My D took the ACT at the end of her sophomore year of high school and scored a 32. My D took the ACT on a bit of a whim with the initial intention of focusing on the SAT. After getting some initial tutoring in both the ACT and SAT, my D felt better about taking the ACT over the SAT. My D then started to prepare in earnest to re-take the ACT as she believed that she could possibly raise her ACT score by 1-3 additional points.
Of course, the Covid situation changed the entire world including the standardized testing world and college admissions. My D has not been able to re-take the ACT after experiencing several consecutive ACT test cancellations.
As a response, many schools have adopted a test optional policy for at least the next year. All of the schools adopting a test optional direction have stated that no applicant will be “disadvantaged” for failing to submit a standardized test score. The test optional strategy offered by many schools is understandable in these uncertain times.
However, we have seen the reactions to the test optional policy as being very binary. We have seen many students with weak test scores or who do not perform well on standardized tests loving this new policy as they plan on not providing test scores in order to apply to high reach schools (that may not be normally available to them). These students welcome the test optional policy as they feel it provides them with a better chance for admission into a school which would be out to reach with a poor test score.
On the other hand, with many students like my D, the test optional policy has been a source of frustration and disappointment. My D has worked and studied hard to try and improve upon her ACT score (only to have the ACT tests repeatedly canceled). We know of other academically strong students who have not taken any tests at all, so my D feels somewhat lucky at the same time. All of these students, including my D, viewed the tests as a way to positively differentiate their academic records from other applicants in the admissions process.
While the test optional policy supposedly will not result in a “disadvantage” to applicants, the policy seems to penalize otherwise academically strong students who desire to differentiate themselves from the pack. Wrong or right, my D personally viewed these tests as an advantage in the admissions process. Test optional seems to help a weaker applicant not be “disadvantaged” but hurts a stronger applicant from being able put his/her best foot forward.
Agree with the above, having a relatively strong test score is an advantage.
It’s likely that many, maybe most, students with weak test scores do not have the grades, nor rigor, to be admitted to reach schools (however that’s defined for a given applicant). Having no score, or not submitting the weak score, is unlikely to help those students much at least wrt selective/highly selective admissions.
Purple, we do think a strong test score could be advantageous to an applicant. I guess we are struggling with understanding what the colleges deem as a “disadvantage” for an applicant who does not submit a test score.
For example, does a strong test score from one applicant give that applicant an advantage over an applicant who does not submit a test score? If so, that seems to be the very “disadvantage” that schools are trying to avoid with going test optional.
Also for many students, the tests are viewed as a way to have a stronger application. These students do not get to submit their best and final application if an otherwise strong test score is missing altogether (or even if the chance to improve on a test score is no longer available).
Of course you are correct that all of this assumes that these students can achieve a strong test score.
There is a difference between test blind and test optional.
Test optional means a college will still look at your score if you submit it, and a 32 is worth submitting anywhere.
Test blind may hurt students with excellent test scores, but that is by no means a given. If a student has excellent test score AND top grades in rigorous classes and ECs explored in depth as well, there is really no problem (they’ll get their due consideration), other than they didn’t get “credit” for something (test scores) for which they may have worked hard. If a student tested exceptionally well, but didn’t have the grades or ECs to match the score, I’d say they either got lucky or foolishly spent a disproportionate amount of their time on test prep (test prep is worthwhile, but not to the point that it is all one does). That doesn’t entitle them to a spot at a college over someone who consistently worked hard for all four years.
I disagree that a test score is the data point that will “differentiate a student from the pack”. Test scores and grades are a baseline, after which the other things on the application differentiate that student.
I think that test scores are one of the very few items that an applicant submits that is not inflated and subject to embellishment (that colleges seldom check).
One of my kids had low test scores. Like under 1000 for the SAT. So he applied to FairTest schools and did not send any test scores. Was accepted to them. I really do not know how his applications would have been received had he sent those test results as he was easily in the bottom quarter of their test scores.
