I don’t recall seeing any post claiming the tests are completely fair. Some may feel they are fairer than some other elements in college admissions.
LIkewise, no one seems to claim that the tests are so useful that they can be used as the exclusive basis for college admissions. Countries that use them exclusively probably do so because they consider them to be fairer (to avoid “Varsity Blue”-like corruptions or worse) and more practical (too many applications to process – not unlike some of our large public universities) than the alternatives.
Since the discussion here was TO at “top colleges” my responses have been with that in mind. For top colleges I think SAT/ACT scores are not that useful as the students seeking out these schools are typically high achievers. Because of the holistic nature of admissions at these schools, they are better able to weed out the “moon shot” candidates who don’t have the chops to be successful. Moreover, by implementing TO these schools can attract a more diverse applicant pool and increase the number of applicants (and, potentially, admits) from under represented groups (which was what happened this year). Standardized tests are probably a lot more useful for schools where holistic review is not part of the picture and the number of applicants is extremely high.
These schools are clearly having a more difficult time processing their applications this year, judging by the postponement of their decision announcement dates. It’s also too early to claim any “success”.
We also don’t know there were relatively more applications on the percentage basis from traditionally underrepresented groups than from other groups, unless we consider students with lower test scores (or no scores) as such a group.
It’s just my opinion and you don’t need to agree, however, existing research on TO students vs. their peers indicates a negligible difference in outcomes at college so I am assuming similar success at top schools. In terms of diversifying the pool, several top schools reported 25% or more increases in the number of black and latino applicants this year so there is some evidence that TO is working to bring a wider variety of applicants into the pool.
i agree with this - the correlation of parent’s educational background is the biggest indication of kids’ success. My SIL who was a principal often has pinpointed that even to the mother’s education.
my sibling and i grew up in a poor midwest rural area. Dad was an MFA trying to make a living off bees and pottery. My sibling had 11 classmates in our extremely rural town; but was a NM kid - absolutely no prepping - and now is in doing really well in the Bay area. we were poor - government cheese at times – but the more i look back at that, it was a (hippie-type) choice of my parents. They were both well educated.
Actually, I think it’s the opposite. The moonshot candidate you mention who get 1000 on his/her SATs wasn’t going to apply in the past. The GC and online scores would have likely stopped them. Now, everyone is going to put out those apps thinking their EC’s can compensate for years of bad schooling.
Elites are going to be more advantaged than ever. Why? They know about specialized programs and tests and all the rest. The kid from the underfunded school has no way to demonstrate skills. That kid with the 1300 score in a school with normal score of 950, yep no way to show his excellence within the pool of candidates. Not to mention he/she can’t really figure out for himself what’s a good fit.
And the kid from public school that no one ever heard about? Also in a pool where standing out is going to be tougher than ever before.
Obviously a motive this past year to go TO was Covid and the difficulty in scheduling tests. If top schools continue to be TO what might be the reason? Have test scores factored into lawsuits against certain top schools lately? By eliminating test scores as a factor in their “holistic” review of applicants could it maybe remove one of the more objective arguments those filing the law suits have. I don’t know. I was just considering it. Perhaps it would just be a lagniappe of changing their policy.
A college may find that SAT/ACT are not sufficiently useful in admission to be worth requiring for them. Different colleges may come to different decisions on this subject.
Harvard and MIT both had about 60% increase in EA applicants this year, for example. But I very much doubt that applications to these schools from any underrepresented group increased by higher amount percentage-wise (and likely much lower). The increases likely came mainly from groups that are already fully represented or over-represented.
How many people getting 1000 on their SAT are really going to throw their hat in the ring for a top 20 school? Furthermore, how many of those students have course rigor and super high GPAs? If I had to guess, most kids who are submitting TO either didn’t get an opportunity to test or scored in the lower range of what these schools show in their CDS (maybe 1300s instead of 1500s). As to the kid from a mediocre school with a higher than expected SAT-- that kid can still show that. The schools are TO not test blind and I’d guess a higher than expected score will still be a big plus for those students. I’ll be honest - in my view the group that TO is disadvantaging is your typical white, upper middle class student who has a high SAT score. That student is now competing with a much bigger pool of students - many of whom have similar GPAs, course rigor, ECs and the rest. A few friends with kids at elite private/BS have already seen this - kids deferred or rejected at schools where they would have had a very good chance of being admitted in most years.
