D1’s scores were lopsided. The dean of admissions said this to her, which I think clarifies: do you think your scores reflect your abilities and record?
Obviously, not. She didn’t send them, got in, was happy, did well.
We can fuss and speculate on this or that. But with test optional, if your girl matches in the rest of the critical ways, submits a good app that shows that, that’s how she’ll be reviewed.
So now the challenge is to make sure she knows what matters to those colleges. Her GPA is good, her activities seem fine. The app will be key. Know your targets. Make sure the essays show some of the attributes they want. Remember, show, not just tell.
I think test optional is a bit of a misnomer. We visited some test optional schools and were told that about 70+% of admitted students submitted scores anyway. That suggests that the scores are de facto required but maybe athletes and other hooks have an even lower bar. It suggests to me that people who don’t submit scores are likely students whose grades are significantly higher than test scores would suggest - or else why not submit them? Also, these are schools with high bars in the first place with average ACT scores at least 30. So even if the school is test optional, submitting good test scores is likely an advantage. Not submitting the score, like others have said, would beg for a stellar application otherwise. Of course, the admissions people deny all of this but they are savvy tea leaf readers and I can’t imagine that they blind themselves to the obvious.
But these TO schools have the attitude that scores aren’t freaking everything. They won’t guess she’s got a 24. They’ll assume her scores weren’t representative of the rest of her picture.
You know, there are some long term studies that show virtually no difference in college performance between submitters and non. Those adcoms know what else to look for. Scores are not all of it, by any stretch.
@WISdad23, if you look at the link I posted, you’ll see that USNews levies a penalty in their rankings towards any school where less than 75% of each entering class submitted scores. That essentially means that any test-optional school has a quota (of at most a quarter of their entering class) for those kids who did not submit scores.
Note also that USNews takes the 75th and 25th percentile test scores. That means that of those who submit test scores, close to a quarter of those are allowed to be bad. At the super-selective Ivies/equivalents that require test scores from all, you can assume that the bottom quarter are athletes, URM, or those with some other super hooks. Most of the schools mentioned in this thread aren’t in that category, however.
@PurpleTitan Is there an aggregated list of colleges somewhere that states what percentage of an entering class submits scores? This does not seem apparent on a CDS, where, say, 52% submit SATs, and 41% submits ACTs, but there are some who submit both, so number of non-submitters is not 9%, but more.
Colleges that are test-optional report there is little or no correlation between test scores and GPA or grad rates. I don’t doubt that this is true. It is also true that test-optional allows in groups of students the school wants, not just athletes and URMs, but full-pays.
“any test-optional school has a quota” But that’s for US News. What makes anyone so sure adcoms sit around worrying about US News when they review individual kids?
I found a listing of need blind private schools, it lists Ithaca College as need blind. Sarah Lawrence, Bryn Mawr, and Duquesne may be need aware, I’m assuming so.
@PetulaClark, yes, that information would be nice to have, but I doubt many schools publicize it. It’s probably safe to assume that at most test-optional schools, close to a quarter of an entering class didn’t submit test scores, however.
@lookingforward, few schools do not care at all about the metrics USNews looks at. For those kids who are 100% in or 100% out, sure, adcoms may not take the USNews metrics in to consideration, but at the margins? There’s no way to confirm this, but I’m willing to bet that just outside the tippy-top, at the vast majority of schools (say 75% of the privates between #20-#100), there is at least one eye kept on the USNews metrics and criteria when shaping a class.
And just for reference we’re looking at an EFC of 30-40k for our daughter, we have four kids, two will be in college at an EFC of 30-40k each and two little ones in private school. We will be eating ramen.
“if you look at the link I posted, you’ll see that USNews levies a penalty in their rankings towards any school where less than 75% of each entering class submitted scores. That essentially means that any test-optional school has a quota (of at most a quarter of their entering class) for those kids who did not submit scores.”
Rather, I think test-optional schools are that way because they want their test score numbers to look as stellar as possible for the USNews ranking yet allow them the flexibility to take good students (especially those who are full-pay):"
“Few will be surprised to see that modestly higher percentages of those being offered grant awards are non-submitters. Perhaps the surprise is that the percentages are as close as they are. Again, the numbers in parentheses represent arithmetic counts, with about 40% of our students getting grant awards.”
@emilybee
The Bates link says that 54.2% of applicants(not admits or enrolled students) submitted scores. I would wager that the number of admits submitting scores was higher than 54%
If you look at the common data set (section c9) for any school that you are interested in, you will see the percentage of test submitters. Bates shows 54% of SAT submitters and 27% of ACT. I imagine there are students who submit both, so you cannot necessarily add them together, but it does give you a sense. These are enrolled students.
Two of my favorite CTCL schools, Ursinus College in PA, and McDaniel College in MD, are test optional, if you are looking for possible additions to the app list.
I’m certain you’re not referring to me as I stated pretty baldly in this thread that she should apply to TO schools and not submit scores as that gives her the best chance of getting in, but if you are going to launch accusations of unfairness, wouldn’t it be fair on your part to actually identify who you are speaking about?
Regarding the reasons for going test optional, there are a number of factors. A key one is internal studies showing that test scores add little value to predicting academic success of their admits. For example, one of the colleges the original poster mentioned is Ithaca. The Ithaca internal study described at http://www.ithaca.edu/ir/docs/testoptionalpaper.pdf is supposed to be a key one for implementation of their test optional program. It found that when using a model that considered HS GPA, HS rank, strength of HS schedule, AP credit hours, gender, race, and first gen; they could explain 43% of variance in GPA at Ithaca. When they also considered SAT scores in the model, the prediction accuracy increased by only 1% from 43% to 44%, with only the SAT writing section being statistically significant in improving prediction beyond the other sections of the model. The positive benefits after implementing the policy included a notable surge in applications, particularly among URMs. There was a 23% increase in URM applicants, leading to the most ethnically diverse class in the college’s history. Many other studies have come to similar conclusions… essentially every study that includes both a measure of HS GPA and a measure of course rigor.
There are also other test optional colleges whose admissions policies suggest that another factor is trying to improve reported score averages For example, most holistic, selective colleges have a high rejection rate among top scoring applicants. Just getting high test scores alone is not enough for admission. However, a minority of holistic colleges instead appear to admit nearly all applicants who are at the top of their score range, regardless of the rest of the application. Some of the colleges that are most extreme in this category are test optional ones, which is the opposite of what most applicants expect. Scores appear to be very important for admission among applicants that have high scores, yet are not considered among applicants with presumably lower scores. Such policies would obviously inflate reported test scores for the class. I am not aware of any of the colleges listed by the OP doing this and have no reason to doubt their intentions. Sarah Lawrence (mentioned by OP) went so far as to not consider scores for all applicants many years, leading to USNWR removing them from their rankings. They recently went test optional again because “being unranked in U.S. News had put it at a major competitive disadvantage to its peers.”
The different policies at different colleges can also lead to different downsides for applying without scores. I have no reason to think that applying without scores will be a significant penalty at any of the colleges listed by the OP, but some colleges likely have different expectations or look for different things among test optional applicants vs test submitted applicants.
The advice we received from admissions offices and coaches was – do your scores accurately reflect your abilities? If the answer is no, then don’t submit.
My kid had most rigorous curriculum, strong gpa and rank, but scores that were out of whack with his portfolio. We needed merit – as a full pay family without full pay resources – so he was not applying to admissions reaches. We were pleased he was admitted with substantial merit at all his schools as a test optional applicant. There are test optional schools which require scores for merit at all – St Lawrence – or require merit for the higher awards – Dickinson – so for merit search, there is an added layer of research needed.