Are Test Optional Schools Committing Fraud When Posting Scores Obtained By A Fraction of Students?

Parents Forum
161

Less sophisticated doesn’t mean illiterate.

I know many kids who are first Gen college students (or applicants) who come from HS’s where guidance counselors spend so much time keeping kids out of foster care or testifying in abuse cases that they don’t have time to figure out the differences between Penn State/U Penn/Conn College/U Conn… and it’s kind of arrogant to assume that those kids don’t know how to read.

They may not have the social capital to understand some of the nuances (which get debated endlessly on CC-- is Swarthmore more prestigious than Williams?) but if they are applying to college they know how to read. And a college website which lays out “this is what we look for in an applicant” is exactly what those kids need to read. If you have a choice senior year between “Writing for Yearbook” or “Modern Literature”- pick literature. If you have a choice between “Home Ec and Family Budgeting” or statistics- pick stats. I.e. an academic program-- the most rigorous one your school offers. Moreover, the statements that folks here can’t seem to understand (“we look for intellectual curiosity”) is again- exactly what those kids need to read. A grammatical essay on how your non-English speaking grandmother took three buses to take you to the library when you were a kid which is why you love to read now that you are a HS senior is EXACTLY what is going to get you to a second or third read at most any college in the country (assuming your stats put you in the running) even if you are first Gen, don’t know a thing about college admissions, and don’t have a single “leadership” role at a club or have never started your own non-profit digging sewers in Ghana.

A kid from Atherton or Winnetka needs some degree of sophistication to apply successfully to competitive colleges. A kid from a failing HS in Camden or Trenton does not. For that kid, just reading the admissions website and following the instructions is going to do the trick. Kids from failing HS’s who are rigorous college- ready-- despite their circumstances- don’t need to understand why Colgate has become more competitive or why being a male is advantageous at Vassar.

162

I agree with @Postmodern:

And I’m pretty firmly in the camp of assuming that the topic is indeed some sort of smoke screen for another issue. Precisely because of the inability to articulate why the test score range is in any significant for test-optional colleges other than information to applicants as to whether or not it is worthwhile or helpful to submit their test scores.

163

Oh for goodness sake it is not a smokescreen. That is just silly, and frankly presumptuous. I have explained already that an accurate test score readout of the entering class may be helpful to students assessing whether they wish to apply. Is that really so shocking to you that you have to imply other motives? Really?
How about an example a neighbor had happen. Kid admitted to both Olin and McCombs undergrad business schools. Both fine choices. Olin has SAT scores quite a bit higher than McCombs, and kid decided he would rather be a relatively stronger perfomer in a smaller pond, so to speak, than in a quantitatively stronger group with higher math scores at Olin.
So that my is why it is useful. If I had a similar kid, a little academically insecure, who was considering Bowdoin with an SAT score of 1320, I might have concerns had I only known the reported range of 1375-1550. Since the actual range is 1300-1500 Or whatever, I might suggest going for it,that there would be enough other similar kids that he won’t feel out of his league.

Apparently this never occurred to some posters

164

I think @roycroftmom has articulated her reasons quite well. It’s too bad she’s had to restate them, really.

165

“Apparently this never occurred to some posters”

No, I think it occurred to all of us with the other position. (And since you mention the word “presumptuous”…)

“If I had a similar kid, a little academically insecure, who was considering Bowdoin with an SAT score of 1320, I might have concerns had I only known the reported range of 1375-1550. Since the actual range is 1300-1500 Or whatever, I might suggest going for it,that there would be enough other similar kids that he won’t feel out of his league.”

Two comments on this:

  1. The kid you mention sounds like a perfect candidate to apply to a test optional school without submitting the score

  2. The percentages who submit are in the common data set. No fraud, no secrets, no difference from any other college.

“I think @roycroftmom has articulated her reasons quite well. It’s too bad she’s had to restate them, really.”

