If certain majors attract students with lower test scores, does that mean non-submitters are more likely to choose those majors?
I’m not sure how to interpret the data on LACs, but the WPI data seem more interesting to me. How do we explain the fast rising graduation rate trend? Is it because a) more capable students, or b) easier curriculum and/or inflated grades?
Or c) more/increasing financial aid? A common reason for students who don’t graduate on time (or at all) is because of finances, especially at schools that don’t meet full need.
Like almost everything else, there’s a matter of degree. The degree has been changing. With the new policies, it will change even more.
Even with more financial aid, I’d assume the cost of education at WPI has been rising since 2005, like almost everywhere else.
We would have to look at the trend in proportion of need met. CDS 20-21 shows they meet 82% of need on average. Grad rates are often skewed at schools that allow co-oping as well…perhaps fewer WPI students are co-oping during the school year. Regardless, probably not easy to suss out all of the various factors that play in to graduation rates. I assume those are 6 year grad rates and not 4.
Kids with certain intended majors average higher/lower test scores, which is correlated with applying and being admitted test optional. Whether the test scores are a strong/weak point of the application is also relevant. You can compare with the actual distribution of majors by test submitter/non-submitter at the NACAC aggregate colleges listed in my post above, for a specific example.
The largest contributing factor to graduation rate is generally admitting kids who are likely to graduate. Colleges that are selective enough to admit kids who are likely to graduate have high graduation rates. As noted in the post above, financial aid is also important. Kids who cannot afford to pay for college are less likely to graduate on time
Regarding WPI, it has become more selective over time, so WPI is able to better admit kids who are likely to graduate, and an improved graduation rate is expected. However, this doesn’t explain the full degree of increase. Financial aid may have improved, or there may be other contributing factors.
Selectivities of all selective colleges have gone up significantly. That doesn’t necessarily mean all their students are better. As @Thorsmom66 correctly pointed out above, these students aren’t necessarily more academically qualified, given their colleges’ other goals.
I grew up in MA (and am still there now). WPI attracts really strong students today compared to when I was in HS (you know . . .when dinosaurs roamed the earth). I know a few kids who are there now - really smart STEM kids. For many it is the preferred choice if turned down at some of the other local schools (Tufts, MIT, Northeastern).
According to CollegeFactual, the net price at WPI has been rising since 2012 (they only have data from 2012):
Regarding WPI’s graduation rate, another contributing factor for the more rapid increase in graduation rate than expected based on selectivity is that an increasingly large of the class is female, and women tend to average higher grad rates (and other measures of college academic success) than males. A summary is below. This trend has some relevance to test optional, given that women are overrepresented as test optional applicants, and men are overrepresented as test submitters.
2005 – Class is 29% Women, Female grad rate is 9% higher than male (71% / 82%)
2010 – Class is 30% Women, Female grad rate is 4% higher than male (79% / 83%)
2015 – Class is 33% Women, Female grad rate is 8% higher than male (82% / 90%)
2020 – Class is 40% Women, Female grad rate is 5% higher than male (87% / 92%)
Why not both?
The GPA range is not something the T20 schools advertise. It would certainly scare off applicants if they did.
Well there’s a reason BU has an average act of 34. 60% did not submit test scores.
It’s all games….all.
I bet if USN&WR carried the median GPA range like they carry the SAT and ACT range, you would see applications drop dramatically at the top schools.
It did not occur to me until today that most top schools don’t advertise that the median GPA of admitted students is a 3.9 or 4.0.
Interestingly, all these TO schools who don’t care about tests seem to use a lot of their web page real estate talking about median test score ranges, but not GPAs.
https://admissions.dartmouth.edu/apply/class-profile-testing
Harvard and Carnegie Mellon basically provide no class profile information that I can find. Georgia Tech only publishes a minimum GPA.
https://admission.gatech.edu/transfer/gpa-requirements
NYU is the only school website of the T30 schools I checked that published an expected GPA.
https://www.nyu.edu/admissions/undergraduate-admissions/nyu-facts.html
The Top 25 public schools seem to be much more forthcoming about GPA ranges. Penn State, Georgia, UConn, Maryland are all up front. Virginia and Texas were not.
I think you don’t give applicants enough credit. It’s hardly the case that these schools are hiding how hard it is to get admitted. I just googled as an example “How hard is it to get into Brown”….
Here is Yale…
Seems the info is readily available.
In addition as previously discussed GPA and rigor varies by high school. Top schools want the best students based on peers. GPA isn’t the best measure given it’s lack of universality.
Is this what people mean when they refer to score inflation? 
Seriously, if the main motivation for this advice was purely boost the average, then wouldn’t the school want kids to submit a 34, as that would boost the average at almost any school?
Is it possible that the school was honestly advising your kid that, while these may be great scores generally, they aren’t going to move the needle for a BS kid from a highly competitive environment?
FWIW, these admissions folks were aiming to keep scores high and had no clue about the rigor of the school….did not read school profile….BTW, it wasn’t Wesleyan 
To be fair, neither source is Brown or Yale. Nor do prepscholar or collegetransitions say where they pulled their data from. But I do agree the info is out there.
Fair point so here is Browns release from last year where they state…
“Regular decision applicants were admitted at a rate of 3.5 percent, breaking the previous record low of 4.8 percent, also set by the class of 2023.”
And in describing the incoming class…
“94% in the top 10% of their graduating class”
This seems pretty clear that unless you are at or near the top of your class your chances are slim.
Hardly seems they are hiding the selectivity and odds or encouraging unqualified candidates per the suggestion that prompted the response.
Perhaps schools don’t advertise gpa because there are a bunch of different ways to calculate gpa and schools have different policies, and so it isn’t a simple thing to accurately advertise without a long explanation.
Many top schools do advertise things like the percentage of students whose gpa’s were in the top decile of their class. For example from the Dartmouth link:
Class Rank or Standing (when available)
Top Decile: 95%
It makes sense to do so, because these schools are evaluating gpa’s in the context of particular schools, not between students from schools with different grading policies. It also sends a strong message that, no matter the level of grade inflation at a particular school, students who aren’t at the top of their class need not apply.
