I think of it this way: there are way more kids with, say, unweighted 4.0 GPAs, than there are kids with BOTH unweighted 4.0 GPAs AND 99th percentile test scores. The latter is a subset of the former.* So eliminating the need for test scores increases the number of kids who feel like they have a chance at ______(insert your choice of top school here) – and who really do have a chance.
*use 3.9 and 98th percentile, or whatever reasonable combination you’d like. The former category (GPA only) is going to be a larger pool than the latter category (GPA + test score)
This excerpt perfectly describes what is going on:
"Amal Sayed from Dearborn Heights, Mich., submitted applications to 21 schools this fall and winter, receiving fee waivers through a program geared to low-income students seeking admission to selective schools.
An academic high achiever, Ms. Sayed is enrolled in a prestigious STEM program that draws top students from the city’s three public high schools. She said she has a 4.2 GPA and ranks in the top 2% of her class. But her SAT test, which she finally took in October after two cancellations, was a disappointment. She said she scored below her target of 1400, which itself would have placed her below the 25th percentile for the current first-year class at Stanford University, one of her targets.
So she pivoted, submitting her SAT score only to safety schools where she would measure up well, and omitting it for the others. Her final list included local options like Wayne State University and the University of Michigan—to which she has already been admitted—as well as Harvard, Yale, the University of Chicago and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
“It was a lot easier to apply to some of those higher-reach schools” without the score, said Ms. Sayed. “It didn’t feel like I was at a disadvantage. Why not just shoot my shot?”"
But then the question is, how many of these additional test-non-submitter applicants are those who have “everything but the test score” that makes them realistic candidates for admission at these super-selective colleges?
I.e. not just the high school courses and grades (which are relatively easy to see, but which alone will not gain admission), but also the essays, recommendations, extracurriculars, etc. (and possibly hooks)?
How many? More. More than those who ALSO have a high test score.
I’m not trying to be flippant. But some portion of the “realistic candidates” who have everything else would not, in fact, score well on standardized test. Or didn’t score well. The excerpt is a good example of a student whose SAT score (presumably 1300-something) would, in a test-required world, knock her out of consideration at many top schools. And she is very much aware of that.
Also from the article:
". . . Lee Coffin, vice provost for enrollment and dean of admissions and financial aid at Dartmouth College. Dartmouth saw a 33% rise in applications after it waived standardized test scores this year.
Mr. Coffin says he is conflicted about going test-optional. Before the pandemic Dartmouth considered standardized test scores to be among the most important information alongside grade point average, essays and class rank. Seeing strong scores helps his team feel more confident that admitted students could cut it at the Ivy League institution. “It becomes a moral question,” he said. “I don’t want to admit someone who is going to struggle.”"
Yes. Test optional allowed students with good everything but lower test scores to realistically apply to top schools, since they could conceal their score. Some students weren’t able to take a test due to Covid, some did, but did poorly. Some didn’t bother to take one, as soon as they knew that they could apply without scores.
Standardized test scores can help differentiate between students who are at the top of their class in a very low-achieving school, or at the top of their class in a high-achieving school. They can confirm high achievement in a student coming from a school with low standards. They can confirm high achievement in a student coming from an unknown school, or who has been home-schooled.
BUT… do the test scores correlate with high achievement at college, once there? This is where the data from this year is going to be very, very interesting. Does the kid from the top of a low-standards high school do well at the very competitive college he got into, without that standardized test score? Or does he hit the wall, because being the best of the worst doesn’t qualify you to do well at a top school?
I have a feeling that they will do well, because they have a track record of academic achievement. If this in fact is the case, I have a feeling that schools are going to just continue with test scores being optional. Submitting a high test score will become a voluntary part of the application, like a music/art/film supplement.
But yes, this is the reason for the huge increase in applications to the very top schools. Without the standardized test score to weed out some students, many more decided to apply.
Oh, the poor student who has been done wrong by being admitted to Dartmouth when they are really not capable of doing the work! It’s going to be very interesting. I have a feeling that there weren’t that many students who really could not take a test by early January. The top schools have got two cohorts here - test optional, vs test submitters. And I have a feeling that they’re going to look very closely at the two groups’ achievement.
But the student mentioned in the article took the test one time without any test tutoring mentioned. Many of the kids who score 35-36 and 1500-1600 have had months of tutoring and a couple of warm-up official tests. Many of the kids who score 1350 on a no-tutor first-time test are just as capable T20 students as the 1500 kid who had more resources to help with the test score.
It’s hard to believe that anyone would argue a student who has a 4.2 GPA at a “prestigious STEM program” who is in the top 2% of her class, is somehow not a capable enough student to attend a T20.
In my experience as a test prep tutor, a parent of a current college kid and a college grad, and having some knowledge of a college known for being test optional LONG before it was common, I do not feel that test scores are indicative of much.
I have seen incredibly intelligent kids bomb standardized tests, most commonly because they overthink. I’ve also worked with kids who had an uncanny ability to get the right answer because they never saw a forest, just a tree, even though I wouldn’t say they were hyper intelligent. I’ve seen kids who have achieved great things at the test optional college mentioned, but who didn’t submit test scores for a variety of reasons. (One of those students graduated summa cum laude, won a prestigious national scholarship, and was a finalist in a global intellectual competition. Another is a current semifinalist for a prestigious national scholarship.)
IMO, covid is leveling the playing field for many students. I think the best applicants are still going to shine, despite not submitting test scores. The colleges will be able to separate the wheat from the chaff. The “problem” of the most selective schools being inundated with more apps than ever isn’t really a problem, is it?