Respectfully, @merc81 , I disagree. The fact that roycroftmom believes the data “would be helpful” puts it in the category with hundreds of other data points. Also, as @lookingforward has pointed out so many times, it might actually hurt as it may insinuate statistical decisions which are in fact holistic.

166

This is not the case. As I stated previously, the common data set does not include a way to discern how many submitters included both an ACT score and a SAT score.

For instance, if 50% submitted only an ACT score and 50% submitted only a SAT score, the total submitting some score would be 100%. This would be reported on the common data set exactly the same way as the situation where 50% included both an ACT and SAT score, and 50% did not submit any score.

For me, the issue is the same as described by @roycroftmom above, plus the integrity of the common data set.

167

By this logic, colleges shouldn’t publish any data. That would make it clear to prospective applicants the holistic nature of college admission. Most AOs would surely wish their colleges wouldn’t publish any statistical data so no one can question their decisions behind the holistic veil.

168

“This is not the case. As I stated previously, the common data set does not include a way to discern how many submitters included both an ACT score and a SAT score.”

Have you not seen the posts questioning how that is different from every other college?

169

No postmodern, you still don’t get it. It is not necessarily the goal for all of us to get into the highest ranked college. Fit matters a lot. So before you launch into how the tests don’t reflect necessarily reflect ability etc, etc, let me state my position-the honest aggregate test results will tell you much about the class and the pace it sets, particularly in math. Yes, I think there is a real tangible difference between a class with a 620 math score and one with a 700 math score, even recognizing that some in the 620 class might themselves have scored 800, and vice versa. Classes are generally taught to the average, that is the pace set, and the curve expected. It can be exhausting feeling as though one is always struggling to Keep up with classmates who seem quicker in math, and it can take a real toll on self esteem, for some. Sone may love it. The opposite may be true as well for those at the top of a weaker class. So the honest numbers interest me to accurately assess fit, which some of us care about more than ranking.

170

It’s simple. If the school requires test scores, the test scores in the CDS represent all students. If the school is test optional, it is generally impossible to tell what percentage of students are submitting test scores. Thus for test optional schools, the value of the reported scores is diminished, as the reported scores do not represent the entire class.

171

^^^^^ I agree it is simple – but do not agree it is fraudulent, or intentionally misleading. It is answered the way the CDS asks for it, as all colleges do. IMHO the way they do it is essential because you need to know based on each test.

Also, these are the scores of enrolled and not admitted students, neither one provides data for applicants and acceptances, which is what the use cases presented seek.

172

I’ve been pretty dubious about the value of SAT scores ever since my best friend got a 790 even though she got a B in Algebra 2 and never took another math course. I got “only” a 740 and was taking Calculus at the time. This is back in the 1970s BTW, I know tests have changed. In any event we both ended up at Harvard. I took more math there, she did not.

173

We’re all “restating.”

“If the purpose of going TO is, ostensibly, to level the playing fields for under-represented applicants,”
Don’t agree. If much of this chat is based on the idea it’s about under-represented, yow. That can mean you are still seeing this hierarchically, who’s better than whom, as evidenced by scores. Assuming that not mandating scores is some shortcut to filling the class. Missing (yes, again,) what a holistic review can glean. TO does not mean inferior, it simpy focuses more on the total package, sometimes down to the itty bitty, just as top holistic TRs do, but sans scores (if not submitted.) And as we’ve seen, it works (at quality colleges.)

Under-represented kids can present as well as high score kids, sometimes even better. Maybe they don’t have the score strengths, or it’s lopsided, “not reflective of their accompishments and abilities.” (That phrasing came directly from a TO dean of admissions.) Readiness they CAN show and do.

“an accurate test score readout of the entering class may be helpful to students assessing whether they wish to apply.” But the problem is too many kids are not parsing, at all. Not evaluating beyond their own wants. Not checking the various bullets that make for ‘fit and thrive.’

If you want to pull the top rated schools like Bowdoin, Bates, ad others out of this generalization about TO colleges, then say so. There are many schools which bring them in as fast as they see them leave. TO or TR.

