So the underlying message from colleges (and everyone else) is you need to be a superstar to apply. I probably don’t speak for the majority of parents but that is completely nuts. I told my neighbor that in my opinion, not revealing a fantastic test score is probably a good sign that the money towards application should not be spent. Again, I’m in the minority opinion.
4 Likes
Thoughts on each of the 8 points are below:
- Huge increase in applications at the T100 schools, end especially the T20 and T40 schools.
For the most part agreed. The referenced study did not find an average increase in applications upon going test optional. If anything, there was a small decrease in applications on average upon going test optional. However, the study emphasized typical colleges that admit majority of applicants – not T20/T40 type colleges. As noted in my post above newly test optional colleges during 2021 cycle appeared to have notably larger application increase than existing test optional colleges.
This relationship also seems intuitive. When the test barrier to a highly selective college is removed, more students are likely to apply. The larger the portion of interested students who feel their lower test scores are a barrier, the larger the expected application increase, so more selective colleges see the bigger increase.
- Decrease in applications and attendance at open admissions and local colleges, with some of these local colleges going under.
The articles you previously quoted suggest the largest decreases are occurring in community colleges. I agree with the articles that you have referenced, which suggest other primary causes, particularly effects of COVID, with families suffering financial effects of COVID being more likely to choose to work over attend a community college remotely than in previous years.
- Decrease in attendance of men as a percentage of the college age population.
As noted in my earlier posts, men are one of the groups that are more likely to lose in a test optional/blind system Other losing groups including White/Asian, wealthy, and not first gen. This “losing” means less likely to benefit by applying without scores since their scores tend to be an especially strong point of application – not a weak point. However, this does not mean that test optional forces wealthy, White/Asian, males with high scores to not attend any college at all. Males can still choose to apply to and submit their high scores at test optional colleges.
Consistent with this, the percent female enrollment has had little change in recent decades. Some specific numbers from Total fall enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by attendance status, sex of student, and control of institution: Selected years, 1947 through 2029 are quoted below:
2000 – 56% of college students are Female
2010 – 57% of college students are Female
2020 – 57% of college students are Female
2029 (Projected) – 57% of college students are Female
- Significant grade inflation, particularly at wealthy suburban and prep schools.
One of the reasons why there is non-zero grade inflation is because grade inflation works. High schools and colleges with more grade inflation tend to have better average outcomes. Grade inflation occurred long before test optional was common, and occurs in areas where test optional is not particularly relevant to outcomes. I agree that test optional could contribute grade inflation, but I don’t think it is a primary reason why grade inflation exists or a primary factor
- Other resume inflation at suburban and prep schools, such as more ECs and advanced placement classes being offered that are not available at middle class and working class area high schools.
Well resourced HSs tended to offer more AP/IB/DE… type classes long before test optional was common, and I don’t see that changing much due to test optional. The reasons are multifaceted, but wealth is often a key factor.
- Increased cost and time to schools for processing applications.
Colleges tend to charge a fixed rate per application (with some fee wavers) than can be as high as $90 per application (Stanford). The increased revenue from application fees when applications goes up allows them to hire more application readers to process the applications. As noted in #1, test optional can increase applications at highly selective colleges, but tends to have less effect at more typical not as highly selective colleges,.
- Tuitions spiraling out of control.
Tuition increases have not been limited to just test optional/blind colleges. I am not aware of test optional/blind colleges having higher rates of tuition increases than test required peers. As noted in some of my earlier posts, the average inflation adjusted net cost (after FA) are often largely unchanged in recent decades at HYPSM… high endowment per student type colleges. Sticker price for wealthy kids increased far faster than inflation. However, net cost after FA for lower/middle income kids is often decreasing after inflation. In short the model has changed to wealthy kids pay an increasingly large portion of the tuition revenue, and lower/middle income kids pay an increasingly small portion of the tuition revenue.
