I couldn’t help notice that a number of schools which bill themselves as test optional nevertheless post average SAT and ACT scores. Upon closer scrutiny, you see that in some cases, not even a quarter of the students submitted scores. It seems this borders on fraud, because the posted figures are very likely inflated, given that the applicants who had scores above the school’s average likely submitted them, but those who were below average withheld them. How can colleges get away with this?
The scores aren’t inflated; if anything, superscores are what inflates scores. The test-optional schools’ average ACT/SAT scores are still the honest averages of applicants that submitted. What’s your worry or anger about?
My issue is if a school is posting their average SAT/ACT score based only on the fraction of the students submitting the scores, prospective students don’t know what type of score is really needed to be competitive. I disagree with your assertion that the posted averages in this scenario are honest averages of enrolled students, when they don’t reflect the scores of as many as 3/4 of the students.
I think it is at least misleading. The average at a test optional school isn’t 32 or 1450 if all the 28 and 1290 students didn’t submit. You have to assume that it was the lower scorers who didn’t submit.
If students only had to count As and Bs in their GPA, the GPAs would be a lot higher. Most schools make students report all grades.
I agree - misleading. I know several LAC that come out and suggest you don’t submit scores unless they are over a certain #.
IMHO, there are two types of test optional. First, the school that is trying to attract more applicants so they can reject more students and lower their acceptance rate. I will also lump in the application fee as an easy fundraiser by attracting more applicants. Second, the school that is trying to admit more students because schools are competing for more customers. Being test optional gives them the loophole to admit students they never would have “back in the day.”
Do I think any of these schools a truly trying to admit students based on a holistic evaluation or are trying to attract a wider range of students? No. This is big business. It’a about rankings and/or paying the bills.
As long as you realize only a certain percentage of admited students’ scores are used in the average, I don’t see how this is “fraud”. It is what it is.
You chose conservative wording. Reported scores for these schools would certainly be inflated in most cases. Exceptions might exist, however, for test-optional colleges that require all students to report scores post-acceptance and also include these scores in their general averages.
Superscoring relates to consideration for admission, but not necessarily external reporting, and should be considered separately.
In general, it should be noted that inflated scores could serve to depress applications from specific cohorts of students.
Isn’t that one of the major reasons for colleges going test optional? To avoid reporting declining test scores and inflate the scores reported, particularly for ranking purposes.
^yes
I don’t understand the problem.
Don’t the same places they report average reported test scores also say they are test optional schools? So it would be obvious that only scores that have been reported are included in the calculation.
What would be the alternative? Making up scores? Figuring in zeros for unreported scores? Forcing students to report after acceptances? That last might be the most doable, except it would probably feel like fraud to the kids who applied and were accepted to test optional schools to then be told they have to submit the scores after all. They might worry that even though they were already accepted, maybe they will be rescinded or it could effect class placements.
Sounds like some people just don’t like the test optional trend that’s happening and are using this as a reason to criticize it.
I don’t really care what method colleges use for admissions, but I believe in transparency. The colleges using test optional could note that in reporting the scores, these are the scores only of the 40% who chose to submit, or, these scores are about 20% higher than the likely median score, or whatever. The AOs I spoke with think the current reporting is clearly and intentionally deceptive
Fwiw, many students apply with only an SAT or ACt at test required schools but the schools may ask their matriculating students for both and report out on them in the cds. This kind of info may be useful to the school but less so to an applicant. As long as number of students enrolling and number submitting scores included in cds is reported, I don’t think there is a problem.
FWIW, the AO I spoke with suggested thay for private schools, graduation rates were much more indicative of the scholastic quality of the student body than reported test scores in those schools. I began checking those, and it was enlightening.
The common data sets indicate what percentage of students submitted scores. It’s all right there. At Bowdoin, for example, 53% submitted SAT scores and 52% submitted ACT scores for the 2017 class.
It is a problem, garden, when outside of CC, very few people actually look up the common data set where the accurate info is buried in the fine print
The Common Data Set doesn’t enforce perfectly uniform standards for data reporting.
It probably can’t.
So the reported test scores, GPAs, class sizes, S:F ratios, etc., can show quite a bit of variation.
The differences may be attributable to anything from vague/ambiguous instructions to outright fraud.
The students who report scores to TO colleges presumably don’t represent a random sample of all students. I think it is very likely that if test optional schools started requiring test scores from all students, their reported averages would drop. I wouldn’t go so far as to call this fraud, but we’re not getting true apples-to-apples comparisons.
Since these figures overlap, the percentage of students that submitted neither the SAT nor ACT as applicants remains unclear. At Bowdoin the figure for attending students who were accepted on this basis typically falls between 1/4 and 1/3, though this cannot be determined from the CDS.
I think superscoring is more “fraudulent” because that’s not always disclosed. And it IS for external reporting. It’s to help them, not you.
Also, schools that accept incoming freshmen for the winter semester instead of the fall so they can get away with not reporting lower scores and grades. USC does this on a large scale. Sneaky, sneaky!
Why make test scores OPTIONAL? If a college doesn’t believe test scores are useful, why not remove the requirement for EVERYONE? Every applicant should be judged on the same basis. Why play games?
@1NJParent But at test-optional schools, isn’t that exactly what they’re doing? The test scores are no longer required for anyone. They’re optional for everyone. Any student can decide to submit scores or not. Just like AP courses or SAT2 scores or student-work portfolios, they become part of the student application package that is then evaluated holistically I don’t get how that’s playing games.