New pet peeve: test optional at top schools

Parents Forum
665

It’s unclear how many <1000 kids apply since test scores of test optional applicants are unknown. However, we do have stats among admits at test optional colleges since some test optional colleges request scores of test optional admits prior to attending. I listed some specific numbers earlier for Bowdoin. A good portion of Bowdoin students were admitted test optional, yet Bowdoin didn’t have any entering students who scored <500 on either exam section; so it’s safe to assume they also didn’t have any kids scoring <1000 in their admitted class. While <1000 SAT kids may have applied, it appears that no <1000 kids were admitted.

I don’t find this result surprising because kids that excel in all the many other criteria that Bowdoin looks for among applicants rarely completely bomb the SAT. They may get a much lower score than is typical for students with their transcript, LORs, essays, ECs/awards, …; but they rarely completely bomb the test with scores <1000.

4 Likes
666

Yes, I know where kids are applying because we often talk about these things. I was unaware that anyone would write a letter not knowing what someone’s post high school plans were (college or not).

1 Like
667

Thanks for clarifying!

668

D’s school required students to attach their “profile” to their request for LORs so teachers did know where the students were applying.

1 Like
669

Yep! Someone from our school literally applied to Harvard just for the heck of it! Not a top student, doesn’t have a ton of EC’s. But I guess you just never know at the end of the day.

1 Like
670

The linked study of the 24 colleges doesn’t show that there’s a greater percentage increase in applications from underrepresented groups than from other groups at these colleges that I can find. The overall applications would certainly increase (from all groups) under TO policies. For Harvard or MIT, I find it incredible if applications from such groups increased by meaningfully more than 60% for the claim to be true.

1 Like
671

That’s exactly what the study suggests. For example, the chart on page 24 compares overall application % increase to URM application % increase across a 5 year period. Specific numbers are summarized below. All the colleges that saw an increase in applications with the test optional policy had a larger increase in applications among URMs than overall. Even when overall applications increased by as large as 110%, URM applications increased by a much larger 180%. I wouldn’t expect this to be a surprising result. Groups that have lower average score than expected based on rest of application are more likely to apply test optional than the overall average. These groups include URMs, first gen, lower income, etc.

College #1 – URM application increased by 180%, Overall application increased by 110%
College #2 – URM application increased by 160%, Overall application increased by 80%
College #3 – URM application increased by 130%, Overall application increased by 35%
College #4 – URM application increased by 75%, Overall application increased by 35%
College #5 – URM application increased by 60%, Overall application increased by 30%
College #6 – URM application increased by 60%, Overall application increased by 20%
College #7 – URM application increased by 40%, Overall application increased by 15%
College #8 – URM application increased by 30%, Overall application increased by 15%
College #9 – URM application increased by 20%, Overall application increased by 5%
College #10 – URM application decreased by ~10%, Overall application unchanged

2 Likes
672

Top earners are about 40% self made, 60% inherited. We just don’t speak about the “heirs” much unless they do something extraordinary or off the beaten path themselves.

673

To me, these types of studies with highly selective data are problematic. Here’s another study that shows different results:
https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/title/measuring-success

All these studies lack true scientific rigor and tried to draw conclusions that may or may not be correct.

1 Like
674

Yes, you do know :slight_smile:
There can be some guidance which the student refuses to hear but all in all 17 year olds aren’t delusional the way 13 to 14 year olds can be: While some students apply “for the heck of it”, most also know they don’t have a shot. They just want to say they applied. These are very few and far between because top schools’ applications are very elaborate compared to their “decent but average” counterparts, especially with the essays.
There are also HEOP applicants in NYS whose stats are noticeably lower than the “regular pool” but have been advised to highly selective universities due to the HEOP process/criteria.

1 Like
675

Interesting. That wasn’t my recollection. Or Bloomberg’s.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-01-15/income-inequality-the-richest-1-get-their-wealth-from-work

Jan 15, 2019Moreover, 75 percent of top 1% earners are self-made, meaning their parents came from the bottom 99 percent.

676

I just looked up a similar announcement from Colgate this year. It did mention the increase in applications from students of color:
“As the deadline for applying to the Class of 2025 closed on Jan. 15, a total of 17,392 prospective students applied for admission — a remarkable 102.6% increase over the previous year. This record year also includes major growth in applications from students of color,”

It boasted its “remarkable 102.6% increase” of all applications while only mentioning a “major growth” in applications from students of color. I’ll bet that “major growth” isn’t as impressive as the overall increase of 102.6%.

677

It looks like it costs $50. I’m not going to spend $50 to find out what that study reviewed or what the results were, but I wouldn’t assume that it conflicts with the many other studies that have posted, which all point to a similar conclusion.