I think many of the complaints about schools going test optional don’t actually stem from the idea that more unqualified students will gain admission. The complaints stem from the fact that some families are losing an advantage (test prep) when schools go test optional. In a test optional college admissions landscape, the super exceptional students will still be identified as such and quickly admitted, but the run-of-the-mill 4.0 students will now have their resumes compared to more perfectly capable 4.0 students who had previously self-selected out because of “low” 1350 test scores.
I agree with this 100%. I think people are upset because TO is changing the landscape at some elite schools and making admissions even more competitive - especially for unhooked (not legacy, athlete or child of major donors) students. For most kids, their chances are small to begin with - even with a high score - and this makes it tougher. The sad thing is that there are so many great schools out there and admission to a tippy top college is not necessary for personal or professional success. I know lots of Ivy League and MIT grads - while they are nice people with decent careers, they aren’t living any different lives than the guy/gal next door who went to old local U.
Yep. And I say this as a parent who fully admits that my son had lots of test prep (free of charge, haha) and got excellent scores. I do believe his scores helped him get into at least some of the colleges he was admitted to.
I suspect that test optional will turn out to have been mostly advantageous for this past school year. Going forward, probably the students who can, will still prep for tests and submit scores at highly selective colleges that remain test optional. It will become another thing that may not be truly “optional” for students from certain demographics. Still, I don’t see the explosion of applications at top schools diminishing to precovid levels.
Totally agree. I know kids whose parents do not speak English, have an elementary school education, are working almost a full time job, participate in sports and extracurricular activities, volunteer in the community and get 1290 or in the 1300s in the SAT with zero prep, no Khan, no doing practice test. AOs at top schools know these kids will succeed because look at what they accomplished while being faced with so many obstacles.
Some kids are very smart but not good at SAT/ACT tests. Some kids don’t have to study for SAT to get 1500. It may be rather test taking skill.
My son is not good at SAT and ACT. His brain is not for the algebra. He skipped to more advanced Math when he was in the middle school and the 9 th grade. In the retrospect, he should have spent more time in algebra, but his school gave him two weeks to study Algebra, and he happened to pass when he was in the middle school. So he understand the concept, but he did not solve many algebra problems. He is OK, but he is better with Calculus. When he took AP Physics in algebra base, he was so so. But when he moved on to the calculus base Physics he cruised.
I am pretty sure that there are many academically qualified kids to attend Ivy, but not good enough test scores disqualified the acceptance.
No one is arguing that. Lots and lots of kids are capable enough students to attend a T20 – FAR more than are admitted at those schools. I have a couple Ivy degrees, and I can tell you that the hardest part of the schools is getting in. The title of this thread is that it is harder to get in than it was before. Think of these broad categories:
(1) Great grades, extracurriculars, recommendations, etc. Lots and lots of test prep. Takes test and scores poorly. Prior to 2020, doesn’t apply: this year: applies.
(2) Great grades, extracurriculars, recommendations, etc. Little to no test prep. Takes test and scores poorly. Prior to 2020, doesn’t apply: this year: applies.
(3) Great grades, extracurriculars, recommendations, etc. Lots and lots of test prep. Takes test and scores highly. Prior to 2020, applies: this year: applies.
(4) Great grades, extracurriculars, recommendations, etc. Little to no test prep. Takes test and scores highly. Prior to 2020, applies: this year: applies.
Now, you can argue – as some of you have been – that enabling category 2 to apply is a good enough reason not to require tests.
But I don’t think it can be argued that all four categories taken together does not somehow constitute more kids – thus making it harder to get in – than categories 3 and 4 alone.
It is harder to get in than it was before … for students who had tippy top test scores. Period.
It is easier to get in than it was before … for students with similar profiles but without the tippy top test score. Many students with 4.0+ GPAs did not even bother applying to T20 schools if they had SAT/ACT scores below 1400/32, and even fewer if they were below 1300/31. Not because they were not capable of doing the work, but because all the statistics said they had practically no chance at being admitted.
There are more of the second type student than the first type. Therefore, overall, more students now have a chance at being admitted to a T20 than before test optional. For most students, their odds of being accepted have increased.
That aside, I agree, that for those families that have tippy-top test score students, they will indeed see an acceptance percentage drop.
But, looking at the entire picture, I see this new test optional phase and an overall plus when it comes to the entire process. That’s where we disagree apparently. Some families believe is it a bad thing for the process to switch to test optional because their students will have less of a chance because of a larger application pool. Other families believe it is a great change, because their very capable students now have a fairer chance.
Sure, in a strict numbers sense,more applicants equals a lower admit rate = harder to get in. But that isn’t compete analysis. Isn’t the question whether it is harder for qualified applicants to get in? Even with your “etc” elements, you don’t capture all of what is at issue. Not the least of which, there have always been qualified students who are shut out because of scores - for them, it is more fair with TO. You can’t assume that scores automatically make someone more qualified (as defined as someone who will thrive and take full advantage of the school’s offerings)
Your categories don’t include applicants who didn’t take the test at all. There are plenty of students who prepped and were not able to take the test.
Of course, standardized tests were begun as a way for the Ivies to identify talented students from high schools the Ivies didn’t know well. They could let in lots of Exeter or Andover kids without test scores, but once they wanted to identify “super-exceptional” students from run-of-the-mill high schools, test scores became useful. The quote from Dean Coffin, above, highlights that point, when he says that “seeing strong scores helps his team feel more confident that admitted students could cut it.”
The article contains another quote: “Students who don’t submit test scores could be considered riskier if they are applying from a high school that doesn’t have a history of sending students to a particular college.” Beware unintended consequences – it sounds like test optional could cement the privilege of those able to attend a prestigious school. The very problem that standardized tests were designed to ameliorate.
