I am not a fan of TO, as it makes admissions at elite schools such as Columbia even less transparent than they were when scores were required. However, there are ways other than test scores to figure out who are the tippy top students. (Whether Columbia admits those kids or not - that is another topic. I know a kid from our HS who got admitted with an ACT of 24, and this was well before TO.)
It seems that people think that if TO has a history of working out at some schools, that it can work at all schools. I am not convinced of this. Bowdoin has a long history of TO, and it seems to work for them. However, Bowdoin is a small school and is relatively unknown outside of high performing East Coast high schools, and they don’t get a ton of applications. They can figure out which kids to admit on information other than tests.
What I am more interested in, and perhaps a topic for another thread, is how TO is working at public schools that get a lot of applications. Someone in a Pitt discussion posted enough information so you could get to a document that Pitt gave to HS college counselors. The comment on TO students was that their average GPA was lower than those who submitted - enough so that they were keeping a eye on things, and hadn’t ruled out going back to requiring tests.
Students don’t enter the department until junior year. If Princeton is lying to its prospective students as you claim, and they truly will not provide path for talented students who have not had the opportunity to take the above mentioned courses (203,204) prior to freshman year of college, then Princeton would be shortchanging itself and missing out on a lot of math talent and potential. Math isn’t a race. My guess is that the Math department at Princeton understands this, even if some of the parents of students don’t.
No disagreement from me. I prefer to refer to what you are describing as “extra credit.” It’s nice to know but not terribly important for a typical clinical situation.
BTW, a lot of people also want to get rid of the MCAT exam - seems like they are using similar arguments as the SAT. USMLE part 1 is now pass/fail.
One poster who is a parent and not a student made the comment about Math 215, while Princeton’s website instead lists conflicting information such as saying . “Some math majors start in the 103-104-201 sequence and then transition to the more proof-based courses a bit later.” That’s hardly conclusive information that Princeton is lying. The reality might be somewhere in between, such as the vast majority of math majors start at 215, but some also start at 103. Correlation vs causation may also contribute.
In any case, Princeton is a single college. It should not be considered to be representative of all colleges. Different colleges have different degrees of support for students from less rigorous HS backgrounds, that offered less advanced math courses. Highly selective Ivy+ type colleges usually offer multiple math starting points to correspond to the widely varying HS backgrounds among entering students. When multiple math levels are offered for entering students, students pursuing math-heavy majors usually start at variety of math levels. Some Ivy+ colleges have special programs to support students starting at the lowest math level who want tp pursue math-heavy STEM majors, such as Harvard’s Emerging Scholars.
However, how well a student is prepared for post-calculus level math during college is very different question from whether a student applies test optional or not, or their math SAT score. The math SAT does not cover calculus. Instead the test involves answering simple algebra/trig type multiple choice questions rapidly, while making few careless errors. It’s not a good measure to verify that a student is prepared for post-calculus type math at the discussed colleges – courses that are rarely multiple choice and rarely focus on answering questions rapidly, without careless errors. Math SAT score can work effectively as quick screen to flag students who don’t know algebra/geometry/trig well, but that is far from the only area of the application that might flag a student applying to a math-heavy major who does not understand basic algebra/trig well. This relates to why a significant portion of test optional admits complete math-heavy majors at nearly any college that has a good sample size of test optional matriculants.
our school district definitely turns down the money from CB or ACT, as do our teachers. (few of our teachers are interested in making a few bucks to proctor on a Saturday morning)
So let’s all move on from the Princeton math progression, the Harvard math progression, med school admissions, law school admissions, availability of AP classes, as a not- comprehensive list.
well the best news is that none of the posters on this thread need to worry about it-all of us, and our kids, appear to be already in or graduated from college or not applying to Columbia. We may see the outcome in another 5 or 10 years, in terms of student stress, applications, acceptances-lots of speculation here but time will tell.
