The downside of applying without submitting your test scores is that everything else has to be really strong. Schools know that some really smart, hard working students don’t test well. Just send in your GPA, extracurriculars , teacher recommendations and write that killer essay. Best of luck!
Thank you all so much for your input! I think this is a viable option for my daughter if she can’t get those scores up, she’s been doing ACT prep all weekend, less than 4 weeks until the October sitting.
The spread of TO is actually terrific as it allows more options and choices for students.
If someone isn’t good at testing or doesn’t want to play that game, then they don’t have to.
Lots of different paths to a goal.
I suspect TO schools to have a highly “artsy” student body, based on the research I have read. Put another way, these schools either have a small number of students graduating with majors such as analytical philosophy, economics, physics, math and computer science, or they would have to really ease up on grading to attract them.
Really curious to know if my analysis is on target.
That may be true for some, but not for all. Notably, among “national universities” that I’m most familiar with, I wouldn’t put Wake Forest or WPI in that category. Nor would I categorize Rochester and NYU, which are “test flexible,” as schools that are lacking in majors like those you listed.
My analysis of Rochester’s decision to be test flexible suggests the other side of the coin—a school with a strong STEM reputation that wants to keep the admission doors open to applicants with an interest in humanities and arts in order to maintain a balanced student body. Its test-flexible admissions policy is also very much in keeping with its general approach to curriculum, but does not reflect a lack of analytical courses of study or a dearth of students who excel at math and science.
@Canuckguy it doesn’t necessarily follow that TO schools are arty. Schools like Harvard, Bowdoin, and several others known more for academics than art are TO. Bryn Mawr is very academic and less arty for example. Smith is very academic and is test optional.
You are not wrong to look at the individual school’s culture, however.
@Data10 has it more correct to look at the individual school’s history.
Sarah Lawrence was famous at one time for going head to head with USN&WR because that ranking is at polar opposite to SL’s philosophy. SL president at the time called out USN&WR and their punishing antics. On the holistic education continuum of schools, I’d place SL at the far end with Hampshire College and Marlboro and maybe Quest U in Canada. Reed also tried for awhile at least to eschew USN&WR but it looks like they capitulated as they are creeping up in the USN&WR ranks. Hampshire, SL, Marlboro and a few others that are less concerned about tests (or actively discourage them) are looking to teach the entire person not at minutiae of datapoints, to generalize. Some schools may disagree with that philosophy and trust instead that a test taken on one day of the life of a developing person is an accurate snapshot of that person’s potential, but that’s not how this group of schools seem to operate, to generalize. Hampshire still appears at the end of the USN&WR listing as unranked as a result, proudly still being punished by USN&WR. SL found the USN&WR punishment too devastating. If you search CC threads you should still be able to find people saying things like: Isn’t Sarah Lawrence a “good” school? Why are its rankings so low if it’s a good school? And then people have to explain the whole USN&WR punishment thing. The vast majority of applicants won’t look that deep and just assume that SL is not a good school based on that one number. Hampshire seems to also be suffering because of this, as last year even though it’s a fine school that produces really fine graduates, it didn’t fill. They may rethink the no-test-scores thing too if this keeps up. (They aren’t even test-optional. They don’t want test scores. And they have reported that it has attracted a very solid, interesting group of students.)
USN&WR rankings make me grumpy, if you can’t tell. This ranking thing seems to 1) be making money for what was a dying magazine; 2) driving the testing race for these scores among families thus 2a) leaving poor kids that much further behind; 3) seems to measure the inputs to a school rather than the outcomes–and so what good is that?! You know: duh, Harvard and MIT scoop up the kids with higher SAT scores you know duh of course! But that’s what the USN&WR ranks actually mainly show; 4) forces schools to market market market in order to up their number of applicants who have no chance of getting in (in order to drive down their percentage accepted), costing oodles of money from people who can ill afford the application (see for example Vanderbilt, U of Chicago starting in 2008 under marketing director James Nondorf, Columbia, WashUofSL, and others); 5) increasing the spending at schools for buildings and facilities that do not necessarily increase educational outcomes (see Northeastern’s approach to rising in the rankings – http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/article/2014/08/26/how-northeastern-gamed-the-college-rankings/2/ ); but do 6) force up tuition costs; 7) forces up the student debt situation. Here’s the story in a nutshell from GWU’s perspective – http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/education/edlife/how-to-raise-a-universitys-profile-pricing-and-packaging.html
Time and again on CC you read people equating high rankings with high level of instruction. It does not necessarily follow. While these antics clearly haven’t reached Trump University levels of sheer profiteering over education, I would prefer to see more focus on education and holistic value of students and education rather than how much a university can trade shiny facilities, and Old Historic Name and Hogwartsian environments for cash.