1 Like
678

This seems like an odd stance to hold fast to. The large increase among applicants to Harvard, MIT, and similar highly selective college this year appears to closely relate to going test optional. Without test scores serving as a barrier, more kids apply. It seems logical that groups that average lower test scores would be more likely to see tests as a barrier and as such more likely to apply with that barrier removed. Hence we see a larger increase among groups that average lower test scores, such as URM applications, than overall at all colleges in the previously linked study that had an increase in applications, as well as the other linked studies that reviewed this, such as the Ithaca one.

Regarding the Colgate announcement, it doesn’t specify whether the increase in URMs was larger than the overall average; so I wouldn’t assume one way or the other. However, considering that it had a huge 103% increase in applications that was far larger than the increase in applications at Harvard, MIT, or any other highly selective college I am aware of; it’s a safe bet that there are other forces in that application increase besides just going test optional. I’d expect that test optional applicants at Colgate are far more likely to be URMs, first gen, lower income, … than test submitters at Colgate. However, if the increase in application was largely related to something other than going test optional, then we need to know more about why the applications increased to estimate what demographic groups are common among the new applicants.

679

Here’s an article summarizing some of findings in that book:

680

I cannot read the article except for the Piketty/Saez/Zucman paragraph. And to be fair, the situation in the US is typically better than in many other countries. So, not trying to argue, especially since I don’t have a link for the article I’m thinking of (or might be a textbook).
Depends whether you consider household or individual income, labor income, full net worth or not, whole world or the US only, how you define “self made” (an important myth to the 20th c American Dream that has come to encompass a lot of meanings), Bloomberg’s article and I could both be right.
Typically, Zucman, Saez, and Piketty argue that wealth concentration has been increasing in the US since the 1980s, which would seem to go counter to the idea most 1%/0.5%/0.1% are sui generis.
While “the 1%” have become a target after Occupy Wall Street, I remember that the fastest concentration and the greatest change has been for the 0.5% and 0.1%.
– I cannot read the rest of the Bloomberg article so I don’t know how they define their categories, what they argue, or what sort of data they use.
AFAIK, wealth concentration doesn’t mean people don’t work at all, but rather that they earn most of their wealth from capital rather than from labor (which is entirely logical) and due to multiplying effects grow their wealth much faster than other groups, clinching a larger share of wealth and then distributing/donating it to their family/relatives/circle. That’s why there’s been a movement among US billionaires to donate part of their wealth to causes they care about, as a way to “give back” or use their money for the common good. I may be wrong since I don’t have an article I can quote and am just using my memory.
This article is pretty typical, I believe, of the “heterodox group”:

I forget the link between the top 1%/0.5%/0.1%/ and test optional schools. :sweat_smile: :upside_down_face:

But, we could look at whether socio economic, regional, or ethnic diversity changed this cycle at WashU, Trinity CT, Colorado College, Washington&Lee, Colgate, Colby, Middlebury, Georgetown, Penn, BC, NYU, SMU, UMiami, and Wake (colleges that concentrate the largest percentage of children of 1%ers) in addition to the usual “Top schools”.

681

It may seem logical, but logically, that conclusion can’t be drawn from just these premises.

682

Which relates to why I listed results from multiple studies that all match the expectation of relatively more applicants from lower average scoring groups when the score barrier is removed, which was mentioned in the sentence immediately after your quote.

Let’s instead try to show the reverse. Are there any test optional colleges in which test submitter applicants are significantly more likely to URMs than test optional applicants? I am not aware of any. Are there any test optional colleges in which the % URM applicants did not increase as much as non-URM applicants, shortly after going test optional? The previously linked study only showed 1 of 10 colleges in which this occurred, and that one college did not have an increase in applications upon going test optional. All the colleges that had an increase in applications, had a larger increase among URM applications than non-URM. Are there any examples of colleges that had a smaller increase in URM applications than non-URM upon going test optional?

1 Like
683

Forbes has its own self-made score that it gives to each of the 400 richest people:

Score is 1 to 10, where 1 to 5 started with inheritance, 6 was hired to run a business someone else built, and 7 to 10 are self-made from various levels of parental wealth.

The plurality by far (with 146 out of 400) was 8 (“Self-made who came from a middle-class or upper-middle-class background”). Scores of 9 (“Self-made who came from a largely working-class background; rose from little to nothing”) and 10 (“Self-made who not only grew up poor but also overcame significant obstacles”) were less common. Scores of 7 (“Self-made who got a head start from wealthy parents and moneyed background”) seem less common, but probably not in comparison to the very small number of people who had “wealthy parents and moneyed background”.

While most of the Forbes 400 is self-made (268 to 122, with 10 hired to run a business that someone else built), it appears that parental SES does matter in how likely someone is to self-make their way to wealth. Of course, the 122 inheritors are still vastly overrepresented there compared to the share of people who have parents with that much money to potentially bequeath.

3 Likes
684

I don’t believe there’re sufficient data to draw conclusion one way or the other. As more colleges have gone test optional, let’s hope they’ll release more data so we can properly assess TO’s impact on things other than the total number of applications.