Maybe they aren’t motivated.
This is derailing the thread, so my last comment on it. At many high schools, a 3.95 gpa is great and will do fine. Not true at our local public school, where the bottom half of the class don’t score the 950 or so SAT that is necessary for college readiness. Grade inflation is real and grades don’t always tell much.
Kids are tested on materials they are supposed to know as a junior in all US based (at a minimum) HS. How is that unfair?
Actually, a very recent and large study done by the UC system argues AGAINST getting rid of the standardized tests, particularly for MINORITY and poor kids.
Actual data are linked in this article.
What I am saying here is that of all advantages that a well-off kid may have, the easiest one to catch up to is standardized testing. Just doing the QAS tests released by college board, Khan Academy and a couple of books, the playing field can be leveled greatly.
And I live in an area where parents drop $5000 routinely to enroll their kids in SAT prep where they do essentially what can be done for free with a little enterprise.
I have seen the example of Georgetown, where test-submitting students were admitted at a higher rate than those who didn’t submit, but that shows correlation, not causation. Other data on the relative quality of both applicant pools would bring some clarity to the debate, however. So my questions is, can you share a comparisons from any source that includes the GPA averages of both pools?
Georgetown is NOT test optional. Georgetown requires scores to be reported if a student took an SAT/ACT test or tests. The only thing different since the pandemic began is that Georgetown allows students who could NOT take a test to apply.
My daughter used one the reasonably priced prominent test prep groups. She took an orchestrated practice test at the end and did average and frankly below average based on her HS academic stats. So, It was a waste of money. She felt it might be worth it for on level students trying to get a reasonable score to qualify for a 4-year college, but not her. As such, she then decided to just use the books and online sources and grind on it a few hours every week for about 8 weeks prior to her first test. She did great, had a 10% improvement from her practice test. She adjusted her efforts based on the weaknesses from the first test and improved another 10%.
Many here may disagree, but I feel for an above average HS student who takes predominately honors, AP and dual enrollment classes that they should strive to exceed a 1,400 SAT or 31 ACT to position themselves for Merit Aid, etc. Test Optional is definitely becoming more common, but a student with a solid HS transcript and the above mentioned scores is still better positioned in their application.
Test Strategy Going Forward -
How do you look as an applicant without tests?
Take a practice test with limited at-home prep. Assume you will improve 50 points, 100 points, 200 points - will that be enough to make you look better than choosing not to submit scores to those schools you think may be a fit? Will you likely achieve those gains?
Move on (many kids should) OR prep like crazy.
If you prepped, what did you get - submit scores or not based upon whether the tests strengthen your profile.
IMO - for most kids, it will probably not be worth it. Scores will get better and better as only better scorers will send them in. Each year gets harder discouraging more students from preparing the following year.
At my kid’s school, the top 10% cutoff was below 3.9, and the average GPA for the school was around 3.2-3.3. It was a pretty decent school, and probably had more than average grade inflation.
Your high school is an extreme outlier. Basically, it means that almost every student in every class gets an A, so, to get an A, a student just has to register for a class, and be present at most of the lessons. It must REALLY suck to be that one student who actually gets a B…
However, this is not normal, and basing college admission standards on such extreme outliers is not useful.
I mean, if we are going to let outliers determine policy, then remember that there are people who are paying off SAT proctors. I mean, they caught of few, but the fact that these people can be bought off indicates that this is not all that uncommon.
Then there is the fact that up to some 1/4 of the kids at wealthy public schools are getting time accommodations. On average, 3.9% of kids in the top 20% (5.8% for the top 1%) have accommodations, versus 2.7% for everybody else (2.1% for the bottom 20%). The number of students who benefit from accommodations because of their wealth is far higher than the number of students who are attending schools where As are handed out like candy at a parade.
Moreover, A quick look at school’s profile will tell an AO that this applicant is from a school where a 3.95 GPA is meaningless. However, an AO has no idea whether a person has a test accommodation.
PS. I’m curious - how did the high school determine the top 6% and top 10% for automatic admissions to the public universities when test were being canceled?
I didn’t send my kids to the school, so it wasn’t “my high school”. Nevertheless, class rank for admission purposes is determined on June 30 of the junior year, so the classes of 2020 and 2021 probably weren’t affected by covid much. Classes at the local community college are weighted, so stronger students take those,I am told.
Probably at a high school with a heavily weighted GPA calculation.
I know. But in the 2021 cycle, a significant number of students applied without tests because testing opportunities were so significantly reduced. Georgetown highlighted the difference in admit rates, which should not come as a surprise given its bias for testing.
