Exactly. I know many recruited athletes and legacies at highly selective schools that have GPAs and/or test scores in the top 25%. Of course there are some who are lower than average too.
The point is that any admitted applicant is per se qualified to attend X school. That’s how holistic admissions work.
To bring this pack to the OP, I also would use Class of 2024 admitted test range data, if you can find it. If not use data from the 2020/21 CDSs (which is enrolled student data).
If the score is right at the median or veryclose I would likely submit. If the student is URM I would be even more certain of submitting. For each school’s application, ask whether or not the score strengthens the application, if not…why send it?
It is anyone’s guess really. I think all you can do is look at the total package with and without the score and decide if you submit TO and a similar applicant with an in range score applies, is there anything else to make your candidate stand out?
I also agree with the advice to look at scores outside of last year. I would tend to think that AO’s spending few precious minutes with the avalanche of applicants would evaluate what is before them and not assume something negative about a TO kid. Best of luck to your student.
There is also the attitude here that kids who are admitted to top schools TO are somehow taking spots away from more deserving students. I don’t agree with that.
The rules of the game are in flux, and that is where the frustration comes in.
If schools want to go test optional, that’s their choice. It’s just unclear as to their motivation for keeping test optional when the tests appear to be accessible to everyone in 2021.
I don’t think it’s unclear at all…at least for the more selective schools, they saw their URM, rural and/or low SES applications soar last year, and they want to keep attracting those students.
In general admitted kids in groups that receive admission preference average worse qualifications than the overall class at highly selective colleges. There are certainly many individual hooked kids who are outstanding students and more well qualified that typical admits, but the average admitted hooked kid is generally a weaker student than the average for the full calss.
This doesn’t necessarily mean admitted hooked kids average lower test scores. For example, the Harvard lawsuit found that legacies received a strong boost in chance of admission; yet the Harvard freshman survey found that matriculating legacies averaged similar or higher test scores than non-legacies. Test scores were typically a strong point for legacy applicants, not a weak point. Instead their weak point was compared other admitted students were more likely to be other areas of the application besides scores, including but not limited to GPA. This relates to why legacies and others hooked kids that are typically in higher SES groups are usually overrepresented among test submitters.
Harvard’s expert in the lawsuit did a simulation that reviewed what portion of hooked kids would still have been admitted if Harvard removed all hook preferences and instead increased preference for lower SES kids. Results are summarized below for ALDC hooks.
Change in Class with No Hook Preferences + Increased Lower SES Preference
Recruited athletes decrease by 93%
Double legacies decrease by 74%
Legacies decrease by 70%
“Special Interest” kids decreases by 69%
Children of faculty/staff decrease by 28%
With a 93% decrease in recruited athletes, it seems that extremely few recruited athletes would have been admitted without their hook. Other lawsuit analyses go in to more detail. Among applicants with a 4-5 (bad) academic rating, the admit rates were as follows. All admitted kids across a multi-year sample with a 4-5 (bad) academic rating had ALDC or URM hooks, usually athletes.
Among the academic rating = 3 kids (typical applicant, worse than typical admit) academic rating applicants, the approximate admit rates were as follows. This group is also dominated by hooked kids. This is the most common rating among admitted athletes, but very uncommon for admitted unhooked kids. Academic rating is well correlated with stats, so it is safe to assume that the admitted kids with notably lower stats compared to the overall class are primarily hooked kids, even though there are a large number of individual hooked kids with stats comparable or higher than the overall class average, particularly among non-athletes.
My point is that hooked candidates don’t have ‘worse qualifications’ as you state in your first sentence…they were accepted, so are per se qualified to attend the school. In holistic admissions, qualifications are more broad than academic stats.
Yes, we know the Harvard data show hooked students have lower GPAs, rigor, and/or test scores. But they are still qualified to attend because Harvard isn’t looking to fill their classes with only applicants who have top academic stats. This is not news. At all.
I am also not willing to make that leap that the data at other Ivies would look similar to Harvard’s, but won’t go to the mat for that. However, the Harvard data does not apply to the selective D3 LACs because the low academic end of the hooked applicants, especially recruited athletes, is not as relatively low as it is at the Ivies. For example, a student with an AI of 175 is highly unlikely to pass the pre-read at Williams, or Bowdoin, or Amherst, regardless how good they are at their sport. But even that example is dated now, as I expect we have seen the last of the AI, due to test optional admissions.
"In general admitted kids in groups that receive admission preference average worse qualifications than the overall class at highly selective colleges. "
Do you have an example of any highly selective college for which this sentence is not true – not just Harvard? If the hook provides a significant boost in chance of admission, then it follows that students without that notable boost in chance of admission would need to average higher qualifications than students with the boost on average. I agree that “higher qualifications” encompasses more than just stats.
If you’re correct, they will make TO permanent. Although, there still could be other, not so noble reasons for keeping TO.
I say this because of some of the posts I’ve recently read on CC regarding AOs explicitly telling potential applicants not to submit scores if they’re under the 50% mark. The new game could be a version of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” This allows the college to increase their average test scores on paper, which of course is a factor used to determine ranking.
While I would love to believe that the colleges are solely motivated by advancing equity in admissions, a little something-something is nudging me to be a bit skeptical.
I believe the main reason schools are Test Optional is so they can game their test scores to make the schools look more selective. US News seems to have their own misgivings about how TO schools are reporting their test scores, because US News is incorporating adjustments for schools that only report test scores for low percentages of their incoming class.
If a school thinks that tests are useless for admissions, then that school should stop using tests for admissions. If a school thinks tests are useful for admissions, then that school should require them for everyone that applies. How does an admissions process make any sense at all when some candidates are being judged on very different criteria than others for the same spots in the same program?
I know this board keeps revisiting the same points on this, but the fact that TO schools are so opaque in their use of test scores is absolutely relevant for the OP’s question. If there is not a logical explanation for how schools are evaluating TO applicants than it is extremely difficult to give advice on whether a specific applicant should go TO.
That’s true and I agree it would be more consistent for schools to go test blind, if they believe test scores are not predictive of college success and/or don’t help an AO make an admissions decision.
OP should be doing virtual admissions sessions with the schools on their list and asking for guidance as to whether one should submit scores or not. Generally on zoom sessions, one can ask questions anonymously if they prefer. As chezcurie says above, some schools are transparent, and will say to not submit unless you are at the median test score, as one example.
Generally, I would submit if it is at or above the 25th% mark.
If you don’t submit, you’re basically admitting that your score was low relative to prior years’ admit stats. Unless you could not take the test, in which case, let them know that is the reason you didn’t submit.