Exactly.
There’s always the hope that some of these colleges will be open for a visit before decision time, so the time to do some culling will be after admittance. Best to keep options as open as possible until that point, which implies more applications, not less.
Right. You already have the kids with top scores applying like they normally would have applied. Now you also have the kids who took tests and got lousy scores but had good grades that would probably not have applied in the past. Yes, some would’ve but many would’ve been knocked out of the race by their test score. Or, maybe would’ve focused only on one or two huge reaches, instead of applying to all of them. There was a posted if I recall asking about Penn that had great stats but a 30 ACT asking if he should send it. Every comment back was a resounding NO. In any other year, the chance of that kid getting into Penn RD was slim to none. Now, that kid’s chances of getting in are just as good as someone with a 33-36 ACT because the rest of his stats are no worse than their stats. That’s what is happening and why there appear to be so many great applicants.
There are of course the typical bad applicants that go into the junk pile right away and are rejected. For instance, Harvard accepted 10%, rejected 10% and deferred everyone else. A deferral from Harvard doesn’t sound like anything great since basically everyone gets deferred, but a rejection? That sounds awful. Why not just defer everyone instead of rejecting the 10%? It’s almost cruel at that point. ANd, deferring 80% is ridiculous to IMO because it leads 80% (aka 8000 applicants) to think they actually have a chance to get into Harvard when it’s so few that truly do.
Let’s put some trust in the AOs. I hardly think some “typical bad applicant” is going to sneak onto the yes list. There are people reading these apps you know. How many TO candidates are out there have the stellar grades they need, the rigor, the ECs, the recs, and the essays that match top candidates that top schools usually admit? I don’t think those of you who seem worried about at TO candidate taking your test-scoring student’s spot seem to understand that. If a student has all of those other pieces, then they deserve to be considered just like the kids with scores.
My guess is that, if an AO can’t make head or tails of a transcript for some reason (a school they don’t know or a profile that doesn’t give enough info) and they think the student is competitive in the other parts of the app, they can always call the GC and try to fess out exactly how competitive the student is academically. But, first, all of other other pieces need to be there.
So, yes, there’s more competition but it’s not all from kids who go in the “junk pile” (which is offensive btw). There are amazing students out there who have a lot to offer a college who are applying TO and are attractive to AOs for a multitude of reasons.
However, “overall strong except for SAT/ACT scores” applicants may never have applied in the past to highly selective colleges, but may apply now with test-optional. Basically, now that they are no longer quickly screened out by SAT/ACT scores, some apply and get considered on the rest of their applications.
But that’s not the pool this year. The number of kids with a 4.0 GPA > the number of kids with a 4.0 AND a 1500 SAT (or 34 ACT).
yes. This is true. More kids with high grades versus high grades plus high scores. But there’s more to it than grades and scores. Some kids with scores don’t have the whole package and some kids without scores don’t have the whole package.
There will be more competition because of all discussed above - that students had to apply to more schools than usual because of all of the unknowns around TO policies, not being able to visit schools, etc. I really hope no one is complaining about that. It is what it is and each student is doing what they can to make sure they have choices come April.
It’s not true that the number of high school aged students has been decreasing. It’s expected to peak in 2024 or 2025. See https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/12/06/high-school-graduates-drop-number-and-be-increasingly-diverse
FWIW, the peak year for # of births in the U.S. – ever – was 2007.
I visualize overlapping sets, a set of high scorers (or would-be high scorers, if they had been able to test) and a set with all other qualifications present. The overlap was where admittees were selected in past years. This year, the entire set of otherwise-qualified are in the running to the extent they apply, a larger set than the overlap. The sheer number of apps considered by colleges to be qualified is larger than in the past, and accordingly, admission is “harder” per the OP headline.
Interesting. I too have heard that this year’s senior class is smaller than last year’s class and per the Common App data released a month or so ago, less Seniors signed up and applied to colleges than in prior years.
Considering how many kids deferred last year, probably a good thing that the entire class is smaller this year. I think that with the anticipated change in administration, international students are applying in droves, since they believe (and rightly so) that they’ll be able to get student visas easily.
I remember seeing some data updates from CA in Nov re ED increases. Do they usually publish number of applicants overall? (Ergo number of students likely to enroll in one school) And do they/might they also publish how many of them applied TO? That would be fascinating data.
I realize there are a few other avenues for applying (coalition, directly, etc) but CA seems to be the main app.
The class isn’t smaller this year. According to the NCES, the number of high school graduates is expected to be up this year over last year: High school graduates, by sex and control of school; public high school averaged freshman graduation rate (AFGR); and total graduates as a ratio of 17-year-old population: Selected years, 1869-70 through 2029-30
The 2021 class is about the same size as 2018, slightly below 2019, and slightly above 2020. Though not nearly as big as it will be in a few years.
Since I believe that most of the students in the country did eventually get the opportunity to take a standardized test at least one time, I think it’s going to be very interesting to see what the performance level in college is of the test optional cohort vs the test submitters, since I believe that the TO cohort largely chose not to submit, rather than didn’t have the opportunity to take even one SAT or ACT. I’m continually shocked at the notion that kids should take the standardized test over and over. I see people listing on here having taken the test half a dozen times, and bemoaning the fact that they missed taking it for the 4th time last spring, so that their 5th shot at it, in the early fall, isn’t really a good indicator of what they might have achieved, but for Covid. And yet, they appear to have raised their scores very significantly, with the repeated shots at the test.
