D took the ACT and received a 33 with no prep at all. It was meant as a fact finding experiment to see whether she is a better SAT or ACT tester. On one hand, the score was good enough that I’m not sure it makes sense to invest in private tutors or have her work over the summer to improve it, as her “reachiest” school is Tufts, and their mid range student scored 32-34 (using Niche data). On the other hand, will having an average score for a reach be sufficient against so many test optional students to be competitive? I question whether there is a real difference in a 33 or a 35, as many students with 35s are rejected from all schools. IMHO, her once and done score without prep says a lot about her, and feel her time would be better spent crafting excellent essays, but I’m not the admissions officer. I would appreciate your opinions.
If she could put in some time without taking away too much from working on her essays and applications that’s what I’d recommend. Is there a section where she thinks she could get a few more points? My daughter is in the same boat with a 33. Her score is a bit lopsided though so she’s retaking to try to get the math section up a couple points. I’ve heard that 34 and higher is sort of considering maxing out your score. That’s what my daughter is aiming for, a 34. By the way I do think that the score ranges for lots of schools will go up because kids were advised to submit scores only if the score helped them…
S22 has a 34, and his GC told him not to submit it to Vanderbilt or WashU because his grades are a 4.0 UW and a 34 won’t help him. If he gets a 35 or 36, she said he could submit it. Seems crazy and like we are splitting hairs.
FWIW, I would submit the 34.
But would a 34 HURT him? Geez. This is insane. Maybe she will just restest without prep and see if anything improves. She could superstore since that is now a thing with the ACT. At this level, small mistakes are what differentiate scores, not major conceptional issues. Just cant see investing in a test prep company for one reach school where the score is quite respectable. Will see what GC says — meeting in a week or so.
That’s just stupid advice. How many kids in the US have a 4.0UW? Compare that with how many have a 34 on the ACT (let alone in a COVID year). Basic statistics on this one. Grade inflation is real. Test optional bit a lot of people in the ass last year.
Honestly, I think that is terrible advice. That’s an excellent score and it certainly won’t hurt. At a minimum it will confirm that his grades and ACT score are well aligned and, personally, I think that is a positive.
The rationale of the advice not to submit a 34 to a very high end, test optional school is that since he is tied for Val at a HS the college knows well, a 34 will not help him and could hurt. I am wary about the advice as well, because part of my head still lives in a world where if you did not submit scores you worried that an admissions counselor would assume your scores were bad. With the craziness of this past admissions cycle and so many schools not even looking at test scores, I am not sure he would be hurt by not submitting a score at certain schools. S22 is taking ACT again in June and hopes for a 35, which would moot the point.
Man, that a 34 is in any way a negative is so sad. Really tough for this generation’s kids.
A lot of students this past admission cycle were burned for not taking or submitting standardized test scores. Simply stated, grade inflation is an issue in US high schools. An unweighted 4.0GPA is the norm at schools like Vandy and WashU. The question is academic rigor. Standardized tests tend to confirm whether the GPA is real or inflated. My S22 worked hard (ACT cancelled three times) just to take the ACT and PSAT. He scored well. He won’t be taking them again. We will be submitting the scores to all schools for the reasons above.
As an aside, I read scholarship applications for my alma mater. When I saw that a student did not submit a standardized test score, I examined their transcript a lot more. I was not instructed to do so, but were I comparing two students that were otherwise equal and one had submitted a high standardized test score and the other did not…what are telling me or not telling me? Understand?
But were they? Any proof that going TO hurt people? I ask because I put out a thread asking for people’s feedback on that and I didn’t really hear that it was a negative for many (one response was that a TO kid was denied at his reaches, but since they were reaches you can’t really attribute that to TO) - one person said they were admitted TO to an Ivy, another mentioned they thought a kid they knew was helped TO and a bunch more thought it was a wash. Regardless, if you have a great score why not send it?
Go read the Alabama, Utah, and Auburn threads on merit aid. Many students expecting merit aid based on their GPA were shocked by the results. In each case, those that did not receive what they were expecting went test optional. Admittedly, there is no data on this yet. But, most people acknowledge that test optional INCREASED applications to reach schools. Since the schools are not admitting more, then means that rejections INCREASED lock-step. Basic math.
In terms of merit (as opposed to admission), that could definitely be the case; although I have read that merit was down even among testers this year (although that is only anecdotal).
Again, it is accepted that test optional increased admissions to reach schools. Since those schools are not admitting more student, it means that rejections also increased lock-step.
Well, TO policies definitely resulted in lower acceptance rates, but I don’t think TO applicants were accepted at a higher rate than testers (I’d guess the result was probably the opposite). Whether it was a negative, neutral or positive for any given student probably had a lot to do with the strength of their overall application.
Personally I think that is crazy. 34 is 99%tile. There is absolutely no way submitting a 34ACT will hurt you even at very selective schools. About 2M take it, about 5555 get a 36, 15000 get a 35 and 20000 get a 34. So only 20000 students scored higher that the 34. I just can’t see how that “hurts” at Wash U or Vandy.
Precisely the point. A score, especially a good score, separates you from the pack in a test optional environment. Why on earth would you not report it? A lot of student and parents believed that their 4.0 GPA kids could get into top tier schools this past year without a test score. Well…just about everyone at those schools has a 4.0 GPA (take a look at the average GPA for the UC system, which is not top tier across the board, for example). This resulted in a flood of applications (which cost money) and a lot of disappointment.
There was just a post on another tread that a number of schools admitted twice the amount of students with scores than without.
@Mwfan1921 posted this:
From Jeff Selingo’s newsletter today:
"In general, my discussions with deans at about a dozen selective colleges over the last few weeks found that about half of their applicant pools applied without test scores.
- In every case I heard so far, students with test scores got accepted more often. In some cases, the admit rate was twice as high for students with test scores vs. those without.
- Emory: Admit rate 17% (with tests) vs. 8.6% (without tests)
- Colgate: 25% (w/tests) vs. 12% (w/o tests)
- Georgia Tech: 22% (w/tests) vs. 10% (w/o tests)
- Vanderbilt: 7.2% (w/tests) vs. 6% (w/o tests)"
Seems the moral of the story is that a strong score is an advantage. And, scores are still required for around 1/3 of 4 year colleges, notably the UF system.
Also in his newsletter, saw this: “One public university dean I talked with showed me admissions rates that were remarkably similar between those with and without test scores, except in STEM and business, where students with test scores got in at much higher rates.”
My take is that there are other things your D can do with her time to make her a better candidate for Tufts (depending on what Tufts likes in their candidates) than spending a lot of time prepping to improve a 34. If she wants a shot at improving her score, I would have her look closely at her section scores and have her see if a small amount of prep could help (brushing up on grammar rules, that kind of thing).
Last fall there was an endless To Send or Not To Send debate that will resurface for our '22s. We were flying blind with our '21s - at least this year the 20-21 data that comes out might help guide our decisions? Or muddy them more? Just know that it is possible that seeing the TO-year range for Tufts might help make the decision for her (it is unlikely to be 32-34 this past year but you never know!).