I think last cycle is going to prove to be unique for schools that aren’t typically TO. There were still plenty of students who didn’t have the opportunity to test. I also think it makes a different for certain majors and types of schools.
If I had a crystal ball, I would say that this upcoming cycle is going to be different and TO will be a harder sell. Time will tell.
Purdue is already saying they prefer to see scores. They specifically say that for applicants who haven’t had the opportunity to test, to explain why in the “other information” section of the common app. IMO, that’s different than taking it twice and having a low score.
Yes, most schools really are evaluating students who are TO fairly. You can see this by the percentage who applied TO and that were admitted TO. While I’m not sure if we’ll ever know, I suspect that the schools that had = percentages had separate piles. Some schools preferred high test scores (UPenn, Rice), but many kept it very even.
When you bring TO into the picture, only higher testers are submitting. So, even a 1480, which I think was mentioned earlier, can be on the lower end.
Something I noticed this round was that it seemed that schools loved the full IB applicants. I think your S needs to work on having his app stand out. Create a picture of who he is. And, yes, reach out to AOs! We know lots of kids who benefited from TO and are headed to schools they never could have gotten into with their test scores. If anything, this cycle seems to have been a bit rougher for kids with the “traditional” high scores and excellent ECs but nothing that jumped off the page.
I agree. Our D didn’t send any scores - no SAT, ACT or even her AP scores. We thought about sending AP scores because she had a couple of 5s, a 4 and a 3 but we wanted to omit the 3 and, in the end, just thought sending some but not all of her AP scores would look like we were hiding that 3.
Where the OPs son stands in his class is important too. D was in top decile. Our school does not rank but does show top decile and top 25% on the school profile so that AOs could see where she landed. Top ten percent at our school is an accomplishment and AOs know that. 95% of the 650-student class go to four year colleges and we send kids to top schools. All of that context is important for a TO candidate.
Editing to add- the OP should look at the high school profile. On ours, it also states the ranges for SAT and ACT in the class. You can see how many kids got above a 1500, then a 1400, etc. With D in the top decile and almost ten percent of the kids getting over a 1500, colleges could maybe assume that given a regular year she would have hit that score. The more info the better on the profile if it helps the student.
Fair enough. My point was to an extent, if you are a high achieving majority applicant, not submitting test scores doesn’t necessarily mean you will get accepted considering their other accomplishments alone. Even submitting high test scores won’t necessarily get you in, either. D21 made the mistake of submitting an SAT score
that was in the middle of the percentile range for her ED app to a T10 school. Anyway… kind of a thread drift.
I think the OP’s original question has been answered several times. Don’t submit a score that low. With that score, most flagship state schools would be a challenge too. For the OP, watch some of the counseling sessions from top schools. Nearly all of them said that while submitting a test score was not required, by not submitting one, the other components of the application were weighted heavier than with one, so focus on strengthening the other aspects of the application. And focus on selecting schools that represent a mixture of selectivity. You see so many kids on these boards shooting for too high of a bar with few applications, leaving themselves with no options on May 1st.
What most schools saw this year was a large percentage of EA/ED applicants still submitting scores, but once those results were published with considerable amounts of TO applicants being accepted, it opened the floodgates for RD TO. So, what you will probably find in the near term (and potentially the long term) are people only submitting scores that are truly exceptional when they are optional.
You mentioned that your son is a junior in HS, so I assume he will be applying next year. It’s unclear which of the colleges you listed will be test optional/blind next year. It won’t nearly all selective 4 -year colleges like this year, but it will be a larger portion of colleges than pre-COVID.
Some of the colleges that interest you are likely to require test scores next year, so it would be a good idea to have better test scores. I’d suggest reviewing why the scores are lower than expected based on on GPA and rest of application. Is there a particular section he needs work on? Is he running out of time? Test anxiety and making poor/no decisions? It’s also worthwhile to compare results with ACT.
Regarding evaluating students fairly. … In general I believe that colleges are evaluating test optional applicants fairly, but it depends on many factors, and some things may change next year. As a general rule, submitting a 1150 SAT is not likely to help a 3.8 UW / 4.5 weighted applicant with high course rigor, excellent ECs/awards, good personal qualities, and otherwise qualified (besides score). I’d be surprised if a college consultant did not also believe this. Perhaps the consultant meant that many colleges he is considering are likely to require submitting scores next year, so he may need to submit scores to those colleges.
I am a student, but I wanted to share my opinion on this matter. I would agree that the SAT tests your ability to take a test rather than on your knowledge of the subjects tested. However, I still believe the SAT is necessary for college admissions. It allows for another academic perspective of the applicants aside from their GPA. For students that had one really bad year grades-wise due to personal issues, the SAT shows colleges that this one bad year did not detriment your academic capabilities. I also believe the SAT being a measure of how well someone can take a test is a good thing. In our current society, standardized tests have been an important part of a student’s life, and tests are a main factor to determine who gets admitted into medical school, law school, etc. I also believe that the claim that the SAT favors upper-class background students is slightly true, but I don’t believe this is entirely the case. As long as a student has the will and the grind to want to score well, they will. It is like the saying, “You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make them drink it.” It is also important to acknowledge that richer students can purchase tutors for their school work to give them a GPA boost, over other students, so the money disparities issue should not only apply to the SAT. If anything, the SAT allows for colleges to compare students between each other because some schools and teachers have easier classes that others, so standardization is good to an extent.
