Are test optional policies better or worse for students?

Applying to College
41

For my student (with an LD), TO is way better. At this point, it looks like he will graduate either #1 or #2 in his class. Tons of leadership, 4 years of 3 varsity sports/ multi-year captain of all 3, teachers can’t say enough about him, well rounded, and has done research in his chosen major, BUT he can’t take a standardized test to save his life. DS23 was diagnosed (gifted and visually dyspraxic) because I am a sped teacher and he had a parent that was very aware. He was lucky in that he was diagnosed and got the support that most students with his profile might not have, however, there has always been a learning/standardized test mismatch. He does well on projected-based learning, holistic testing, essays, showing his work in STEM, etc.

As a mom that knew his history with standardized testing since elementary school, I’ve always kept a list in mind of schools I knew were TO. There are amazing schools (WPI, Bowdoin, Bates, Cornell College, Lafayette, Dickinson, Muhlenberg, Pitzer) that have been test-optional for decades.

We took a practice ACT and came to the realization that 1) his test scores were never going to “add” to his application 2) To bring up his scores to anything other than average was going to take so many hours of prep (we’re talking 100s here) that it was not feasible, advisable or beneficial. Why would he give up time from the very things that make him a great candidate, and that he is passionate about, to spend those hours on something where he could never be above average?

While my son is an extreme case, I think it points out some of the hypocrisy of the admission myth of the passionate, well-rounded student non-test optional colleges say they are looking for. If colleges are telling us they want kids that are passionate, well-rounded, leaders, committed to a cause, etc. why would they want those same students to take time away from what makes them the unique individuals they claim they are searching for to cram for a standardized test that only measures their ability to prepare for a test, their test-taking skills or their parents’ income/educational status.

Rather than all (test required) or nothing (test blind), I like the test-optional middle ground. Some kids are great testers. Some kids have been labeled poor students by teachers and systems that don’t understand them, yet can show on standardized tests that they are capable. Some kids are in failing systems with no ECs and no one to write them recommendations. Some kids look at mastering a test as a competitive activity. Let those kids use the tests to their advantage and let the schools determine how to weigh that information for each candidate. There is little sense in giving the same weight to a standardized test for a BFA major as there is for a nuclear engineering major.

5 Likes
42

That is exactly what I am telling you.

Taking my anecdotal personal story down because everyone who wants to read it has already had the opportunity. Needless to say, I personally know that Khan and like cheap resources work.

43

Those were called SAT subject tests most recently before being discontinued. Before they were called SAT II, they were called Achievement tests.

Some colleges did find that they were better predictors of college grades than the SAT or ACT. But since they were the non-default tests, they became barriers to application against those who did not attend high schools with well-run college admissions counseling and advising.

2 Likes
44

In the pre-COVID era, there were also variations, like test optional for certain situations, or test required but does not really matter for certain situations, where the certain situations were that the applicant gained automatic admission by some other criteria like HS GPA or class rank, but other applicants had to send SAT or ACT scores that actually mattered.

46

In the dark ages I took the SAT once and got a 1450 (800 Reading) with zero prep besides sharpening my pencil and showing up. No one I knew spent any time “prepping” for the SAT or taking prep classes - including our class valedictorian (Princeton) or salutatorian (Yale) who didn’t do as well as I did. At the time I felt my SAT score was pretty reflective of who I was as a student (not as good in math by a wide margin but a precocious reader). Now certain type of students spend countless hours “prepping” so it is hard to say what the test shows beyond the ability to spend a lot of time preparing for a test. I didn’t say scoring in the 99% is easy but there are good number of kids that can achieve a very strong score if they spend enough time working on it - I just question the value of spending a 100 hours preparing for a single standardized test.

3 Likes
47

Spending time prepping is beneficial for students with test anxiety. It’s like exposure therapy. Test prep of any kind, including expensive prep, is not enough to make up for years of lacking educational rigor.

48

Yes, I took the SAT after a few minutes of “test prep”, which was doing the sample questions in the booklet that the sign-up form came in. That little amount of “test prep” seems to be unthinkable today.

I did not do any specific “test prep” for Achievement (later named SAT II then SAT subject) tests beyond completing the associated high school courses. Same for the small number of AP tests that I took. Yet it is common to see mention of “studying for the AP tests” (beyond just doing well in the associated AP course) around these forums.

100 hours of SAT or ACT preparation is probably using very time-inefficient methods. But that seems to be common.