That he was accepted because those test scores were not seen and therefore, absolutely not taken into consideration probably did “hurt” some kids who did submit test scores because he did get an acceptance, leaving one less seat in that pool. I think the schools going test optional will operate as the FairTest schools do In how they do and do not use test scores.
All you can control is your D’s application so let her work to make it as strong as possible. A very high standardized test score will be a positive addition to any application.
http://fairtest.org/ Check the links to find the current list of no-test and test optional institutions.
None of us are admissions officers, and even if we were, we probably wouldn’t know how tests are going to factor into the admission process for next year. The situation is, as the saying goes, still evolving. So do your best to stop worrying about this.
On the other hand, the more money you have, the more you can spend on test prep and on taking the test multiple times. Since the high schools with the worst grade inflation problem tend to be the more affluent high schools, standardized test scores are yet another factor in which students from affluent families are provided with a boost in admissions.
Moreover, GPA is better at predicting student success in college, once you control for the effect of income (the biggest reason for students dropping out of college is financial issues).
First off. When responding to someone using the and sign in from if their name tags them if your taking with someone like this @dadof3and1dog. You might see a list of names and pick the one you want.
She’s gonna need a very strong essay. Also the whole app will need to be stronger. Just had this discussion with a family friend that daughter has a 34. But she had all the other goods to go with it. Sorts like a perfect applicant for any school and to boot… She’s a really nice kid.
So will the 34 have a better chance then the 32? Well, not always and it really depends. So many variables like class rigor etc.
But definitely send in the scores and don’t look back. You might have a shot in the fall to take the Act again if she chooses. At this point take time and have her spend time on those essays. I bet they will become more of a factor moving forward.
Mwolf, I totally agree on the socio-economic issues affecting college admissions. From standardized testing, to grade inflation, to hooks for “affuent” sports, to other opportunities, it seems that the entire admission process is fraught underlying socio-economic issues of fairness. This issue is probably warrants a deeper discussion on its own.
Of interest on this topic, a University of California task force recently offered a conclusion that suggests that eliminating standardized testing requirements may result in a substantially diminished capacity to evaluate applicants:
Nothing keeps you from submitting a good score, and that can help your application. It’s validation of sorts… If you don’t submit a score, they won’t assume it’s bad, but the rest of your application is going to have to show you are a strong applicant.
My guess is that your D will get another shot at the ACT. At few schools would a first time score of 32 be a handicap if she doesn’t.
I get where you are coming from, though. DS (recent college grad) had strong scores (and no interest in studying to make them exceptional) and less strong grades (albeit with no weighting and lots of rigor) and I was worried about the same at TO schools.
@dadof3and1dog , Even back before COVID19, there have been schools that were and are test score optional. FairTest is a list of such schools. Schools like Holy Cross, Gettysburg, Bates, Bowdoin, Dickinson, just to name a few off the top of my head. Now they’ve been joined by the likes of Columbia, Yale, the UCs Amherst …the list is now very long.
However, that doesn’t mean that test scores are not taken into consideration when they are part of the application.
So, those with the very top test scores? Those students will be in heavy contention for spots, but , yes, I think some kids like mine with great applications, recs, essays, ECs, that extra something who might have been eliminated by lousy test scores (I mean , really, you think someone with a 1000 SAT1 gonna get into Yale?) are now going to get some seats , which, of course means, less left for the high scoring applicants.
That is probably because, due to earlier institutional research that found that SAT/ACT to be of less value than HS GPA in predicting UC college GPA, UCs have for years heavily emphasized HS GPA relative to SAT/ACT scores, probably resulting in HS GPA compression of admitted and matriculated students, so the compressed range of HS GPA becomes less of a differentiator among matriculated students.
There may also be some within UC who may not be opposed to having standardized tests in admissions, but are not particularly satisfied with the SAT/ACT as that test.