Many of these same high endowment per student colleges have had record levels of low income students upon going test optional this past cycle, so it is possible that they could increase sticker price for wealthy kids to a larger extent to make up the tuition loss for the larger portion low income (net cost to parents is often ~$0 for low income kids, at high endowment per student private colleges). There are also many other ways they could make up lost revenue. It may take some years to observe how things change.
- Increase of URM and first gen attendance.
As noted above URM, first gen, low income, and winners tend to be “winners” in a test optional system, meaning relying solely on the non-score portion of the application is more likely to be an advantage. In an isolated system without interference, they’d be more likely to apply and more likely to be admitted.
However, whether the college actually admits them at a higher rate can depend on the specific goals of the university. For example, a college may choose to maintain a 50:50 male/female ratio, so more women applying with better qualifications on average does not necessarily mean the 50:50 ratio will change. As mentioned in several posts above, multiple indicators do suggest increased applications, admission, and enrollment of these groups upon going test optional on average, compared to colleges that did not go test optional.
I am a little younger, but similar era. There were maybe 5 kids in my high school class that had a 4.0. 3.7 or higher was Ivy League caliber back then. For various reasons I actually knew the distribution of my high school class and those before and after me, and the midpoint was different grade to grade, but 50th percentile was typically around a 2.7 or 2.8.
If a kid from a wealthy school or a prep school wants to go to T10 school in 2022, they should get a 4.0 given how easy it is to do that today. The problem is, with so many kids getting perfect grades, how does an AO tell them apart? # of AP classes and EC’s? Might as well just run a credit check on the parents and pick the class that way.
2 Likes
That is what many schools argue the function of using test scores essentially does already. Test scores correlate most strongly to family income (the higher the income the higher the test scores)…moving away from requiring test scores could actually mean moving away from filling classes with primarily wealthy students while arguing that it based upon ‘merit’.
1 Like
That’s one way to look at it But I think the intended message from at least some of the TO/TB colleges is that you don’t need to have a “superstar” test score to apply so long as you have other strong qualifications relative to your school/demographic/context.
I doubt you are in the minority opinion, but I also don’t agree that kids in this situation should not even bother applying. It has to do with putting your best foot forward, so to speak. If an applicant at one of these crazy-high test score high schools can demonstrate outstanding academic accomplishment and potential without submitting, then why invite a comparison to kids from the same school who may have 1550+ scores? It all comes down to whether colleges are serious and truthful when they tell students that non-submission will not be held against the students, and that they can recognize outstanding potential even without the scores.
I do agree with you though that all this increases “handwringing” and is very difficult to navigate. But it may be worth noting that these factors (like the relative scores of other applicants at your school and peer schools) have always been considerations for the AOs, it is just that many parents/students weren’t aware of it until the process went test optional. Surely there are plenty of kids out there who didn’t apply to a tippy-top school in the past because they saw their test score was significantly lower than the mean, when the reality was that their score may have been great for their context.
And, as you noted, that is one big plus of the UC approach. It takes the guess work out if it for the applicants. Do well in school, and the UCs would love to have you apply.
I think this view is a combo of generalization or misinformation. Getting a 4.00 is hardly easy at many prep schools. For example this is the most recent grade distribution from my child’s prep school profile that is provided to the colleges…
This is a school that places 20%ish of students a year at Ivies. Many (if not the vast majority) of students who matriculate to elites do so with well below a 4.00. The school places a tremendous amount of importance on students being well rounded students, taking risks and failing, community service and athletics.
The most successful students in terms of accolades and opportunities are those that reach high and fail but never quit.
Your comments I am sure do apply to some schools but hardly all.
Just to check myself I looked at a few other schools. Below see Horace Mann in NYC whose profile appeared consistent with several other “wealthy” NYC preps. Appears very tough to get a 4.00…
3 Likes
@Catcherinthetoast, but what if this school kept everything else the same but inflated everyone’s grade a step up? How do you suppose that would impact Ivy admissions? My guess is that the school would still place the same “20%ish of students a year at Ivies.”