174

@Roycroftmom - (at #168) – *“there is a real tangible difference between a class with a 620 math score and one with a 700 math score” * That’s not how college works. The students with weaker math ability are not likely to enroll in the same classes with the students with greater ability --and the SAT/ACT don’t test higher math like calculus in any case. So it is quite possible that a kid who has not had calculus could score very well on the math SAT-- and a kid who scored lower but who has taken calculus in high school would be ahead of the curve as compared with the kid who hadn’t.

And there isn’t any “class” with 620 math score in any case – the data only gives you a range of scores of half the entering class. Are you looking at the bottom number? That’s a 25th percentile mark, meaning that 1 out of every 4 submitters has that score or lower.

Are you looking the median? That’s fine, but again the median score of submitters who enroll in a college not the same as the median score of students in any given class. For one thing the admissions decisions even at TR schools are influenced by other factors in the student’s profile. At a selective school, the ad coms are going to expect prospective STEM majors to have higher math scores --and they are going to be much more forgiving of weak math scores for prospective humanities majors. So when you look at the spectrum of all students admitted – that doesn’t tell you anything at all about the anticipated makeup of courses within a specific major.

So basically you seem to be expecting to draw conclusions from the data that simply can’t be projected out that way. No matter how complete, the data simply doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means.

175

Original Poster checking back in here. I appreciate everyone’s input here, I’ve learned a lot from everyone’s contributions. Just to clarify a couple of points though. First, my question as to whether colleges posting average SAT/ACT scores only submitted by a fraction of their students is fraud…this really is my question, I am not trying to ask some unstated question. There is no hidden agenda at play. My position is that when my kid is evaluating what colleges to apply to, it would be helpful if the colleges stated what the average SAT/ACT scores were for all the students who were admitted and enrolled, to assist potential applicants in characterizing whether a school, FOR THEM, is a reach v a likely, etc. or to assist in assessing whether a school is out of their range entirely and thus such a long shot that an application is futile. Publishing average test scores that do not reflect the achievement of all those accepted and enrolled, but only those who elected to submit them, is not reflective of the truth and is therefore deceptive. I think most applicants know college admissions is a wholistic exercise, that test scores are only one thing looked at, blah, blah, blah, but in the final analysis wholistic admissions does not justify or excuse deceptively inflated posted test scores. They are a very important criterion by which potential applicants assess their chances at admission at a given school.

This brings me to my second point. Someone above stated:

“But the less knowledgeable and/or less sophisticated may be less suited to any college that expects the awareness to learn what matters” I don’t know about anyone else, but I find this highly offensive.

Some people have said or implied that an applicant can arrive at a more accurate picture of a school’s average test scores by looking at a school’s CDS figures. Let me make an admission here. I am a lawyer by profession, live in a very high achieving school district and put 4 of the 9 schools on my older child’s college list, including the 1 he graduated from. I researched colleges and admissions for hundreds of hours before that first admissions rodeo. I used this site and many others…AND I NEVER HEARD OF CDS until my older child was well into his college career. My point is, if a person like me can miss something this big, what chances do the kids without engaged parents and with overworked GCs have? We are all not suited for those schools expecting that awareness of what matters?? I guess we should just accept our seats in steerage and defer to the elite with knowledge of such matters.

176

Probabilistically, they are highly related when comparing across colleges that are, with the exception of scoring profiles, homogeneous to each other.

177

But the point some of us make is that a TO college is NOT necessarily out of range, if you meet the critical other expectations. D1 got into a great TO without score superiority (lopsided, I think she did report) and fared very well. But she did match everything else they wanted. None of the score related issues impacted her college successes. We knew she was a match and would be highly desirable based on the quality of the rest of what she offered. And our research into what mattered beyond scores. We knew this same for other TR schools she applied to.

