My daughter was accepted to BU last year, class of 2026, unhooked, test optional (she had a 31 ACT that she did not submit), average EC’s, 4.0 uw 4.7 w if that helps at all.
For a relatively affluent applicant, applying TO can have some impact on admissions. However, with a GPA of 3.89, I don’t think that it will have a huge impact. What are her scores? So, for example, even TO, Brandeis’s mid 50% is 1390-1500. They also had around 45% of their enrolled students who applied TO.
The idea of “holistic” admissions is that they consider a whole array of factors, and TO means that it is being considered, not that it’s important. So if we look again at Brandeis, they have ECs and LoRs as “Important”, while test scores are “considered”.
While it’s always good that everything is strong, if her only academic factor that’s weak is test scores, than she’s in a good place.
Again, it may affect her chances, but when colleges are telling applicants what factors are important, and which are not so important, you can listen to them. Your daughter has does pretty well in the important ones. Test scores are “considered”, and as such, are not as important.
1 Like
Does your daughter have a shot at some top 50s - sure. She may very well land a spot in 2 or 3.
Still, it is important to manage expectations for her. When it comes to unhooked applicants applying to top 50s, there are MANY whose “Overall intensity of coursework is high” and whose “classes junior and senior year are college level” …and most of those will have impressive standardized test scores.
1 Like
I’ve been told for T50 schools that 1400 is too low to submit.
It’s not so simple to say “poor test takers” benefit. When someone doesn’t submit a score, the AO doesn’t know why a score wasn’t submitted.
They don’t know the difference between a 3.9/unsubmitted 1400 unusualness ADHD student and a 3.9/1100 unsubmitted.
So…. If you have thousands of students with the same rigor and GPA, no test score. You are only going to accept 5%-20% of them.
Once again, back to my original point — obviously, they are now giving more weight to the non-academic and non-objective factors — hooks, essays, LORs, etc.
I had an AO actually use the exact phrase, “test optional has given us more freedom to sculpt the composition of our incoming class”
I’m not judging whether this is even good or bad. But it’s a simple fact that a student who is 3.9, unsubmitted 1400, no hooks, will be at a disadvantage to a student who is 3.9, unsubmitted 1050, hooked.
1 Like
Maybe we should stop saying ‘top 50.’ Taking major out of the equation, is there a difference going to #49 Ohio State and harder to get into USNews #55 FSU or #59 UMD or others such #75Clemson or #93 Delaware. Taking a ‘top’ 50 says I won’t be happy with the latter four when frankly they are ‘equivalent’ and for student students or majors superior.
Or #42 Brandeis vs #68 SMU or #93 Denver.
Sorry. It doesn’t matter. No clue where an Arizona is ranked but if I majored in MIS for example, I’d be there. Or supply chain ASU or TN. English/writing maybe Iowa. Engineering - maybe WPI or School of Mines.
So when people say top 50 - they are really eliminating an entire lot of fantastic and likely equivalent schools and that includes many below 100.
7 Likes
Not all hooks are created equal and every college doesn’t “need” the various hooks to the same degree.
Being an Asian male at an LAC in rural Maine which has struggled with diversity is a very different hook than being that same Asian male at a state flagship in a highly diverse state (even if the flagship is in a rural area). Being a legacy at a U which rejects over 90% of its applicants-- if that “legacy” isn’t coupled with something else distinctive, really doesn’t mean much. (Look at Penn- where they are very transparent that if you are a legacy, you need to apply early in order for your legacy status to even register as a “tip”).
I would love to see data that shows that the 3.9 unsubmitted 1050 hooked kids are in fact getting in over the 3.9 unsubmitted 1400’s. Testing isn’t everything (obviously) but if you’ve ever taught a HS literature class, the kid scoring 500 on verbal isn’t usually participating (or writing ) on Jane Austen or Henry James with the same sophistication as the kid scoring 700. Same deal with the math or chem class.
Are there exceptions? Yes. And that’s what the teachers rec’s are for-- particularly for the TO colleges. For the math teacher who can state that a particular kid excels in the classroom— which is why the kid has a 3.9 GPA which is not due to massive grade inflation and a “give the kid an A so you don’t hear from the parent” ethos.