I actually still have a son who hasn’t applied to college yet. For what it is worth, S24 is an excellent tester (and an excellent student too). I suppose I buck the trend that says parents of strong test takers are opposed to TO - because I’m not. Is TO perfect? No. In the case of some kinds of schools (i.e. MIT), some type of test is probably a good way to gatekeep. However, in my view, the benefits of TO at most elite schools (attracting a more diverse applicant pool) outweigh any negatives. As it is, the mission of most top schools ISN’T to enroll the best academic talent - these schools have historically admitted many students with lesser academic credentials that fill some other institutional need. As far as transparency goes, these same schools have never been transparent about their admissions practices - there has never been a combination of gpa/SAT/ACT that entitles a student to admission. Unfortunately, there are too many strong students and too few seats at T20 schools - that was true before TO, remains true today and will still be true if testing is required again.
I agree with you. I just wish schools would move in the direction of more transparency rather than less. Though students recognize relatively few will be admitted to T20 schools, the pressure to present a CV full of ECs, athletic and academic pursuits to successfully navigate an opaque process seems harmful.
I agree with you that either a test-required or test-blind policy is more honest than a test-optional policy. It simply isn’t honest to say that it makes no difference in an admission decision whether or not an applicant submits test scores. The two groups of test submitters and non-submitters can’t be evaluated in the same way, so the test scores will either help or hurt an application. But it isn’t in AOs’ self-interest to tell applicants one way or the other, because opacity is their best friend. AOs, not surprisingly like anyone who has power (in this case, the power to decide whether an applicant should be admitted to a highly sought-after college), don’t want others to second-guess or criticize any of their decisions even if some of those decisions were made on a whim or demonstrably poor.
I recently spoke to someone who was an app reader at an upstate NY LAC (student at the college in the past). I was told that they are genuinely test optional – eg the score is considered if it is there, and not if it is not.
But, transparency or not, if the perception that all these colleges are unfair to some demographics persists for long periods of time, then that will leave a bad taste and will have long term consequences on society. It is incumbent on the colleges to have buy-in from all their stake holders for whatever policy it is that they are trying to institute.
Respectfully, how does that work? Applications are not evaluated in a vacuum. All applications are compared to the other applications they have received to determine which ones will be accepted. If you have 2 groups of applicants: one with and one without test scores, comparing applications between the 2 groups has become more complicated. Consider the situation if you have 2 comparable applicants, one didn’t send a test score but the other one sent a 1580 SAT, what does that mean? What if the SAT score was 1480 or 1280? They must be using some kind of mental gymnastics to compensate for a missing test score because this kind of comparison has become an apples to oranges exercise. Or maybe the applicants without test scores are assigned a preset number that is a rough estimate of what they may have scored if they submitted their test? They could also get around it by comparing applicants without test scores only within their cohort and applicants with test scores only within their cohort. At the end, they assign a ratio of how many within each group they will accept. But how did they assign the ratio? What if the 2 groups end up being statistically dissimilar?
I don’t know how they compensate. This person is a colleague, and I didn’t want to grill them :-). It is possible that the “compensation” for having or not having a test score is done above their pay grade. I am sure the app reader reads the application holistically and is allowed to give an up or a down vote. I am guessing here – then the committee takes a vote. Not sure if the app reader is in the committee. Unlikely. Would probably know the decision after the fact. I am sure the committee is not asking whether there was a score available or not. It is possible they have a factor model of some kind where if you have 4 inputs instead of 5, the 4 inputs would each get a higher weight.
I will ask at some point how the mechanics work.
They might have different models for different ethnic/SES groups per @roycroftmom above. It stands to reason that they do. Then you neglect testing at your peril.
I see your point. I cannot imagine that it will be truly test optional for my kids (we are past that point last year). I’d be scared to not submit scores. I am not a trusting person :-). A kid is applying for transfers this year. We are just putting the score in. There is nothing to think about on that account. I am sure it may not be high enough in some schools if the medians have been creeping up these past few years. We haven’t even looked where the medians are. That was never a thought.