1 Like
49

It’s also a way to drive up application numbers which in turn drives up revenues. And yes I know there are fee waivers granted, and AOs do staff up to reflect higher applicant numbers. But on balance it’s still more $ coming in.

@Data10 posted elsewhere that at a given TO school, salaries for those students who submitted tests were higher than for those who did not submit tests. To the extent you consider salary an indication of “career success” then there’s something to that, I’d say. Data10 did I get that correct?

50

The students face a lot of pressure to prepare for the AP tests outside of class. Teachers are often judged based on their average class score. This judgement is coming from colleges, too. A 3 used to be considered passing; now, it’s not as recognized as it once was in some (not all) AP classes. It’s a struggle for AP teachers, who are oftentimes handed students at the end of high school who do not have the foundational knowledge to progress at the pace that the AP curriculum requires. This happens in schools with good academic reputations, too. If the gap between honors or middle school rigor and AP is too wide, it must be made up with additional prep so the course pace can be reduced to what the students need. Speaking as a former AP teacher.

51

S22 (not a good standardized test taker) didn’t prep for any of his AP tests and got a 4 or better on all of them. The classes were rigorous and he’s an excellent writer so that was sufficient. There is a whole cottage industry around test taking that I dislike so that probably colors my views. I’m actually not anti-test, but I think TO is a fine compromise - for kids that want to spend the time or have an innate knack for these type of tests, use it as a plus. For other students, they can focus on other things.

1 Like
52

Could that be in relation to specific high paying employers and industries that specifically select for high SAT or ACT scores (from high school) among (college graduate) applicants?

53

This is an idea whose traction I really don’t understand.

D23 was a high level competitive athlete for over half her life. While she was training, she could watch a demonstration of a skill and pretty much emulate it immediately with fantastic technique. Other teammates couldn’t do that, and needed more hands on training and more practice to get as good as her.

Holding everyone on her team to the standard of, “well, D23 can get a skill just by watching, why can’t you” would be ludicrous and yet that is the argument being made with “Khan academy exists and it works for some people” Khan academy doesn’t switch up how to learn skills, it is just watching someone do the skills over and over.

Getting a skill immediately has as much relevance to being a great athlete as being naturally skilled at test taking. Is there an advantage to that, yes - does it necessarily indicate that athlete or student is the ‘better’ one over time. Not even a little bit.

Two of my kids are awesome test takers, one isn’t. All three are great students. D20 submitted her super high test scores, D23 didn’t submit any. They both were admitted to the same level of colleges, and that isn’t an accident.

1 Like
54

Perhaps. Hopefully they’ll chime in. That said, IME those industries/employers are a too small % of the total employers, or, at least “not large enough” to be likely to explain this difference.

55

But could those employers be overrepresented in hiring at specific colleges (perhaps in specific majors)?

The other possibility is that good SAT / ACT taking skills somewhat translate to other standardized tests, so that good SAT / ACT takers are more likely to pass other high stakes testing used for admission to schooling or fulfilling licensing requirements for some well paid professions.

56

True, but not the topic of this thread. Let’s move on.

57

All possible I suppose. Hopefully Data10 will chime in.

58

I don’t recall posting that. I suspect you are thinking of posts in which I’ve said at test optional colleges, test submitters admits always average higher parents earnings than test optional admits. I am not aware of any exceptions to this rule.

That said, I suspect that test optional admits do average higher post graduate salaries, largely due to correlations with field. For example, the Bates study found that test submitter kids had higher rates of becoming a doctor, lawyer, and chief executive – fields associated with another test barrier (MD, JD, MBA). Test submitter kids were also overrepresented in most of the majors associated with higher earnings.

It’s less clear at what step this type of major filtering occurs and how prevalent it is at other colleges. Are the applicants to math-heavy majors like math/CS more likely to be test submitters? Is the college reluctant to admit kids to math-heavy majors like math/CS who did not submit scores? Are the non-submitters more like to switch out of math-heavy majors like math/CS after being admitted? The answers may vary by college.

1 Like
59

I think this must be the part I missed, or misunderstood, or simply forgot. Anyway thanks for chiming in.

60

MIT:
After careful consideration, we have decided to reinstate our SAT/ACT requirement for future admissions cycles. Our research shows standardized tests help us better assess the academic preparedness of all applicants, and also help us identify socioeconomically disadvantaged students who lack access to advanced coursework or other enrichment opportunities that would otherwise demonstrate their readiness for MIT.

  • as a result, not having SATs/ACT scores to consider tends to raise socioeconomic barriers to demonstrating readiness for our education