3 Likes
we seem to be putting a lot of weight now on teachers’ LOR’s. I know some schools don’t even want them, or only want 1. I think it’s just not that hard for a kid, even a mediocre one, to have 1 teacher that is willing to write a nice letter. And once a teacher agrees to write it, they aren’t going to be 100% honest- they are going to say nice things. So I don’t think this is really going to be the factor that fairly and reliably differentiates the 2 kids with the same GPA but very different test scores.
I agree with the poster who says this whole TO movement is being used by colleges to allow them to sculpt their class as they choose, as well as to increase applications (and therefore lower acceptance rates).
Many kids (mine included) went TO because their scores were lopsided. I have strong writers/readers but they don’t do well on math sections of standardized tests. In every case, their verbal scores were at or above the 75th percentile but their math scores were between the 25th and 50th percentile. FWIW, my daughter did apply TO at a top 50 LAC that only went TO because of the pandemic. She got in with a nice merit scholarship. It was ED so I’m sure that worked in her favor.
4 Likes
I didn’t say they are getting in “over” the unsubmitted 1400. If it’s test blind, then the school doesn’t know either score. And the 3.9 unsubmitted 1050 is likely getting in at around the same rate as the 3.9 unsubmitted 1400.
If Student A has 3.9, unsubmitted 1400, mediocre extracurriculars, essays, etc. average rigor for their high school, and no hooks…
And Student B has a 3.9, unsubmitted 1050, average rigor for their high school, average extracurriculars, essays, etc they are first generation URM…
Which student is more likely to be admitted? Basically, since scores aren’t being submitted, who is more likely to get admitted, a 3.9 hooked, or a 3.9 unhooked?
Teacher recs, essays, they become very subjective. Teacher recs – Some teachers are better writers than others. It might be the greatest student they ever taught, and they still just write, “This student excelled in my classroom and I recommend her.”
Other teachers may give a glowing recommendation because they felt a connection to the kid or they are friends with the family.
Essays… some kids get professional help writing them, others write it themselves. Sometime a topic just makes a connection with the AO reading it.
And all that is “sculpting the class” – Not just looking for the strongest academics. But weighing the essays, the LORs, the geographic and racial diversity of the entering class, protecting yield rates, balancing the different majors and programs within the university, etc.
I’m not judging the “sculpting” as good or bad. But there is no question that it is happening. Most schools even acknowledge that “hooks” are considered more strongly than standardized test scores.
1 Like
There are students in this situation who I would strongly encourage to submit this set of scores, unless the AO said specifically not to. Each student and their situation is unique of course, as are the schools they are applying to.
1 Like
I think it was Chris- the lovely and helpful Adcom who shed light on this very topic. (I don’t have time to look for his post). But his overall message was that MIT didn’t NEED to see either the “unsubmitted 1400” or the “unsubmitted 1050” (obviously, MIT’s range is higher) to figure out which one is the stronger student.
I believe him. I’ve known enough Vals and Sals with perfect and near perfect GPA’s who were not motivated by ANYTHING academic, intellectual, artistic, etc. EXCEPT getting good grades. I don’t think your typical directional state college cares about what motivates the kid- it’s auto admit. But I think the “highly rejective” colleges DO care, and I think the kid with the 1050 is going to need a LOT more than being URM (per your point) to get admitted.
And in both the cases you cite- “average rigor” for their HS is the kiss of death, whether or not there are high scores, mediocre scores or no scores. In the absence of scores, EVERYTHING else becomes more meaningful- including a padded schedule of yearbook for an easy A in English, statistics for business instead of a rigorous math class, etc.
Yes, the kid from a public HS in Camden NJ is getting evaluated with a different lens (and rightfully so). But when we’re talking your typical suburban kid with high grades and low scores, the rigor needs to be there. And not “average rigor” for the HS.
1 Like
My D22 is also not a great standardized test taker. She had a 3.96 uw and 4.2 weighted and got in TO to Northeastern, Lafayette College and the transfer option to Cornell. She also got into UC schools on the west coast but they are of course test blind. She was waitlisted to NYU, Middlebury, Lehigh & Hamilton all TO. The only thing she submitted were 2 AP tests where she scored 4s.
