Could be that students who do well as math or CS majors in college find SAT or ACT math to be relatively easy, so they have high scores on at least the math section, so they may be more prone to wanting to show those high scores to colleges.
The keyword here is average. If another admission criterion (say, GPA or essay) were made optional, admits who submitted such optional items would also almost certainly average higher parental earnings than those who didn’t.
1 Like
I don’t think that’s necessarily true. Test scores tend to be a relatively strong point of application for wealthier students, while GPA tends to be a relatively strong point of application for lower income students.
So it follows that at selective colleges, lower income kids are expected to be overrepresnted in the test score is weak point of application group that benefits from test optional where admissions focuses on GPA instead of score, and wealthier kids are expected to be overrepresnted as GPA is weak point of application that benefits from GPA optional where admission focusses on score instead of GPA.
The point may be more clear when instead thinking about less loaded groups, such as gender. Women average higher GPA than men at all levels of education from elementary school to college, but women do not average higher combined test scores than men. This leads to test scores being more likely to be a relatively strong point of application for men, and a relatively weak point of application for women. Women average higher GPA than men, yet they are still overrepresented among test optional admits. I’d expect men to be overrepresented as GPA optional admits for similar reasons. GPA is more likely to be a relatively weak point of application compared to test scores for men.
4 Likes
I was sure this topic had been discussed to death, but why not keep it going….?
I am a tutor and much of my work includes prepping students for the SAT/ACT. Test optional is mostly better for all students. Test scores might be helpful for a small subset of students who get poor grades for whatever reason, but who are great test takers. For tippy top students, high test scores can confirm what is evident from the rest of the application, but they aren’t necessary at all.
The most solid evidence to prove that test optional is better for students comes from a study released by Bates College, when data was presented at a 2004 NACAC conference. Bates gathered the data over a span of twenty years. The most important findings were:
graduation rates between submitters and non-submitters varied by only 0.1%, and average Bates GPAs varied by only 0.05%. In addition, non-submitters had slightly higher graduation rates. Even though SAT scores of non-submitters were 160 points lower than scores of submitters at Bates, these test performance discrepancies did not correlate to significant differences in widely-used measures of college success.
It is hard to argue, in the face of those facts, that test scores are necessary for any college in order to consider admitting an applicant. It is obvious that students who apply test optional can succeed.
Test optional policies are beneficial to students. Testing is expensive, causes stress, and prepping for tests is time better spent in other ways. It seems ACT/SAT are of no real benefit to anyone in a world where well-off students can afford test prep and less affluent students can’t. (*See comment below.)
However, I completely understand why some colleges might find it a useful point of reference, such as with MIT’s rationale for reinstating test score requirements.
That said, as long as colleges give students the option, people will still do test prep. As a private tutor, I can attest to the power of good test prep in terms of boosting scores. Khan Academy is helpful, but it is no substitute for private tutoring. A tutor caters to an individual.
*Just a couple of years ago, maybe 2019?, SAT briefly added a metric to allow a college to see a test taker’s demographic. The explanation was that a college could consider the score in the context of the test taker’s demographic status. There was immediate backlash, and if I recall, the metric was quickly abandoned.
I can’t remember the details, but if anyone remembers this, feel free to share info about it.
3 Likes
the stress argument makes little sense to me. it is much more stressful for a kid with high test scores to apply to college in these TO times then it would be if tests were required. TO just shifts the stress from one set of kids to another.
1 Like
Tippy top students don’t need to submit test scores. The data shows why. They already have super strong apps. Furthermore, test prepping is way less stressful for tippy top students than for not-tippy top students. There are not nearly as many tippy top students as there are all the other types of students. In the post Covid college app world, students largely CHOOSE to do this, with notable exceptions.
How so? The kid with very high test scores largely creates their own stress by applying to colleges with sub-10% acceptance rates. But the average kid trying to get into UCF has NO choice but to submit. That sucks because that’s a public university and maybe the only nearby and affordable option.
3 Likes
how so? because the kid like my daughter with high scores is now competing with twice the number of applicants to the same schools and has to work way harder to distinguish herself from them. and now other factors that are easy to manipulate (or fudge) become more important.
also…I would rather my kid spend a little time studying for the SAT than have to spend a summer of her youth working in a lab or some boring internship to beef up her application. I am worried that over time, the TO policy is going to hurt our kids’ summers and childhoods. And yes, I know many kids have to work for financial reasons. that’s a bigger problem than we can tackle here and it’s sad. but at least let them work at summer camp or babysitting without worrying if it looks good enough on an application.
