Penn is TO through the next cycle. With the new dean from Bowdoin, which has been TO for 50+ years, and some of the changes Penn has made to “create an equitable application process” (e.g. eliminating the enrollment deposit), I expect they will extend their TO policy.
Cornell also announced TO for 2024
1 Like
I can definitely see that TO would benefit hooked kids, such as recruited athletes, or any other hooked students that the school would like to admit.
I can also see that TO would benefit kids with extremely low or extremely high test scores, relative to the overall strength of their application. Kids with super low scores obviously benefit when they can gamble on TO. Kids with super high scores are not harmed, because they can submit their scores and still look good.
However, I think it isn’t so good for the kids who normally would have been in the 50% score range for the school, because of TO inflating the test score range. Such kids, with average test scores for a particular school, are arguably a good fit for the school, if you believe scores mean anything. But it can hurt these kids to submit scores (if the score range is inflated by other kids only submitting above-average scores), and it can also hurt to go TO (if the school presumes an unsubmitted test score is below average).
7 Likes
Well, if holistic means relying less on quantitative inputs like GPA, class rank and test scores, and more on “soft” variables like LORs, essays, and hooks – then I’m not sure the process will be more transparent than it is now. At least GPA, class standing/rank, and test scores can be reported and used to gauge difficulty of admittance. Disregarding one or more of those, it becomes murkier IMO.
7 Likes
The tests in question are skills tests for skills relevant to the job, rather than attempts at trying to measure IQ in isolation.
2 Likes
The most selective colleges are likely to stay holistic and opaque because:
- To the extent that they are looking for (some) academic superstars, the usual measures of HS GPA and SAT/ACT scores do not by themselves distinguish between the academic superstars and the “ordinary excellent” students that there are plenty of. So they still have to look for other academic indicators beyond “ordinary excellent” HS GPA and (if used) SAT/ACT scores.
- Many of the most selective colleges admit much of their class with significant consideration to non-academic factors (including “hooks”). With a large number of “ordinary excellent” applicants (including many with the desired “hooks”), it is easy to “build a class” of what they desire without having to compromise academic factors below the “ordinary excellent” level for very many of the admits (probably only for the most important recruited athletes and development admits would the college need to dip below that level), giving the college plausibility that all or nearly all admits have high-end academic credentials as measured by HS GPA and (if used) SAT/ACT scores.
Of course, when going to the much more numerous moderately selective colleges, they likely make stats the main or only criteria for admission, though their level of transparency varies. In terms of the latter, examples can be found in the CSU system, where stats-only admissions is used. But some campuses like SJSU are quite transparent about the (competitively-determined) admission thresholds, but others like SDSU are not.
4 Likes
You are right about my original post. While, I admittedly am not in favor of testing, I’m less in favor of a hybrid or middle ground gray position which not only perpetuates some of the negatively perceived aspects of testing (by keeping tests) but also creates even more uncertainty in how to approach a college application than already exists and creates absurd practices like students not submitting test scores that are in the 25th percentile ( my 33 ACT example)for a school. To have percentile one must have a 25 percentile and a 75 percentile. If all the 25 percentiles do not submit scores because it is optional then the current 50 percentile with be the next 25 %, on and on until only perfect scores will be submitted and reported ranges of score will be ridiculously high and no one will submit scores unless they are perfect.
Also the fact that those who are admitted without test scores are not considered in the schools range (if they took the test but didnt submit) makes these ranges nothing more than a false statistic.
7 Likes
I agree with you. How about grade-optional too? 3.9 unweighted or higher? You are free to submit. Under that we will look at your essays, course rigor, peer-reviewed scientific published papers, non-profit org with a million dollars operating budget etc. Soon statistics of enrolled students will be in the 3.9/1560 to 4.0/1600 range.
I joke but I remember reading a statistical analysis that showed that college essays are even more strongly correlated with parental wealth/income than SAT/ACT scores but I see no move to make them optional.
I’m with MIT or the UCs on this one. Test required or test blind.
5 Likes
The score distributions in the Chetty study are summarized below. Given this distribution, it’s not surprising to me that literally every college I am aware of that has compared income distribution of test optional admits found that test optional admits average lower income than test submitter admits. The popular theory that low income kids don’t have a way to be accepted without their scores is a myth.
