If an example might create context, Bowdoin, mostly through a change in reporting practices, has moved, by standardized testing profile, from above Williams to below Hamilton. (These other schools, of course, have reporting standards of their own that should be considered.)
Maybe that’s what the colleges want – to become something different – and this is one of the ways they try to accomplish it. They have the right to build the kind of community they want. Unless you’re choosing a school based on how selective they are I don’t know why it would matter. And if you’re choosing based so heavily on selectivity I think you’re missing the essence of what the college is.
I don’t think test scores are the only way to judge learning and growth. If they were, why bother with the rest of the app at all? If you think becoming test optional waters down the pool, don’t let your child apply to TO schools. They’re not a fit for your family. There are a lot of TR colleges to choose from.
No one is claiming that test scores are the only measure of anything, for applicants or colleges. And yes, it is always possible to avoid those schools which, for whatever reason, are not a good fit. But in the multibillion dollar business of higher education, greater honesty and transparency is a good thing for all consumers.
No problem with colleges saying test scores are not important. But don’t say, they may not be important, but here are our selected (and therefore inflated) scores anyway.
However, standardized testing results are what visibly appear after colleges have admitted by holistic criteria. Having some interest in the former does not fairly indicate a dismissal of the latter. In any case, I’d thought scores were the general topic of this thread.
Test optional colleges do not believe test scores are not important. The movement is more about all of the issues surrounding access, and the disadvantages that certain groups of students have with regard to standardized testing. TO schools believe they can choose students who will succeed whether there is a test score in the app or not.
At the more selective schools, it is difficult to have an app standout that does not have a test score, as all of the other components have to be impeccable, and fundamentally overcompensate for a missing test score. There are certainly applicants rejected every year that may have in fact been accepted had they submitted a test score higher than the median, to give just one example.
I support more transparency in college admissions, but don’t believe that reporting test scores for a only portion of matriculated students is one of the primary areas causing consternation and/or confusion. Generally, this test data is knowable thru a variety of sources, including calling up the college and asking.
I am certain the information can be obtained, the question is why isn’t it volunteered? I know how to obtain the college’s Moody ratings as well, so what? The burden of candor is on those reporting the information, not on the consumer to dig it out.
All schools, whether TO or TR, accept some students with lower scores than those rejected for admission. That is not unique to TO schools.
"I am certain the information can be obtained, the question is why isn’t it volunteered? "
Couldn’t this be asked of every college, for every data point, and not just test optional ones?
It might shed some insight if those that do think it is fraud would state what they would need the data for? This will avoid any assumptions by others that this topic is a red herring for another issue.
“As it is, too many kids only look at the easy superficials. Do you understand what does matter?”
Colleges are pretty vague about what matters, statements like intellectual curiosity, change the world, make a difference are not helpful. And even if you have these things, you’re going to get rejected, as we can see from the data in the Harvard case. After all the info comes out, what if it turns out that Harvard wants white, wealthy people or white athletes. Then what?
Imo, on CC, we all get bees in our bonnets over one thing or another. But if the goal is to find match colleges (and match in the eyes of adcoms,) the right efforts are more than who reports what scores. What does it truly matter? All the talk about candor and volunteering is just nice. Is it productive?
The issue of transparency is matched by the question of what you can do with it. It sure seems most don’t understand holistic, to begin with. Or its components, like leadership qualities (not titles) or stretch, drives, openness and resilience. If the TOs give you perfect score reports, can you recognize the rest of it? Or are you still clinging to the notion that stats rule, this hierarchical insistence that you can measure better and best?
That’s worth considering. The better TO colleges are screening for this “rest,” for what it represents to them.
Being within stats range is only one part.
@theloniusmonk They aren’t that vague, if one digs in. Nor is it that hard to figure out. Ideally, kids would know better what makes them a match to the college- not just all this “dream” stuff about what you want, how they fit your hopes. And the common cry that, “But I was at the 75th percentile.”
Unfortunately, that’s what keep many top stats kids from the tippy tops.
Colleges are actually pretty transparent about what matters. Other than aprox. 30 colleges in the entire country, the published “here’s what we look at” is a highly predictive statement of who is getting in and who isn’t.
Does your kids HS use Naviance? No, if your kid is only the fourth kid in the last decade to apply to Beloit, your Naviance results will not be predictive. But Beloit’s admissions aren’t opaque… unless you are seriously challenged in the reading comprehension department, I can’t fathom a situation where you can’t predict with a reasonable amount of certainty if your kid is getting in.
If y’all are harping about Harvard and Stanford then I can’t help you. But frankly, in any situation with single digit odds, that’s the case. What’s the chance that any given artist is going to win a Grammy or an Oscar in two years? No, not predictable. What’s the chance that professor so and so is about to win a Nobel? No, not predictable.
What’s the chance that a given kid is going to get in to BU or Muhlenberg or Goucher or Marlboro or Whitman or Lake Forest or U Mass? It’s not that hard.
The harping on Harvard- jeez. When you get to cherry pick- no, it’s not predictable. But for virtually everyone else? It’s not so hard. And the TO schools- honestly- what do they have to do with Harvard anyway? Harvard could go TO tomorrow and STILL have single digit admissions rates- trust me, the kids with the 580 SAT scores who think they now have a viable chance at Harvard? I have a bridge to sell you. Harvard doesn’t need to see your SAT scores to know if you’re in or out.
Intellectual curiosity matters because after the lazy river and the nice workout rooms and the great vegan menu options and the crazy fraternity parties and all the rah rah… colleges are still institutions of higher learning. And so colleges do- at some level- actually care about admitting kids who want to learn. or read a book. or talk to a professor.
Does Stonehill college care as much about intellectual curiosity as Reed or U Chicago? likely not. But if you tell me your kids stats, and I couldn’t accurately predict if your kid is getting in to Stonehill- well, I owe you dinner.
