Downside to test optional?

Parents Forum
121

I wouldn’t assume the Ivies or other tippy tops are trying to attract massive numbers of applicants simply to inflate the denominator. Instead, it may very well be to increase the range of qualified kids of all sorts to choose among. That’s a difference in perspective. They hope to attract more applicants with those 50% chances (not every Tom, Dick and Harriet who gets a mailing. It behooves kids to do some self selection based on more than “a dream” or a mailing. Or the simplicity of adding a college into the Common App. If they don’t have that savvy, in the first place, stats alone won’t do it.)

And “interest” is more than agreeing to an interview and showing up bright eyed and bushy tailed. Or visiting and signing in. You show it through what you do know about the school and your match. And that’s shown-or not- throughout the app and supp (in addition to the interview.) When we speak of schools getting tens of thousands of apps, knowing what you’re applying to and why are critical. (Anecdotes notwithstanding.) Step away from stats and "I have great ECs"and you can see this in many chance-me posts.

So, to try to being this back to the TO questions: know the school. Try to have some good idea of how you match, beyond stats and that they have your major, size, location, etc.

122

@ ThankYouforHelp

I agree; that is a remarkably high number %, especially given the differences in absolute numbers of admitted classes. It’s compelling, no doubt about it. Squaring that with my actual experience among kids in my overall circle is probably as simple as that most of the kids I know, and there are several, who were admitted to Berkeley were in the top 10% of their class.

I think one take away from the stats you post and my experience is that, while top 10% probably gets you into Cal, even if your top 10% is academically incomparable to a kid who, say, did a full IB diploma circuit and, even with weighting, fell outside the top 10%.

So I guess the only point I’d take issue with from your post, depending on how you meant it, was you statement that Cal "… want[s] to see actual achievement and effort, not potential as reflected by test scores.

I have seen a lot of kids graduate in the top 10% of their class who were not nearly as academically accomplished as their peers in the next percentile tier. I remember there being some controversy at my HS, where a girl who had survived the (then) usual gauntlet of college prep (that’s what we called it then) coursework with a 3.8XXX and lost out to a girl who had done the secretarial studies, PE teacher’s aid, regular English, regular everything, stopped taking math as soon as she had fulfilled grad requirements, etc. etc. etc. She was actually an exaggeration of THAT kid. But alas she had a 3.9XXX and simply got the nod, which annoyed a lot of people. That girl, no surprisingly, did not go to college.

Now, nothing wrong with any of that, and I’m not suggesting that she would have been admitted to Cal had she applied. But it’s the extreme case that best illustrates the point. An experienced hand, reading the transcript for quality and rigor and challenge, looking at trends, understanding circumstances, digesting the personal statement, reading recommendations, all that, and, where applicable, using scores to as another data point … THAT is selective admissions.

Finally, my only point was really this: if you look at UCLA and their 100,000 applications, and you look at Cal and their nearly 100,000 applications, and you then look at Harvard’s less than 40,000 applications (or whatever it is), you’d be missing the point if you thought Cal was harder to get into.

In my experience and estimation, Amherst is a heck of a lot harder to get into than Cal. You need more than to be in the top 10% of your class, which I’m sure we’d agree, can mean little or next to nothing about what your academic chops.

@lookingforward “I wouldn’t assume the Ivies or other tippy tops are trying to attract massive numbers of applicants simply to inflate the denominator.”

I don’t think the Ivies do because they generally don’t have to. For whatever reason, though, Chicago does, and it’s almost universally accepted that they do. I think it is shameful the way they pander, but in my view Chicago, wonderful institution thought it is, they are the poster child for this kind of crap. They are 100%, w/o question, trying to fatten their denominator, and it appears they’ve been quite successful in their race to single digit admissions rates.

If the Ivy League schools ever saw their brand lose luster over rising admission rates, I’ve no doubt they’d do the same, if they aren’t already.

123

No idea why my post above is redlines, but I seem to not be able to fix it. I’ll try here:

“… want[s] to see actual achievement and effort, not potential as reflected by test scores.”

I have seen a lot of kids graduate in the top 10% of their class who were not nearly as academically accomplished as their peers in the next percentile tier. I remember there being some controversy at my HS, where a girl who had survived the (then) usual gauntlet of college prep (that’s what we called it then) coursework with a 3.8XXX and lost out to a girl who had done the secretarial studies, PE teacher’s aid, regular English, regular everything, stopped taking math as soon as she had fulfilled grad requirements, etc. etc. etc. She was actually an exaggeration of THAT kid. But alas she had a 3.9XXX and simply got the nod, which annoyed a lot of people. That girl, no surprisingly, did not go to college.

Now, nothing wrong with any of that, and I’m not suggesting that she would have been admitted to Cal had she applied. But it’s the extreme case that best illustrates the point. An experienced hand, reading the transcript for quality and rigor and challenge, looking at trends, understanding circumstances, digesting the personal statement, reading recommendations, all that, and, where applicable, using scores to as another data point … THAT is selective admissions.

Finally, my only point was really this: if you look at UCLA and their 100,000 applications, and you look at Cal and their nearly 100,000 applications, and you then look at Harvard’s less than 40,000 applications (or whatever it is), you’d be missing the point if you thought Cal was harder to get into.

In my experience and estimation, Amherst is a heck of a lot harder to get into than Cal. You need more than to be in the top 10% of your class, which I’m sure we’d agree, can mean little or next to nothing about what your academic chops.

@lookingforward “I wouldn’t assume the Ivies or other tippy tops are trying to attract massive numbers of applicants simply to inflate the denominator.”

I don’t think the Ivies do because they generally don’t have to. For whatever reason, though, Chicago does, and it’s almost universally accepted that they do. I think it is shameful the way they pander, but in my view Chicago, wonderful institution thought it is, they are the poster child for this kind of crap. They are 100%, w/o question, trying to fatten their denominator, and it appears they’ve been quite successful in their race to single digit admissions rates.

If the Ivy League schools ever saw their brand lose luster over rising admission rates, I’ve no doubt they’d do the same, if they aren’t already.

124

Top 10% generically is nowhere near sufficient for admission to UCB. Note that the high school’s notion of class rank is not used at all. Perhaps more accurate is to say that a 3.9+ unweighted GPA in hard courses puts the applicant in a decent (but nowhere near certain) position for admission to UCB, which is not as difficult as for the super-selective colleges for such an applicant. However, at lower GPAs, the chance of admission appears quite low, even with top end test scores.

http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/discussion/comment/19940645/#Comment_19940645 can give you an idea of how GPA (UC-weighted-capped recalculation, which is usually about 0.3 higher than unweighted) affected UC admission rates in 2015. Note that UCs appear to elevate GPA (in hard course work) over other criteria including test scores, so that there will be some odd-looking results due to how they weight the various usual admission criteria differently from most other schools.

125

I agree, top 10% isn’t going to get one into Berkeley. According to my daughter’s counselor (my daughter’s boyfriend is applying to UCB) top 3% maybe have a shot depending on major. Weighted GPA’s that get our high school’s students into UCLA or UCB are 4.4-4.5 and up.