This seems to be a popular theory on the forum – being test optional/blind hurts low income kids because scores are the only area of the application where they can excel or similar. However, all actual studies and research I am aware of suggest the opposite – test scores are more likely to be a relative weak point on their application (compared to other aspects of their application, which includes transcript and numerous other factors) for lower income kids than higher income kids, so going test optional tends to favor lower income kids more than higher income kids.
For example, the study at https://www.nacacnet.org/globalassets/documents/publications/research/defining-access-report-2018.pdf compares the demonstrated financial need between test submitters and non-submitters at 21 test optional colleges. At all 21 of them, the kids who submitted test scores had higher average incomes than non-submitters. The same pattern occurred, in the previously linked Bates and Ithaca studies. Some example numbers from the Ithaca study are below. Test optional admits were twice as likely to be Pell grant recipients than test submitters.
Applicants
Test Submitter Applicants – Mean family contribution = $37k, 10% Pell, 26% URM*
Test Optional Applicants – Mean family contribution = $31k, 17% Pell, 40% URM*
Admits
Test Submitter Admits-- Mean family contribution = $37k, 15% Pell, 22% URM*
Test Optional Admits – Mean family contribution = $30k, 29% Pell, 35% URM*
Enrolled
Test Submitter Enrolls-- Mean family contribution = $34k, 18% Pell, 19% URM*
Test Optional Enrolls – Mean family contribution = $29k, 30% Pell, 31% URM*
*Ithaca includes Asian students as part of their URM category. Only ~4% of Ithaca kids are Asian.
I think one of the problems with standardized tests and elite school admissions is that ultra high scores among applicants have now become so common that the main function of standardized tests has become to determine who doesn’t get in as opposed to who does get in. It wasn’t always like this. When I was applying colleges 35 years ago, it was exceptionally rare to hear about someone scoring a 1550 on the SAT. Even among elite school applicants, a score like that would stand out. Today, elite schools see a 1550 SAT and yawn. And for good reason. My son graduated two years ago from a small suburban public high school with only 140 students. In his class, 3 kids got 36s on the ACT, one kid got a 1600 on the SAT and another got a 1590. Besides those scores, there were at least 10 other kids who scored 34/35 on the ACT or 1500 plus on the SAT. High scores have become so common, elite schools don’t see standardized tests as a particularly useful metric, except perhaps, to disqualify/eliminate those with relatively low scores. And now with TO, it’s not even useful for that.
This is a rare exception. The ACT and SAT keep low-income students from actually applying in the first place since their scores are lower. Test-optional helps lower income students.
Since most data indicates that kids from low income families score significantly lower on standardized tests than their wealthy counterparts (in aggregate - of course there are exceptions), this makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately, the doors to elite colleges remain largely closed to poor but talented kids (only about 4% of elite college attendees are poor while 2/3 are wealthy) for a whole host of reasons. To me removing any barrier (like a test score) that might open the doors of opportunity to a more varied pool of candidates is a positive.
I think you’re missing a couple of things here. First of all many schools are going test optional because kids could not take the test. My kid’s ACT was canceled five times. Many kids were prepared and ready but after many cancellations were just not ready when it was finally offered, and for other kids it simply was not offered. After so many cancellations signing up again was like trying to get tickets to a popular concert, not everyone was able to do it. It’s a pandemic.There’s also a school of thought that these tests don’t really test anything - except for the skills in taking this particular test. There are studies that show how test prep for these tests help the more advantaged kids, but doesn’t test the ability to take a test or how smart someone is, that’s why this pandemic may lead the way to … no more tests. I bet you studies will show that those who did not submit scores do fine on tests overall, I doubt there’s any correlation whatsoever.
And this is why performance in high school is traditionally a better method by which to measure success than test scores. I think that this pandemic will bring about a lot of changes, some very good ones
My time in admissions was somewhat brief and 20+ years ago. A related 10 year experience gave me some even better insights. Now that I discredited myself – I think that it is incredible when someone like that shines because of scores. I would also say I have not seen it happen as often as people think - not a lot of Good Will Huntings. On the other hand, you can’t help but admire some 1300’s more than others. In those instances, test optional may hurt those people because they may look at a school average and make the choice not to test.
I’m not picking on you either. For those of you who deny grade inflation, you aren’t living in reality. Grade inflation is everywhere because there’s good motivation for it. Besides, there’s something stronger than even data when drawing a conclusion. It’s called logic.
The idea that A requires perfection may have an undesirable effect on how high school students learn to think. Real world problems often do not have perfect solutions, but the people who tackle the problem best can understand and evaluate the tradeoffs associated with each solution.
The typical high school grading scale also means that high school teachers give mostly easy problems (so that C students can get 70+% of them correct), with limited point space for more difficult problems to challenge B and A students.
@dfbdfb I don’t think the claim that there is grade inflation is “evidence free” Just look up the mean high school GPA and you will find GPA’s are highly inflated relative to other decades and has been increasing for a long time. Maybe Data can help. I did a quick search and there are lots of academic studies on the topic.
When you have 40-50% of a graduating class receiving an “A” grade of some type that means either grades are inflated or most kids are doing A work.
One here ( me) and many more at various HYPS’s. Taking the test off the table means that kids in poorly ranked schools with low SES have no/little way to demonstrate academic acumen ( for lack of a better word).
Additionally, people always talk about taking the test off the table for MIT etc. MIT/others can tell who is able to do the work with other scores.
Guess what? Kids from low SES families don’t even know that AMS and Summer camps exist. Or worse, they look at them and see the price tag. I was checking one out yesterday, $7500 bucks. How many kids in that competitive program are low SES. Oh, and even if they give FA, those parents don’t have the time to help kids fill it out. They are working.
The issue is, some of the solutions often end up hurting the kids who need the help most. SAT scores help low-income kids with high scores. They do.
I
Exactly; it’s all about context. This is one of the benefits of a HS providing standardized test scores. If 40-50% of the class is in the A/A- range (unweighted) and the average SAT scores are high, then the colleges (and prospective parents shopping around for HS’s) can assume the curriculum is strong and the student body is academically talented. If grades are high, but average test scores are low, then it’s worth looking more closely.
Grade inflation is clearly happening (a few days on CC makes the case, but there are articles and other research to back it up), so test scores provide a form of verification regarding the curriculum and rigor.
They actually don’t. Very smart kids in low-performing schools often get low standardized test scores. Here’s a story about a program aiming to rectify that. Note the kid who got a 2 on his AP Calc test but went on to be at the top of his Intro to Engineering class in this Harvard program. You don’t seem to have much evidence to back up your claims, but I’m happy to hear it if you care to share. A College Program for Disadvantaged Teens Could Shake Up Elite Admissions - The New York Times
We are in a low income district and I have never heard educators or AOs that visit say SAT/ACT helps our kids. This yr we had more kids matched through QB and more kids accepted early to top schools because they went TO.
Expect to see lots more studens looking for outside validation of their intelligence to put on their application-other test scores such as AMS and AIME, the various olympiads,IB scores if you have them. The race is on to distinguish oneself in other ways, since gpa and ACT/SAT no longer will. I feel rather bad for these poor kids-the goal posts keep shifting and the bar keeps expanding in all directions.
I agree with you, roycroftmom. Arguably, an obstacle on the path to colleges is removed for students by the TO policy, but more obstacles are in fact laid down for them (especially those who aim for the selective schools), to chase after scores in AIME, olympiads and the like, to outshine their peers. Sigh!