2 Likes
The handful of college counselors I know think that the increase in TO has made college applications more stressful and less predictable for students. Students stress over whether to submit, how to show interest, etc in an environment where the number of TO schools has almost doubled and many more schools can get an app through the push of a button. It has increased applications at most schools, and one has to suppose that they like having a bigger pool to choose from.
In general, I think the most immediate benefit is to kids who don’t test well without prep. Kids who needed prep no longer need to spend time bringing up scores and kids who can’t afford the prep they need are no longer disadvantaged. They are all now able to throw their hats in the ring.
Colleges have to find other markers for the qualities they want in students. There are schools who have done this successfully for decades. Others are going to have to catch up.
These tests tested a students ability to read and comprehend quickly and to perform a certain type of math speedily. For many courses of study, one of those skill sets will be significantly less important. And for many, a demonstrated ability in one will be helpful, even crucial. And sometimes, a natural “lack” can be overcome with time and effort, so it may not matter.
I suspect that many AOs yearn for some kind of standards that allow comparison between students . This is part of what drives students to other types of competitions where they can distinguish themselves against their peers.
There is no great or simple answer here. It’s likely that applicants will find ways to work the system in its new incarnation. At the same time, colleges will figure what works for them and what doesn’t.
The downside for everyone may be that the increase in applications - partly fueled by TO - has made it even harder for colleges to predict yield and many have responded by increasing the % of the class admitted in early, binding rounds. This is really hard for many families to navigate on a number of levels.
1 Like
Huh. I would rather my kids do the lab work, the (potentially interesting!) internship, the volunteer work, or other activities that would allow them to explore rich interests and grow intellectually and personally. Achievement on the ACT or SAT is pretty meaningless in comparison. And for the record, D23 is a good test taker who scored high and submitted tests – but I guarantee her ECs and essays got way more attention, because they accurately revealed much more about who she is and how she would contribute to college life. And those EC experiences can be really useful in encouraging students to develop a sense of direction for college and beyond (though they’re not just good for that).
3 Likes
Honestly, I think the best way to solve the unpredictability in college admissions is to limit the number of schools a student can apply to. If the Common App reduced the max number to, say, 15, it would make a huge difference. Yes, students can apply to more schools by other means, but I still think maxing out at a lower number would rein in the overall volume of applications. Students would have to make better choices, and colleges would not be able to game the admit-rate and yield statistics to the extent that many currently do. Limiting application numbers is a more equitable solution, too. TO is justifiable according to a clear body of evidence. Applying to 20+ schools should be unnecessary, but students will only see it that way if there are disincentives to doing it.
1 Like
but those EC experiences that are so valuable are hard to get, will become more competitive, and are certainly not an option for many disadvantaged kids.
And I still think the best and most useful summers of my life were working as a camp counselor.
Working as a camp counselor is a great EC (and it’s one of my kids’ activities). Working at a job shows character and responsibility. Those count.
When it comes down to it, valuable EC experiences don’t have to be hard to get. I think AOs can have a good (skeptical) eye for the kinds of internships or non-profits founded, etc., that depend mainly on family connections. It’s mostly about exhibiting commitment and depth of interests, and taking initiative. Of all of my D23’s ECs, only one was truly competitive. The rest were about diving deep into her passions and showing commitment by distinguishing herself within the activities she chose (earning honors, awards, leadership positions if possible, or just longstanding participation). With that record, and her grades (and perhaps scores), she got into most of her matches and a few of her reaches, so I really don’t buy the idea that you can only succeed in college admissions in the TO era with an uber-exclusive internship or by founding a 501(c)(3) or having your name on a patent.
3 Likes
Exactly…work experience is highly valued by AOs
2 Likes
One reason many high stat kids prefer standardized tests is that it may make the process a little more transparent than just test optional.
If someone scores 720 on SAT math, they probably arent getting into MIT.
People prefer some little nugget of transparent probability and taking out an objective standard makes it seem even more random and arbitrary even if it’s always been somewhat arbitrary.
2 Likes
Your child is not going to be admitted due to test scores. They are not the tipping point factor. They are now a minor piece of the application. When all kids submit high scores, they don’t make anyone stand out. Your child is better off spending her time on more important things.