1 Like
I absolutely agree. In many ways I think GCs and LORs at these schools have significant impact defining their “top” of class but the colleges still have a theoretical “cap”.
In other words the colleges wouldn’t suddenly take an extra 10% based on a higher avg GPA. They want a comparative perspective from within the school to attract the top.
FYI my sons HS had about a 20% acceptance rate so for some kids they may have been tippy top kids in middle school and would have matriculated to higher ranked schools had they remained at their public’s.
Not saying any of this applies to everyone, just hate the generalization or suggestion that getting into a prep is solely based on wealth, getting a 4.0 at prep is easy and getting into Ivy is based on attending prep and 4.00. If only😀
2 Likes
The school with which I’m most familiar gives somewhat higher grades than the two you mentioned. But still, the idea that it is “easy” to get a 4.0 at this school is a real head scratcher. Someone should tell all those students studying 2 to 3 hours per night now easy it is to do well.
1 Like
It is relative, and we are talking getting into the top colleges.
Another way to look at this is:
36% of the class is 3.67 or higher
73% of the class is 3.33 or higher
The median GPA is likely over a 3.5. Times are tough in prep-world.
Higher GPA, more AP classes, and more ECs correlate most strongly to family income. More so than test scores.
Yes, in my opinion the biggest contributing factor to the high rate of matriculations to Ivy+ type colleges is they admit kids to the HS based on criteria that overlap well with what Ivy+ type colleges are looking for. This leads to high concentrations of exceptional students, who are expected to be successful in HS, as measured by mastery of the material. There are also other major factors, including things like a biased group of kids who are far more likely to apply to and be interested in attending selective private colleges. It should come as no surprise that kids who are apply to highly selective private HSs are more likely to also apply to highly selective private colleges. An increased rate of hooks is also important, particularly for HSs located near specific colleges.
The higher concentration of exceptional students can both be an advantage and disadvantage in college admissions, depending on characteristics of the student, degree of success in a competitive academic environment, and the specific admission criteria.
Regarding grade distribution, the majority of selective private prep type HSs publish both grade and score distribution information in their profile. A summary is below for some example private prep HSs that have a history of large numbers of matriculations to Ivy+ type colleges… For HSs that do not grade an UW out of 4.0 GPA, I am using the conversion information listed in Harvard admission reader guidelines. I selected the HS profiles 2019-20 pre-COVID year when possible.
All of these high schools have selective admissions, leading to a high concentration of exceptional students. As such, one might expect attending students to have higher stats than the average US HS. Based on the listed GPA distribution and average SAT scores, I expect test scores are more like to be a strong point of the application for this group compared to their GPA and likely overall rest of application. The Harvard lawsuit analysis suggests a similar conclusion, if you treat LDCs as a proxy for selective prep kids. As such, I’d expect this group to on average be hurt by a system where test scores are not required.
Philips Andover
“A” Average (5.75+) == 3% of class
“A-” Average (5.25 to 5.75) == 31% of class
Median = “B+” Average
Average SAT = 720/730 (97th percentile)
Horace Mann
“A” Average == 4% of class
“A-” Average == 32% of class
Median = “B+” Average
Average SAT = 700/725 (96th percentile)
Deerfield Academy
“A” Average (93%+) == 10% of class
“A-” Average (91-93%) == 21% of class
Median = “B+” Average
Average SAT = 689/702 (94th percentile)
Trinity
Lists grade distribution by subject rather than overall, median grade per classes appears to be low A-. Frequency of courses and combination of grades is unknown, making overall grade average unknown.
Average SAT = ~745/~780 (99th percentile)
1 Like
Should Prep School graduates get a preference when applying to college?
Facts. My student was advised by one school not to bother submitting unless over 1530.