SAT Score Distribution by Income Quintile
1500+ SAT – 67% in top income, 17% in 2nd quintile, 9% in middle, 5% in low, 2% in bottom
1400+ SAT – 59% in top income, 21% in 2nd quintile, 12% in middle, 6% in low, 3% in bottom
3 Likes
UC’s Senate report did not recommend keeping the SAT/ACT. They recommended that UC “cease consideration of standardized test scores” as an admission criteria and replace them with a new “assessment system” . Plenty of other colleges, organizations, and peer reviewed studies have come to different conclusions than MIT. For example, I expect people at Caltech are also quite bright, yet they decided to go test blind.
Hundreds of other colleges were test optional prior to COVID, some for decades. They seem satisfied enough with the outcome to remain test optional, and report similar graduation/GPA type stats for test optional and test submitter admits.
Different colleges have different needs. What is best for one college is not necessarily best for another. For example, if a college is basing admission criteria on a strict formula using GPA in isolation + SAT in isolation, then they are going to lose a lot of valuable information from removing SAT. However, if they have a 90% admit rate, then that may be okay.
If a college is instead looking at grades in context of the full transcript and class profile, looking at course rigor, looking at LORs, looking at ECs/awards, looking at essays, looking at … then SAT/ACT adds much less additional information beyond the combination of all of this. Of course not every college wants to review this much information for each applicant, without having an easy way to screen.
1 Like
Deleted
Yes, but I suspect it’s for a different reason. Which is that the median CalTech applicant has a stronger profile than the median MIT applicant (admitted students could be a different story). Every decently strong STEM student will consider MIT, whereas the mostly it’s the hardcore ones that consider CalTech.
Because of this, a larger fraction of CalTech applicants run into the low ceiling of the SAT and ACT, meaning there is little useful differentiation between everyone’s high scores. Furthermore, I don’t think even a 36 ACT says much about if a student is capable of handling CalTech. For that, they really need to dig into the ECs that show advanced math and science skills.
4 Likes
Lots of excellent stem students don’t consider MIT.
1 Like
I think they don’t need the SAT/ACT but that doesn’t mean they don’t see AP scores or in cases of STEM majors, their scores in AMA or AIME. Cal Tech is test blind to the SAT/ACT but they see the AP Calc, Physics in addition to the AMA. They make every freshman take a Math placement test, they know the value of testing.
“For example, I expect people at Caltech are also quite bright, yet they decided to go test blind.”
They went test blind because, most, if not all their applicants had 800s across the board, so it really wasn’t telling them anything.
4 Likes
I chose Caltech as an example because it is college that is often compared to MIT with a lot of similarities, yet chose the opposite testing policy. The point is that colleges with “bright” people do not universally choose to go test required. Instead MIT is more the exception than the rule. If Caltech isn’t meaningful because they have too high scores, then use MIT’s nearby tech college neighbor WPI as an example. After seeing outcomes and internal research from ~15 years of test optional showing “no statistically significant difference in the performance of students who submitted scores compared with those who didn’t”, WPI chose to switch to test blind. Or use nearly any other private tech college besides MIT as an example, the overwhelming majority of which choose to either be test optional or test blind.
5 Likes
S24 is a very strong STEM student (and a strong tester) and dismissed MIT out of hand - he knows he isn’t what they are looking for.
3 Likes
Anecdotes aside, a good portion of STEM students will apply to MIT; far fewer to CalTech.
5 Likes
But what is a “good percentage” - 10%, 20% . . . I know quite a few strong STEM students who didn’t apply to MIT because they didn’t feel like it was the right fit. None of my MIT friends had kids that applied there despite most of them having a strong STEM orientation. It is a fantastic school, but it isn’t for everybody.
3 Likes
Not, it isn’t, but far more consider MIT (33k applicants) than consider CalTech (8k), which is more of a niche school for domestic applicants. And many others consider it but do not apply. Many students applying to Ivies at least think about whether to include MIT.
4 Likes
Note I used the word consider rather than apply. Many who consider it will not apply.
And while I shouldn’t have used the word “every”, the central point I was making was that those interested in CalTech are a subset of those interested in MIT, and their test scores skew higher. There is little useful information when test scores are all bunched up at the top.
I agree with this. But this disadvantages students from low income homes attending poor school systems.
1 Like