I also,don’t understand why you feel it’s better for your child to spend time doing test prep than volunteering or baby-sitting. You can put those things on a job or college application. Those things teach skills. Test prep can’t be added to an application.
1 Like
I agree test prep isn’t better than other activities. maybe you’re right. but it doesn’t prevent you from doing other activites. and like others have mentioned test scores allowed one to have an approximate sense of what schools to shoot for and eliminate some (or add some).
we will see what the future holds but I predict more stress and less youthful fun across the board for most kids with TO. Not less. I hope I’m wrong.
I’m a fan of testing.
The way I see it is, it separates the 4.0s from the other 4.0s.
If one has a 1400 and one an 1100 - that is telling.
But I do agree that there are a lot more important things to do than test prep - and wish there wasn’t so much test prep - that it was a true gauge - which I know it’s not.
Still, I am a believer that it matters - because we all know activities and jobs are “enhanced” on apps - and the few that publish rates by both do show a higher rate of acceptance with test.
But there’s fantastic arguments on both sides.
5 Likes
The University of California Task Force on testing found just the opposite:
…standardized test scores aid in predicting important aspects of student success, including undergraduate grade point average (UGPA), retention and completion. At UC, test scores are better predictors of first year GPA than high school grade point average (HSGPA), and about as good as predicting first-year retention, UGPA and graduation. For students within any HSGPA band, higher standardized test scores correlate with higher freshman UGPA, a higher graduation UGPA, and a higher likelihood of graduating within either four years (for transfers) or seven years (for Freshmen)."
2 Likes
I feel similarly. OTOH, I realize that is easy enough for me to say given my kids (so far) have been great test-takers (both 1550+). So D22 submitted scores and D24 will do so as well. Nevertheless, I think it was D22’s essays, activities, and letters of recommendations that made her attractive to colleges. Plus the advantage of coming out a school with great college counseling (that seems like the most “unfair” advantage to me!). Overall, I have no problem with the idea that some kids who don’t submit test scores undoubtedly will get into the same colleges that reject my kids. So what? No one is ever guaranteed admission anywhere.
As a former teacher who knew some of my students’ scores, sure there was a loose correlation between scores and a students’ overall academic strength, drive, and intellectual curiosity. But I also taught some truly lousy students with high scores as well as plenty of fantastic students/high achievers with lousy scores.
Frankly, I even taught a handful of lousy students with high grades (generally because they had no intellectual curiosity and/or they contributed nothing to my classroom as a whole; some of them were so transactional in their quest for achievement that it made them high achievers but lousy students). And over the years, I taught a surprising number of fantastic students with lower than you’d predict grades (these were kids who could not manage to hand in daily homework or family/mental health issues got in the way of their performance, but their overall passion/excitement for learning energized the class and boosted everyone’s achievement).
I think parents and students are frustrated because they want a clear predictable formula that will help them predict their outcome in the college process. I get that. I would love that too, but I don’t think TO colleges are the culprit. In my observation, most people who believe that are disgruntled parents of kids with high test scores. I just don’t feel that way myself despite my kids’ scores.
6 Likes
Personally, as both a parent and a former teacher, I do not agree that parents who support the use of standardized tests in admissions decisions are doing so for predictability. Some, maybe, but I don’t identify with that motivation.
I would not want to enroll my DS24 in a school where the majority of the students are significantly above average in math, reading, or expression abilities if I did not have a more unbiased, standardized way of understanding his abilities in a broader national context. Doing so would be setting him up for academic failure and dropping out of college. I say this as a parent with a child who has 97% scores nationally, not perfect or 99% scores.
I’m not upset that Ivies will probably reject my applicant because he has 97% scores while they have thousands of applicants with 99% scores. That’s business. GPAs even without grade inflation are far too subjective and difficult to standardized across a single school, let alone a state or the whole country. While GPAs can tell you something about a student’s motivation in comparison to other kids in the class, they aren’t very helpful outside of that context. I’ve taught in schools where students could wait to turn in all of their work on the last day of the quarter and still receive an A and others where students can skip half of the assignments and still get an A because my administrator tells me that I have to give A’s to at least 1/2 the class.
I’ve seen this kind of grade inflation in big public high schools and wealthy privates. The most accurate grading I was ever able to give was in a poor urban neighborhood. The parents there were more interested in accuracy and honesty from us, or they were too busy to pressure our principal into demanding inflated grades.
3 Likes