3 Likes
Yes, it is relative. Grades, rigor, ECs, LOCs, etc. are considered relative to the other students in the particular schools. As @Catcherinthetoast pointed out, top colleges compare students “from within the school” to determine the top students, and even among these top students, top colleges are only going to take so many, no matter the grade inflation or deflation.
Do you have any sort of citation for this assertion?
Because at least with regard to GPA, I don’t think it is true, and @Data10 and others have provided plenty of evidence to the contrary. I can dig some up if you’d like, but it has been posted before, numerous times.
It sounds like you are saying that test scores are a weak point in the application for wealthy kids. That is, wealthy kids may have above average scores, but they do even better on GPA, ECs, APs, … so they benefit from applying test optional and having their relatively weak scores (compared to rest of their application) not considered. If this was the case, then we’d expect to see wealthy kids be overrpresented among test optional admits at selective test optional colleges compared to test submitter admits, yet this literally never occurs at any college. I’ve linked to example studies before, which I won’t repeat.
Studies that have compared the relative strength of correlation with income between scores and GPA consistently find that income is more correlated with scores than HS GPA. I’ve sent example studies before, which I won’t repeat. The school profiles listed in my previous post above also seem to support this conclusion. The selective private prep colleges like Andover, Horace Mann, Deerfield averaged extremely high scores – 94th to 99th percentile, when typical HSs are near 50th percentile. Yet, their median GPA was only B+. The B+ GPA is indeed well above the national average GPA across all US HSs, but it’s far short of the 94-99th percentile of HS GPAs across all US students, like their average scores. It sounds like scores are a relative strong point and GPA is the relative weak point compared to rest of app on average for the listed selective private HS kids.
I agree with you that num of AP classes has a notable correlation with parents’ income . There isn’t a lot of research about which is more correlated with income – num APs or SAT score. The Ithaca study suggests number of AP courses taken and SAT score are well correlated with each other, and have a good amount overlap in the information gained from the other in predicting outcome. However, they don’t look at which is more correlated with income directly. The did look some other metrics such as first gen, and found that low scores were far more correlated with first gen than taking few AP classes.
Number of ECs is more interesting and less obvious. I think it depends on what type of EC and the specific college. For example, several colleges have noted valuing working to provide income for their family as an important EC. UCs had a special category for this at time of Hout report that have a notable positive impact on reader rating. The Harvard lawsuit also mentioned that Harvard has a special EC category for students who are too busy working to pursue more traditional ECs, which positively impacts admission decision. A kid who spends his time on a part time job to support his family may do fine compared to kid who loads up on a lot of HS clubs to fill out the full 10? EC boxes.
Using LDC as proxy for “wealthy”, the Harvard lawsuit sample suggests scores tended to be a strong relative section for wealthy kids, GPA tended to be a relative weak section (compared to rest of application), and ECs fell somewhere in the middle. Of course the Harvard lawsuit sample is not recent.
…or is it that wealth is highly correlated to families that value education, i.e., children that come from families that value education do better? Multicollinearity is a common error (sometimes intentional) in statistics. It is reasonable that students pushed to perform- actually do & students that come from families that do not value education do not do as well. If true, this has nothing to do with the test favoring one group over another. There is an abundance of free test prep available for anyone that wants to use it. Eliminating the only standard metric that can be used to compare one student to another will definitely favor subjective standards that can easily be manipulated. For example, it is not uncommon in my affluent community for a parent to start a charity in their child’s name or organize a major event that can be included in college apps. Naïve, elite LA & Ivy League admissions officers eat this stuff up. Working class, dual income families cannot compete w/ these absurd tactics but will be forced to do so if scores are eliminated. We all know grades are inflated and are not consistently measured.
6 Likes
I think @Data10 does a thorough job responding in the post just prior to your query. Simply put it depends on the college, prep school, individual student and circumstances.
1 Like
You are averaging down the GPAs. A “B+” average is a 3.3. Horace Mann information is above, and the average GPA is above a 3.5 based on the available data. I don’t have the time or the interest to go through the rest.