We haven’t really added any other Maryland based schools. I went to UMD. Hopkins is a great school, but that seemed like a reach. I’m not a big fan of Towson or the other choices. My husband went to a good DC based college, but again, he isn’t considering it.
My wealthier friends have all paid for tutors for SATs. My son has no time. I honestly wish he did. He is never home with sports, clubs and work. He is a hard working person, and I don’t believe the test reflects his capabilities. By the way, I can tell you my SAT store back in 1988 was atrocious (I won’t even mention it!) But I work in a great job now, did well in college and have had a successful career. It is by no means a measurement of success.
I agree that it is definitely not a measure of success, in fact, the college you go to is barely even a measure of success. And yes while wealthier people can pay for tutors, like you said the issue is with time, so I don’t think money is a huge factor. Nonetheless, I am sure with all of those extracurriculars your son is involved in, he will for sure get into a great school!
I’m guessing your college counselor is recommending he have a score on the application but probably not the current score. With his grades and work ethic, there is probably an assumption that with dedicated effort, he could get a better score.
Mostly, OP, I heard your despair for your kid. I can relate. But if I can offer another perspective… You say all your kid does is work and play sports. Yes, athletes work at their sports, but what a privilege! Spending 20 hours a week on immersive recreation! Your kid no doubt loves this and has an incredible work life balance - one that will be harder to achieve later in life. If he doesn’t want to spend the time prepping for tests, he may limit himself to TO schools or ones that don’t care if his scores aren’t higher, and it sounds like he’s OK with that. That’s still a mighty fine universe of schools. With his work ethic, he’ll be fine.
If there hadn’t been a covid year that turned everything upside down, would you be disappointed if he didn’t have the scores for Vandy (because he doesn’t) or would you simply look elsewhere? My guess is the latter.
Sounds like you have a great kid who’s going to land on his feet.
Well, I wouldn’t say high school sports is “immersive recreation”. High school sports around here are intense and stressful and very time consuming and competitive. S19 would not have ever called XC/track recreation as he was exhausted every day after practice. Still, he chose it because he got a lot out of it - a sense of accomplishment most of all. D21 wouldn’t call ballet recreation either. It was like a job, one that she chose of course but the exhaustion and the drama on top of a full load of hard classes is a lot. It’s not exactly a work/life balance. That would be more like spending time with friends or going for a walk or doing yoga - not running 60 miles a week or spending 30 hours at the barre and rehearsal.
But AOs understand the role that athletic pursuits are work and I do think they appreciate the effort that goes into being an athlete.
We can differ on that. I am not saying kids don’t work – often hard – at sports or music or at anything else they choose but it should not be considered a job… it’s a choice, and they make it because they like it. .As with anything, there are parts that are less enjoyable. But presumably, the enjoyment is worth the price they pay. If it’s not, they can stop. If they are hating every minute, choose something else! It is a privilege to be able to indulge yourself in an optional activity for hours each week simply because it satisfies some part of you. The point is that a kid doesn’t have no time because of their dedication to a passion. A kid spends all their free time on that passion. It is their form of recreation – structured, intense – and it is immersive.
Vandy is a high reach for everyone. They are enrolling people who didn’t get into their Ivy of choice. My son had high rigor, a 3.98 and a 35 ACT and he would not have gotten in I am fairly confident. His weakness are his extra curriculars (similar to your sons), as well as having no hook (middle class white male with college educated parents).
Even though schools don’t rank, colleges will know where in the class your son falls due to the required school profile that is submitted from the counselor. Also know admit rates and general stats don’t tell the whole story. At Va Tech for example, the year before my oldest applied in 2019 the admit rate was 70 percent. The engineering admit rate was around 20 percent, and stats were obviously much higher than the average VT student.
Most of the schools on your sons list are reaches or high reaches, with maybe a match. He needs at least 2 safeties he would like to go to and some more matches. There will be thousands of applicants at these schools with a 3.8 or higher. My son is a year round athlete as well. That won’t distinguish him unless he has state recognition or is a potential D2 or D3 player.
Saying ‘good test taker’ to describe a NMF is odd, like the scores don’t mean anything. I always find it strange when people use that phrase, as if knowledge, ability, and preparation aren’t part of it.
My S had a 35 and a 3.94, outstanding leadership and EC’s, and did not get into Vandy (or Duke). He was deferred from Brown, then rejected. He was accepted at Wake, Davidson, GWU honors, UF and FSU.
College admissions are extremely competitive.
He got in where expected/hoped, and rejected from the three we assumed he’d be rejected from so be mindful of competition when making college list.
I don’t think standardized tests tell the whole story and kids who perform well on them are generally good test takers. They can think quickly and make decisions about skipping questions or guessing. Lots of kids have the knowledge. Especially for the ACT. The test is really easy but kids who score well generally have no test anxiety and make decisions very quickly. That means good test taker. I do test prep and know a lot of kids who can get the questions right. They have the “knowledge”. But they either can’t move quickly enough or choke on test day.
And, processing speed plays a part in this. I read on CC somewhere that this is why some kids don’t finish the ACT science section, which is last, though it seemed to me kids just poop out at that point! This happened to our D (she only got a 30 on science while our S (who had neuropsych testing for something and has a high processing speed) got a 36. So, I think while prep/knowledge certainly play a part, there is something to also being a “good test-taker.”