one, they’ll run with it.
I don’t understand what you are saying. The proportion of Vassar enrolled students submitting scores is decreasing…getting farther away from the 50% mark where their USNWR ranking would include an assessment for standardized test scores.
Source? IME it would be the other way around. Many schools that accept most applicants don’t care about their ranking. And most schools accept most applicants.
4 Likes
By Vassar taking so many TO applicants and we don’t know how many submitted (I don’t think) - we just know the % who enrolled that submitted - they can manipulate the system to make sure they don’t look bad in that 5%.
If I’m a rating service, I’d add % of enrolled students who submitted a test as a metric. I personally believe in it as do the schools that have added it back (regardless of the spin some put on it). There’s always been evidence that standardized tests are telling - and not just from the College Board but independently of them.
Obviously my other statement was made without data - but I noted while many won’t care, if they had a nibble of some recognition, they plaster it - so in that sense they do care.
Everyone loves to promote what they have - if a 3rd party is validating it.
Does anyone think that Mary Washington has the #1 Classics program in the country. They show up on no rankings lists - nor would they care- until this unknown publication said - they’re the best.
And they ran with it - and that’s my point.
“Other students agree. Mary Washington has earned the top spot on a student ranking of classics programs, besting schools like University of Chicago, New York University and Yale on a recent list by College Magazine . The online publication, written by students for students, features rankings of U.S. colleges, academic advice, student health information and career tips.”
Nah, I understood what you were saying. I just disagree about the way these schools are looking at/thinking about test scores in the context of evaluating individual applications and building a class.
8 Likes
Great to have an informed insiders perspective!!
Nice thing about CC is everyone can express themselves, but amongst mere speculation often lurks first hand experience.
6 Likes
Adcom’s get evaluated on a wide variety of metrics. Number 1 and the most important is the enrollment number and its sub-populations (gender, geographic, economic, balance, etc.) Go over substantially, and you’ve got kids living in the Holiday Inn and taking shuttles to campus every morning. Fun for a few days, but costly and inconvenient and TERRIBLE PR. (Parents hate it, and write nasty letters non-stop to the President, Provost, etc.) Go under, and every empty bed is missing revenue. Which one might think could be mitigated by over-enrolling NEXT year- which works sometimes, and doesn’t work at other times. Or accepting more transfers-- again, it works except when it doesn’t.
So admitting AND enrolling a class which meets the institutional objectives of the place (enough kids who play flute to populate the orchestra and chamber ensembles; enough poets and sculptors and gymnasts–not every single kid from Winnetka, Atherton and Chappaqua, etc. ) You get the drift.
Most people on CC ignore this metric in favor of their own made up “This is what’s important to the head of admissions”. I say ignore at your peril. A number which represents 5% of the US News ranking, for the three handfuls of colleges who find that metric a meaningful one, does NOT dictate how the rest of higher ed views their mission and the task at hand.
Colleges have to do many things well to hit their enrollment targets, and a few things exceptionally well, and can ignore a bunch of other things depending on institutional need.
Lopping off the bottom quartile of standardized testers in order not to displease the gods of US News who will use that number as 5% of your overall ranking is quite illogical, given all the other things which need to line up successfully. If you have the luxury that Harvard, Stanford, and a handful of other colleges- where your yield is sky high, even given the competitive arena, then this doesn’t apply to you. But once you enter the middle of the pack- adcom’s CAN’T just chuck the bottom quartile scorers, especially if they represent a population which is critical for meeting the overall enrollment target, making sure there are enough kids likely to major in English and not too many crowding into already overcrowded CS classes. And are likely to yield, and are likely to show up in August, i.e. not be part of “summer melt” where kids end up getting off a wait list of the college they liked more than they liked you.
But sure- make up your own metrics.
4 Likes
But those ranges seem to be higher than in a typical high school.
Yes, my comment was related to students want to feel they are at a “proper” school for them, not one beneath them - i.e. all we read about here is top 20 or 30 or 50.
My daughter’s ACT was well above what the school reported.
A 32 to a 31 or 33 to a 32 also has weight on a prospective student’s mind. If the student has a 35 and the school average has a 27 and the student is seeking a top school, you can be rest assured that will bother them.
From a marketing POV, if you’re going to be known as a top school - whether national university or LAC, you need to deliver stats that say this.
Few likely know that less than than 40% of Vassar’s enrollees submit.
But those who like to promote they go - likely do quote the 33 / 35 stat. It’s impressive.
My daughter was well above the stat that her school reported - and that bothered her immensely.
And I’m sure that’s common.
After all, when we suggest someone who wants to go to Ivy apply to name your flagship or Rochester, etc., you often get the response of despair, like that would be failure.
People have expectations - and those scoring reports help define those expectations.
And the school’s have expectations. People can downplay it and say they are trying to build a class and this and that - and that may be true - but I can assure you that they are trying to avoid any degradation of scoring as well. The class they are building womt include those who lower their stats unless that’s all they have to choose from.
As others have pointed out, the claim that no US college would ever do anything to lower their reported test score distribution is disconfirmed by any college that goes back from test optional to test required. Indeed, some of those colleges specifically said they were going back to test optional precisely so they can admit more disadvantaged students below their current 25th, and Dartmouth in particular put out data showing exactly why that was likely to happen.
But obviously people are free to believe whatever like. I just think it is important for people like the OP to know that there is in fact evidence available on some of these issues.
5 Likes
That’s a we will see.
I’m not buying it. It’s a great talking point for them to make .
A school that adds a test requirement do so IMHO because they want kids capable of keeping up.
Nothing has been disconfirmed.
Feel good talking points have been made.
More like, it allows them to cut a significant portion of the applicant pool quickly, and discourage no-real-chance applications.
Most* private colleges at the most selective level are not so difficult that students with significantly lower than typical academic credentials would have difficulty keeping up (especially when the colleges have lots of academic support services). After all, they want the super-hooked development admits and the most important athletic recruits to graduate.
*The exceptions would be schools like Caltech and Harvey Mudd.
5 Likes