The jist of what I am reading in many of these posts and linked articles is that colleges that are not in the top tier had better accept the fact that they are mediocre and not dare to try and improve. The elite colleges, and their alumni, will not tolerate any newcomers and will do anything and everything to denigrate them if they try to rise. The 1% of higher education has no room for poseurs.
Also that Boston Magazine article has to be the most linked article here on CC.
@Dustyfeathers Did you mistype or am I missing something? When did Harvard become test optional?
^I was going to ask same thing. It’s not on any test optional list.
Those were very interesting articles, this is my first year in college search mode for my children so I had no idea the rankings were so often manipulated. The expense to families in this test competition can’t be understated, I’ve spent probably $1,000 on test prep for my daughter between tutors and online prep programs for sat and act, as I’m sure most parents of fairly competitive students are doing. I live in a state where the college climate is so competitive, even getting in to a second tier mid level state school requires pretty impressive stats. Here in California budget cuts have hit hard, so universities have been making up that shortfall by recruiting out of state and international students at full pay and admitting them on lesser criteria than in state applicants further compounding the problems.
@TomSrOfBoston writes ‘The elite colleges, and their alumni, will not tolerate any newcomers and will do anything and everything to denigrate the new ratings, if they try to rise.’ Agreed. And for all the anticipation about the recent ratings, the ranking for nearly every college barely budged. Nor will it next year, or the next. You can go back 30 years or so and see a few have fallen, like UCal and Reed (though neither is a ‘worse’ school today), but the list is remarkable consistent over time.
And I am glad for that consistency. If I am paying 100K, 200K, or more, for an undergrad education, I don’t want my daughter’s alma mater to bounce up and down in the ratings every decade or so, like D1 football teams. (I remember when Nebraska or Notre Dame seemed to be #1 every year). Especially if she is going from NC to a great school like Santa Clara or Lawrence, that almost nobody we know has heard about. We’d like to be confident knowing that rep will remain solid for employers and grad schools and anyone (like me) obsessed with the ratings.
One more thought on this, reading the studies that support why some colleges are going test optional- it would seem obvious to me as a mom that my daughter’s sustained effort over four years would be a greater indicator of college success than her ability to perform one day on a standardized test. I hope the sat and act scores aren’t the thing that hold her back from getting into a decent college. If anyone knows of other schools that don’t put a big weight on test scores in the admissions process that would be great to know as well.
@socalmom007 Colleges know that HS GPA is a better indicator of college success than the scores. That’s the most legit reason for TO policies. Grades are nearly impossible to quantify across various schools, due to different weighting, rigor of HS, grade inflation. SAT and ACT scores are also influenced by retakes, tutoring, and parental income, among other things. But they are at least consistent in the way they are reported. A 30 is a 30.
There are dozens and dozens of great TO schools to consider!
List of schools that admit students without standardized test scores: http://www.fairtest.org/university/optional
*note - some schools may still require tests for reasons such as placement or merit consideration
I totally get what you’re saying. It just makes me sad for my daughter. I’m a great test taker, I always got top scores on standardized tests. My husband is a horrible test taker. In the end we both have degrees from the same university, we both have graduate degrees and he’s gone on to be highly successful. My daughter will graduate this year from a top rated, highly competitive high school with honors (over 4.0 wgpa). She wants to study statistics and mathematics, she has a 5.0 in high school mathematics. One would hope that counts for something.
That’s the point of TO: her grades, rigor, math-sci activities, etc, will show how she actually operated, thru high school. Combined with the rest of the app and supps, she makes a “self presentation.”
There are kids with sky high test scores whose HS gpa’s don’t reflect their abilities either- school doesn’t weight music or art or language classes, so a kid who has strengths in those areas look like slackers even if they are not. There are kids who refuse to participate in the “if you make a nice cover on your history paper you get extra credit” game that is played in some HS’s and so their GPA’s (relative to their classmates) don’t reflect their abilities.
The deck isn’t stacked against those who are poor test takers- those kids can apply to a bunch of TO’s. Kids with strong scores and less strong GPA’s need to be selective in their application strategy as well.
Lots of reasons to be glad for holistic admissions- the US is not like other parts of the world where one test in 8th grade determines whether you are college material or not, depending on how you get tracked!
Indeed, I see no reason to feel sad. If she couldn’t sing well, would you also feel sad? Standardized test taking (of the American variety) is just one aspect and not a required one in order to get a good education in the US.
The University of California, though not test optional, tends to weight SAT and ACT scores less relative to other academic indicators like course rigor and grades than many other schools.
Non impacted majors at non impacted California State University campuses are test optional for California applicants with 3.0 or higher GPA.
If she wants to study math or statistics, Sarah Lawrence is a poor academic fit due to limited offerings in those areas.