1 Like
I think I’ll take MIT’s word for it. According to MIT, they DO need the scores:
“Our research has shown that, in most cases, we cannot reliably predict students will do well at MIT unless we consider standardized test results alongside grades, coursework, and other factors”
Depends on how selective the school, of course. I didn’t say a 1050 would be an auto-admit! I said if 2 students are otherwise absolutely identical, the hooked candidate has a better chance of admission than the unhooked kid.
This isn’t a secret – The schools admit they consider hooks and other factors!
So ok, a 2 kids with 3.9, 15 APs each, the best extra-curriculars, identical state awards… 1 kid is unsubmitted 1400/unhooked, the other kid is unsubmitted 1050/hooked – The hooked student will have a better chance.
That’s not true. It depends on the high school and depends on the colleges. There are plenty of kids who get into college who have never taken an AP exam. Not every college is Harvard.
And not every high school has the same variation of rigor. My own local high school — There is almost no differentiation in rigor. No APs offered until Junior year. No honors tracks. Everyone takes the same level of classes except for a couple of math tracks. Since there are no APs until Junior year, and there are minimal prerequisites for the AP classes, they are simply open to anybody who wants to take them. So the “average rigor” from my local HS is 2 APs by the time you complete Junior year. A small percentage of students have 3 APs. (if they took 2 AP sciences in the same year). A handful of students have 0-1. And no honors class differentiations, etc.
Yes. Exactly.
Again, it depends on the high school, it depends on the college to which they are applying.
Take Temple University… their median accepted GPA is about 3.6… Think every 3.6 student has 20 APs?
I dare say an “average rigor” student in an average school has a pretty good shot at admission to Temple.
I think the confusion arises from your changing the scope of your inquiry. In your OP, you asked about top 20-30 schools, and yes, for those, average rigor in any high school will be a problem. For most colleges, including Temple, ranked at #103, average rigor is fine.
1 Like
ok… But the point wasn’t about the rigor or anything else. That simply if you have 2 otherwise identical students (whether great rigor, average rigor, whatever), where the only differentiations are:
1 student has higher SATs, but neither student submits…
And the other student has either hooks or other factors that the school is looking for…
Since neither student is submitting their scores, the lower scored student who has hooks or other factors, now has an advantage.
That’s true for T10 universities as well as moderately selective universities.
If GPA and rigor are identical… and neither student is submitting standardized scores, then more weight is put in the “other” basket.
1 Like
The hooked student always had an advantage. In the absence of test scores, all other factors become relatively more important.
Many students in your daughter’s cohort (unhooked, at least middle class, girls) will have very good scores to report. Not all. All T30 schools are highly selective, even with top scores
1 Like
The hooked student always has an advantage – When all else is equal. But all else isn’t always equal.
Statistically, the switch to TO has modestly increased URM enrollment, so there are stats indicating that hook has benefited from TO.
I’m certainly not saying that TO has turned hooks into 100% admission.
Nor, just hooks.
Only that – In the absence of scores from 50%+ of their applicant pool, The Admissions Office has an increased ability to “sculpt” the class with other factors – Ranging from hooks, diversity, extracurriculars, essays, letters of recommendation, yield protection, demonstrated interest, etc, etc.
Removal of test scores – Takes away 1 possible differentiating factor, therefore increasing the weight of the other differentiating factors.
But look back at pre-TO… If you had a hooked 3.9/1050 versus an unhooked 3.9/1400… Would the hooked student really have an advantage over the unhooked student? (Again, doesn’t matter whether we are talking T10 or T100). I would dare say that the huge difference in SAT score would outweigh most hooks, in most cases. But now, they both apply TO… Suddenly, that hook becomes the only difference between those 2 students.
So yes — The hooked student always has an advantage – “when all else is equal.” And TO often removes one of the other things that might be unequal.
1 Like
You are correct. So your daughter will likely also be at a disadvantage compared to unhooked girls like her who do submit very high scores. Whether there are enough of those in the applicant pool will depend on the particular college.
1 Like
It depends on what is considered a “T50”. In most lists, that would include UIUC, Wisconsin, UGeorgia, and OSU these days, and at al of those, a 1400 would be a more than solid SAT score. However, at similarly ranked but more popular private colleges, like CWRU, a 1400 would not be worthwhile submitting.
Fair enough.
I think that we may disagree on the amount of information that the SAT score will add, but that is a different discussion.
And again I say….the very vast majority of college applicants do not have hooks. They just don’t.
1 Like