But I was commenting on @Mjkacmom’s statement that “high test scores tend to have more acceptances than TO with similar GPA’s.” I’m not aware of any schools that published stats (e.g. GPA) to better indicate the relative qualifications of the test-submitting and test-optional pools, so whatever is going on in message boards is not backed up with data.
I don’t see this info in the article, it only mentions a 7.3% acceptance rate for those who applied without a test….we don’t know what proportion applied without tests.
Regardless, Georgetown has a strong preference for scores, and those who didn’t have a score had to effectively explain why.
Georgetown also may have identified those applicants who were from the many states where school day tests were administered for class of 2021, like in my state Illinois…so maybe if someone applied without a test from one of those states, Gtown assumed they were hiding a test score….I don’t know this, I’m just spitballing.
ETA: I’m sure those students in the 7% were very happy that Georgetown went text flexible, rather than still requiring tests, like the UF system.
10.79% overall admit rate, 7.34% for those who did not submit test scores. I did not mean to take this off track by citing Georgetown, which is TO only for those who can attest that they did not have the opportunity to test. 2021 was a year when even Georgetown was forced to bend, though. (I’m sure they hated it, but I do know an applicant in that cycle who was admitted to Georgetown TO.)
My point is there is no data to conclude that students who are comparable academic performers have a greater or lesser chance of being admitted by submitting or not submitting tests in a true TO scenario. If students are looking at a TO school (not Georgetown), and they meet standards for rigor and performance but their test scores are out of range, they should apply TO. If admit rates are lower for non-submitters, I’d need to see other data before claiming causation.
I would say yes! I was in the same boat for this admissions and I took the test but I didn’t do as good as I wanted to (I didn’t prep much) and thus didn’t submit it. Now I’m realizing that with test optional schools, although not clearly stated, by not taking or submitting a score did end up hurting me because those that did submit are the first to get accepted into many schools. I did get into great schools with amazing scholarships so it’s definitely not required, however, looking back I highly recommend it because it could give you a great leg up and even if you don’t do well it doesn’t hurt you. That being said I wouldn’t spend a ton of money on prep as it does get less and less important as time goes on. Good luck for whichever path you take!!
Their findings do not dispute that more wealthy students do better. They blame it on course selection and grades for minority and low income students.
Not the fact that kids in college prep schools and ones that their parents spend up to 5K are better prepared to take the SAT or ACT
So do I, and the level of prep they are getting is superior than you can get for free.
A lot of the high price services rely on word of mouth from friends and neighbors whose children had large enough gains on the test, from before the prep session to justify the cost and recommend it
Bottom Line again
If you are going to submit test scores you need to do all you can to be the best prepared that you can be.
If you can afford it do research and find a good college test prep service that fits your budget
At a minimum do practice tests and Khan Academy.
Back to the original question - is it worth prepping - the answer is yes (short of you know you’re going to get a 1550+).
Whether the SAT is ‘equitable’ or unfair to minorities, etc. is irrelevant.
Short of a test blind school (UCs, some schools at Cornell, etc.) - having a strong test is a boost - period, end of story.
Some majors at TO schools may require it (like engineering). Some scholarships may require it (like Alabama).
If you take it and miss, then no harm no foul. But it’s clear that having a strong test will only help you and can’t hurt you.
The other stuff is great for debate - but not pertinent to the question.
Of course, but how about prepping when you know odds of getting a strong score are so low - like with the large majority of test-takers. Since most schools are not rewarding most students with strong scores these days (relative to strong applicants without scores), why should you do it?
When we get the stats this year forward they are based on students who took the SAT apt ACT and submitted them. Many high school counselors have told seniors not to submit scores u less they are in the 25% range. So now the average score will be high because it is what used to be in the 25% range. Kids are going to have to get even higher scores. It’s such an unfair and misleading guide.
Look at the post by @Balance63, my experience with my son has been similar. SAT does not require a magic wand to do well on and test prep success is relative. I will maintain that with a little practice, a student can easily get 1400++ in SAT without high dollar tutors. This assumes he/she is motivated and performs at grade level. Kids that are under prepared will fail in college and standardized tests predict that very well.
We will have to disagree
It’s not easy to score above a 1400 with or without tutors and i believe in giving students all the tools you can to succeed.
In 2021 a 1400 to 1500 scores on the SAT would place the taker in the 93rd to 98th percentile
So on average the top 5% of test takers in the country.
I disagree with you. Kids that get a lower score are not necessarily going to struggle in college. Also kids that study how to take the SAT and do well is driving Lu not an indicator that they will do well in
College. They learn to be good test takers but doing well in college is much more than that. It’s learning how to become independent, manage time, study without your parents on top of you or paying people patiently sit with you to make sure you do well on tests, and so much much more. These last two years many kids chose not to submit scores because of other stress factors
Which outweighed the necessity of paying the college board more money than necessary.