You can look at dept requirments, research majors, check course offerings, gen eds, school clubs and activities, research or intern opps, see what sorts of kids the college touts on its web pages. Understand the environment, which does affect certain personal they look at. Look at the grad rates and what sorts of academic support are offered. If a kid is interested in pre-med, many colleges brutally weed these kids. You research that, in the right ways. Maybe another college would advance her chances better. None of that has to do with gleaning from scores.

As said above, if you’re a heavy math or engineering wannabe, and the (partial) scores you do see are high, that doesn’t mean you’re out. It DOES mean these are the kids sitting next to you in class, your competition, where that bar is, once there. The benchmark of sorts. NOT the kids who got in with lower math scores, didn’t report, and had other interests. If that bar is high, as shown by that slice of scores, with your kid’s own scores in hand, isn’t that enough to guage your child’s chance of success once there?

This is not legal fraud. It’s not policed, there are no criteria beyond what’s written in the CDS instructions, which we can see for various categories. Nor is the CDS that old, depending on when your son applied.

If your kid wants to be a big fish in a little pond, the top scores they do show reflect that. If she’s willing to be a little fish among bigger, it’s the top score ranges that tell you that.

Adding: and btw, the CDS is not gospel. Not a way to match yourself to your real admit chances. It’s just a data set, devoid of the rest of what they want.

178

As for the “offensive” comment, that came from me. Apologies. But there are many colleges, TO or TR, that do expect a level of awareness from applicants. It’s a criteria. At it’s simplest, as examples, there are too many kids who cannot reasonably answer a Why Us question. Or who mix up college X with others. (You have X program when the college doesn’t.) Or miss the very obvious values a school touts. Or talk about wanting the (real examples) urban envirnment at Dart or the bucolic setting at Columbia.

My use of “less knowledgeable/less sophisticated” was from another poster’s phrasing and suggestion those kids need better transparency.

179

My logic is simple. Anyone who is basing their college choices on CDS won’t be fooled by the TO trick. Most people just use USNews ranking’s interpretation of it. And USNews is not fooled either.

180

Selective colleges usually offer multiple different underclassmen math sequences and starting points, some of which are more accelerated than others. They generally provide a recommendation of which course to take based on a freshman placement exam, which emphasizes knowledge of the class material at a calculus and above level, rather than how many careless errors one makes on short and simple multiple choice algebra problems, like SAT score does. Many selective privates have placement advisors who considers the full student background and/or also use AP scores to recommend which math class to take. The professors generally teach the material at the pace laid out in the syllabus, which is a similar pace from one year to the next, rather than changing pace based on SAT scores of the students.

As an example, Stanford has a high middle 50% SAT range of 700 to 780. However, they offer a wide variety of math sequences and paces, rather than just ones taught at a faster pace than colleges with lower aggregate math SAT scores. A Stanford student could choose any of the sequences below for math, as well as others not listed. If the student wasn’t confident about their math knowledge and/or ability, they could choose the math 19-21 sequence, which repeats HS calculus at a relatively simple and slow pace, which I’d expect to be no more advanced or accelerated that some of the math sequences offered at a many colleges with far lower average SAT scores. In many cases, it would be a slower pace. If a student felt they already mastered calculus during HS and wanted the most advanced and rigorous treatment of the underclassmen foundation math beyond HS level, they could choose one of the 61-63 sequences, which emphasize rigorous proofs.

Math 19-21 – 3 quarter version of single variable calculus
Math 41-42 – 2 quarter version of single variable calculus
Math 51-53 – differential and integral calculus in several variables, linear algebra, and ordinary differential equations
Math 61-63M – covers the material of the Math 50 series at a much more advanced level with an emphasis on rigorous proofs and conceptual arguments
Math 61-63DM – covers the same linear algebra material as the Math 60CM series and otherwise focuses on topics in discrete mathematics, algebra, and probability theory at an advanced level with an emphasis on rigorous proofs.

Different classes have different curves. Classes with a larger percentage of students doing steller work tend to give a larger percentage of A grades. Various studies have found that non-submitters at test optional colleges tend to have very similar average GPAs to test submitters, in spite of having lower average SAT scores.

.