I was recently speaking with a friend who said that her older child had had a very low SAT, but better grades than her younger children. The older child didn’t get into the desired school. I know the kid - very nice person, but not real swift. The younger ones, with worse GPAs (although more rigorous courses), but higher standardized test scores, and who definitely appear to be brighter, got into better schools. None of them prepped for it. I think the younger ones scored 200 points higher than the oldest. In today’s test optional environment, oldest would have had a much better chance at admission to better schools.
No. Not necessarily. Did that student have amazing ECs? Would he have had stand-out recommendations? Would he have written essays that showed he was a good fit for a reach school? AGAIN, just because a student has a high GPA and doesn’t send a score does not mean that he’s jumping the line somehow and taking a seat he doesn’t deserve. Students need the whole package.
Data to support your belief? It’s simply not true for our area.
Having just been through the process, and having also helped another relative’s kid with the process, I really have come to appreciate McGill’s “just show us your GPA, scores, and a portfolio if you’re applying for music/art/dance” approach. College essays are a reflection of what resources the kid has access to, much more so than of the kid himself. Even if the parent doesn’t hire a pro to “help” the kid with the essay, there is the option of so much parent/relative/teacher/friend input that the essay is nothing but a reflection of the resources to which the kid has access.
I remember having read about some midwestern farm kid, I think, whose older brother film-maker had made a film about the kid, and submitted it for the kids’ college application. The kid got into Harvard - but it was really the brother’s achievement, and how the admissions committee did not see that, I’ll never know.
Extracurriculars can be overstated, massaged, to appear to be more than they are, too. The entire college application package is a product, to be massaged, twisted, presented in exactly the right light. The ONLY thing that cannot be gamed (and actually, it can be, with test prep, extended time that is not revealed, and out and out cheating) are the standardized test scores.
My point is, for the family of whom I spoke, the kids’ test scores were in line with their apparent intelligence. Without test scores, their applications would have not revealed that the oldest was not nearly as intelligent as the two younger ones. The oldest has had trouble getting through college. And having just been through the process, I can assure you that “holistic” admissions are just a reflection of the support that the applicant has access to, in order to compose the desired “package”.
This is assumes Penn admission is based purely on stats. It’s not. Penn admission is based on a wide variety of criteria, many of which are correlated with test scores including high school course rigor, LORs, essays, ECs, awards, interview, LDC hooks, etc… If Penn went test blind instead of test optional, I’d expect that ACT 33-36 applicants would still typically have a much greater chance of admission that ACT 30 applicants, even if only comparing applicants with the same GPA.
Using some specific numbers from the Harvard lawsuit, a comparison of portion receiving good ratings in the non-stat portions of the website between high stat and low stat applicants is below. “High Stat” means AI in top ~1/3 of applicants. Low stat means bottom ~1/3
High Teacher LOR Rating – ~40% of High Stat Applicants, ~12% of Low Stat Applicants
High Counselor LOR Rating – ~36% of High Stat Applicants, ~10% of Low Stat Applicants
High EC Rating – ~33% of High Stat Applicants, ~15% of Low Stat Applicants
High Personal Rating – ~25% of High Stat Applicants, ~14% of Low Stat Applicants
High Interview Rating – ~56% of High Stat Applicants, ~13% of Low Stat Applicants
However, regardless of actual chance of admission, perceived chance of admission may change, which can lead to a change in chance of submitting application. 4.0 / ACT 30 kids who have little chance due to non-stat components of application probably are more likely to apply if Penn is test optional than if Penn is test required.
You and I think very much alike. Who has time to take it that many times anyway? Our entire high school took it at least once. I also proctor and when I did it in August when they made special arrangements to have it for seniors only at our school, I asked the 20 kids in there how many had not taken it yet - expecting everyone to raise their hand since so many parents made a huge stink. Only 1 kid raised his hand. I couldn’t believe it. For some, it was their 4th time. They just kept taking it over and over for that 1 little point. I understand about the kids that could NOT take it period. That’s not who we’re talking about, but for those that took it numerous times even before covid and then decided not to submit it, that’s a bigger issue to me.
And to @socowonder yes there is data out there that shows most seniors have taken the SAT or ACT at least once. Colleges know it, but they’re sort of stuck between a rock and hard place.
Didn’t someone say somewhere that in Florida applications are way down because they didn’t go TO? Also, U-Michigan wanted a test score as did Purdue if I recall. They said any score, even if it’s a PSAT. And, all of our kids should’ve had a PSAT. And correct me if I’m wrong. Don’t athletes still need to have scores? If that’s true, then somehow every athlete found a way to get a test. If I’m wrong, then that policy was changed since I last read about that. I have no gifted athletes in my house and am in awe of any kid who is able to do all of it - train and keep impeccable grades, etc.
Class of 2021 Athletes do not need test scores which NCAA announced in August. Class of 2020 athletes did not need test scores either.
How did you decide this? I disagree that this is happening.