Something we should also keep in mind is that colleges will mostly be TO for class of 2022 because there continue to be test date cancellations. While it seems reasonable that most students in the US will have a chance to test in early fall if desired, I don’t think that’s quite enough for colleges to go back to tests-required for 2022 if they desire to do so. What may be interesting is to list colleges already TO for class of 2023, which shouldn’t have the test date cancellation issue.
I think a lot of kids will apply. I use 1000 as a score. But a kid who isn’t anywhere close to the mean score/well below the 25% will just say I’m going TO. And sttudents often will think that coming from a large public school where 40% of kids are “A” students and there are 30-40 valedictorians is the same as coming from a school where grades aren’t given out like candy.
It already happens. And yes it affects many demographics but isn’t solely going to penalize high income kids from private schools ( those folks know the system) It’s also going to affect the low and middle income kids who had a great shot based on having high grades AND solid scores ( SAT, AP, etc). Many low income kids are using Khan to self study with great success.
When my kids wre in public school, they had a math team. Kids competed based on their scores. The top s oring kid was not high SES. But he was #1. If you think you are going to be able to ouck out that kid from a group of 12, I don’t agree. This kid was also white. So holistically this kid a white male isn’t getting any holistic admissions boost. Yet, he is your best bet by far in terms of academic ability. This happens all the time.
The trick is to raise the number of kids from diverse backgrounds and pick the best 5-10 from. That is NOT easy based on “holistic” admissions. Take away all tests and it’s a crapshoot, at best.
I serious doubt a lot of incapable kids are suddenly going to apply to top schools, and as a teacher I can’t imagine myself or any of my peers writing LORs that say Johnny/Susie should do awesome at X school when we know they won’t.
IME both at the school where I’ve worked and the really good one I attended, kids who aren’t driven for academics don’t apply. (There could be exceptions for Legacies where mom/dad insist, but those happen with test scores too.)
I do agree that many schools have announced that they will be TO next cycle but I’d be really curious to see which states have no opportunities for testing. All my nieces and nephews have at least taken it once (in various states), and my one niece is taking it a second time next month.
I have seen people online complaining about test date cancellations. Likely in California? I don’t live there, but anywhere schools have not had in-person classes yet are subject to potential test date cancellations by the host school, and there are certainly a number of such schools in the US. (Otherwise, I agree most will have had an opportunity to test, most isn’t enough.)
If a 4% representation (or less) at top schools under our current system (test required) means success then, to me, TO is worth a shot. Maybe it won’t substantively change the demographic make up of these schools, but there is a chance that it could. To me that chance is worth taking because the current system has done little to truly diversify these schools. Elite schools have barely moved the needle since the 1980s in terms of the number of poorer students they enroll.
I believe that in IL, even though schools were still fully remote, they still held SAT testing dates last Fall because it’s a requirement for graduation. (OH is the same with the ACT).
I do wonder what AOs think when kids go TO and they are from a state where they know it’s been requirement. IMO, I think that could raise a red flag at a top school.
They have increased diversity. A lot. That includes economic, racial and m/f. They also have more international students, students who are LQBTQ, students who are handicapped, etc.
I am old enough to remember when Engineering meant 75-80% were men. I received my Masters degree free of charge. Why? They needed more diversity in that field and I could check that box.
It’s not perfect today. But I think saying that diversity is confined to a single category is narrow minded in the sense that you are leaving everyone else out of the picture.
If the increase of lower-SES students on campus is the goal of these “elite” schools, they can do much better than adopting a TO policy. They can eliminate preferences for alumni and athletes in sports only the well-off can participate in. They can eliminate their ED programs that disadvantage students of lower-SES. But most of these “elite” schools don’t.