“Was he smarter or a better student after the increase? No. Same kid. Had he spent more time in tutoring (vs. all the other things that make him a great student and leader) he likely would have cracked 1500. Again, same kid.”
Ok but if someone learned something new during the test prep, that would make someone different because he or she has more knowledge or a different way of approaching a problem. Which is kind of what college is for. I did basic test prep (reviewing old tests I think) but I improved my vocabulary a lot which really helped for grad school and career. I was different because I used better ways to express my thoughts.
“And if you’re choosing based so heavily on selectivity I think you’re missing the essence of what the college is.”
Well not only do many people choose to attend based on selectivity but colleges market themselves as being selective. One of the main reasons people choose Harvard is because, guess what, it’s hard to get in. Colleges say they attract the best minds, students, again that’s to indicate how selective they are.
“you still clinging to the notion that stats rule”
where are you getting these misconceptions from? applicants in my part of the bay area (probably the highest stats part of the country) do not think that stats rule, in fact may a handful per 100 students say they’re applying based on academics and even with that, do pretty well with holistic tippy tops.
“Unfortunately, that’s what keep many top stats kids from the tippy tops.”
Many things keeps top stats kids from tippy tops, number of seats for one, and if Harvard is found guilty, being discriminated if your Asian.
Postmodern, almost all other colleges do provide this data, and it is considered significant enough to include in almost all college websites, so it is disingenuous to ask why we need the info. The colleges (even TO) obviously think it has some value, and at least some portion of the consumers do as well.
I never considered either Bowdoin or Hamilton, but it is interesting to me that their actual score ranges are about the same. People on CC spend hours debating why Stanford’s scores are a tiny bit lower than HYP. In the HYPSM case, the score differences are small, in the Bowdoin case, they are large. It is reasonable to find that of public interest.
Why do I ask if (the collective) you think stats rule? Because this whole thread is about getting more complete info on matriculant stats. And applicants do focus continually on stats, too often miss what the rest is about. They get their stats and that’s when they feel qualified for a top college. Or they don’t have the stats and ask if they can still get in. They flat out miss the “more.” That holds for kidsin the Bay Area, as well.
Enough about Harvard. It requires tests. It requires more than tests and has a web section devoted to some of the considerations. That doesn’t help kids match temselves…because they don’t find it. Lots of colleges lay it out. Who’s to blame if an applicant can’t grasp what intellectual curiosity or stretch are about, how to show it?
Where I work, the vast bulk of applicants, even with top stats, don’t get what the rest is. Transparency? Ifyou can’t find it and reason it out, good luck.
“The harping on Harvard- jeez. When you get to cherry pick- no, it’s not predictable. But for virtually everyone else? It’s not so hard.”
I used Harvard because their admission info is public, and we can see the impact of hooks, connections, legacy, athletes, wealth etc. And I agree, most colleges are predictable wrt admissions.
lookingforward, of course I understand what more the top colleges are looking for. But that doesn’t mean everyone does, and frankly, a bit more concern should be shown to the less knowledgeable and sophisticated parts of the population-isn’t that what transparency is supposed to help? So yes, I will tell less privileged kids with less superior scores that they will fit in quite well at Wake or Bowdoin or whatever, and not feel intellectually intimidated there (which can be a concern for some of my mentees).
But the impact of hooks or legacy at Harvard is not transferable to the vast majority of colleges in America- even other selective ones.
Your kid is a legacy at Brandeis or Smith or Vassar or Skidmore, and in terms of statistics is just over the mean of applicants? If your kid is a typical smart and hardworking kid from an over-represented area (suburban NYC, or Belmont MA) I will buy you dinner if your kid does not get in (notwithstanding a GC letter which lays out the 14 times your kid was suspended for picking a fight, threatening a teacher, cheating). See? Not that mysterious, even at colleges which are selective. You don’t need to be a mega donor, your kid doesn’t need to be an Olympic hopeful in curling or fencing or have had their Carnegie Hall debut.
That’s why I question the harping on Harvard and the notion that TO schools are committing fraud. Where’s the fraud, and why does Harvard’s practices impact anyone except for the kids who are going to apply to Harvard- the VAST majority of whom will be rejected?
And for the TO schools- intellectual curiosity IS going to be the finger on the scale. They’d rather have the passionate student who might not be the world’s greatest test taker if the kids grades and teacher rec’s indicate that the passion is coupled with a reasonable work ethic and ability to achieve academically. That’s why it’s NOT fraud. The fact that the kids who DO send in scores may not be representative of the entire applicant pool- so what? The fact that Yo Yo Ma got into Harvard and may not have taken HS French or Spanish doesn’t change the calculus that for the hundreds of thousands of kids who are not Yo Yo Ma, they need to take a foreign language?
Roycroftmom, I hate to say this, please believe it. But the less knowledgeable and/or less sophisticted may be less suited to any college that expects the awareness to learn what matters. Mentoring is good. It’s the way many, many kids get clued in. But I was referring to the bulk of our ordinary or “average excellent” kids out there. Kudos if you are confident you know what top colleges look for. But too many kids do not. (It comes through in many ways.)
“Postmodern, almost all other colleges do provide this data, and it is considered significant enough to include in almost all college websites, so it is disingenuous to ask why we need the info.”
I am confused – don’t they all use the same CDS format? What information is being released that test optional colleges withhold?
(also would like an answer to the prior question, but if you choose not to that is your prerogative)
If the purpose of going TO is, ostensibly, to level the playing fields for under-represented applicants, how do you expect these under-represented applicants have the knowledge of, and/or sophistication to learn, the intricacies of your favored approach, especially when that approach differs from college to college? Doesn’t it seem odd or even hypocritical?