I recalled the above comment after reading the following on a different thread from a student accepted at Stanford last night…
“I am from a poor immigrant family and to sustain ourselves, I worked as a grape harvester at the age of 14. This was my main essay topic (worded in a completely different format). I love learning and took the 4 AP classes offered at my school. I submitted no SAT/ACT because I could not find the time to take the test, and I did not do an interview. I wasn’t part of much clubs, rather I did independent projects like fundraising to help in the Yemeni Humanitarian Crisis. I find peace helping others even if its an ocean away.”
This student couldn’t take standardized exams because of their socio economic situation, certainly seems to merit acceptance and hardly could be described as a “cool kid”, having “played the game” or be described as privileged. Test optional in a significant way has given this young person an opportunity to materially change his family’s future and his/her unique perspective and background will positively impact the Stanford community
This kid is the embodiment of what test optional and the elite universities expanding their demographic and geographic efforts is about. Personally I am thrilled to see kids like this have a chance.
Could a school just say “The median GPA range for accepted students is 3.9 to 4.0 on a 4.0 scale.”? It appears I just solved the Rosetta Stone of university admission profile communications. Actually, I didn’t solve it, because plenty of well respected public schools figure out a way to put a GPA range on a website.
It really strains credibility to believe that the more selective schools do not know exactly what they are doing when they publish an SAT range, claim to be test optional, and then do not publish the GPA range. The only reason not to publish a GPA range on a website is if the school’s goal is a single digit acceptance rate. Otherwise these schools are engaging in a deliberately misleading process with the purpose of driving applications from kids that have no realistic chance of acceptance. Something that many of us have said is the real driver of TO policies.
Test opponents have asked us to believe the schools when an Admissions Officer sings the praises of TO in interviews. I think we should believe that the schools know exactly what they are doing when the vast majority of prestige private schools do not post a GPA range on their website.
Test optional policy may have helped this student, but I’m not sure an anecdote like this proves anything. I can cite another student who was also from a poor immigrant family and lived at subsistence level. The family lived in a suburban area where a lot of kids apply to elite colleges. He only took SAT once and got near perfect score. The family couldn’t afford test prep. In fact, he never had tutoring of any kind. The family obviously doesn’t have the resource to hire a college consultant or the knowledge themselves to help the kid package his applications. He also didn’t enjoy the advantage of living on a remote farm (like the kid in your example) so he could tell a story that AOs wanted to hear. He was denied admission to Stanford.
It is however emblematic and representative. My point was not to suggest test optional rights all wrongs or is a perfect solution. It was intended to counter the narrative that some how test optional is some conspiracy to support colleges desire to maintain matriculation rates for “cool”, privileged, prep school kids.
I stand on the point that standardized test benefit those with the greatest resources and access to tutoring, time and multiple tests.
Interesting take that hardship has become an advantage in your view. So on one hand we have @CTDad-classof2022 saying it’s the rich prep school kid that has the advantage and you are suggesting the rural and isolated kid of limited resources that does.
Not surprisingly in a world with top schools accepting single digits everyone can somehow claim victimhood and call for their greatest measure of success to be the measure that should be considered above all others. Merit and potential contribution to a community can only be considered holistically in my opinion.
Yes, every elite college wants to brag about its geographic diversity. Few students who apply to these elite colleges lived on remote farms. Hardship by itself isn’t going to move AOs, but an interesting story about the hardship does.
Not sure you can dismiss this student’s acceptance so simply. It is insulting to the totality of what this kid has achieved and overcome.
But let’s assume you are right. All things being the same between the two kids yes they added diversity…that’s the point. This kid will bring a unique perspective and experience to campus, it’s not just about bragging.
Believing that seeking diversity of all kinds is just about bragging is what leads to elitism.
Could it also be possible that the students remoteness may have served as an obstacle, impediment or disadvantage such that their experience and success conveys a high degree of resilience and perseverance that will serve him/her well at Stanford?
So now that we are agreeing (I suspect). Would a standardized test have indicated any of that? A bit ironic because both of the students we are discussing would likely not have been competitive if test were mandatory and prioritized. Once again I think this discussion reinforces the argument for test optional.
I can tell you that the student in my example has also overcome “obstacle, impediment or disadvantage” and has shown “a high degree of resilience and perseverance”. My point is that his near-perfect SAT score in a single sitting without test prep has been devalued with the current policy. If he, or his family, had been able to hire a consultant to package his application better, his outcome could have been different. But they didn’t know and couldn’t afford to.
So if I am understanding you correctly we have two highly qualified kids, neither of whom could afford private counseling and you are saying the test score should have been the tie breaker in spite of the other kid not having access?
If so we would disagree. I would assume look at the totality of the applications including essays, LORs etc and of course consider the test score as (it is test optional not test blind that I am supporting).
I don’t think it “devalues” one students test performance by not forcing others without access to submit tests.
First of all, I support test optional policy when access to tests wasn’t (or isn’t) available because of the pandemic or remoteness (some international students have no access to these tests). However, making the test optional for most other students who have access is a mistake. Making the test optional for everyone will lead to test blindness in a few short years, because fewer and fewer students will take the tests and the economics of testing will seal its fate.
Since fewer students submit scores under a test optional policy, they necessarily become a less valuable measure. That’s why I call it a devaluation.
The devil is in the details, as always. There is not a universally accepted way to recalculate GPAs, and many schools don’t even do it. Relevant questions include is the recalculated GPA unweighted or weighted? If unweighted does it include + and -? If weighted, what is the weighting system? Are only core courses in the calculation, or all? Are engineering courses core? CS? And there are more considerations, but you get the point.
Regarding public schools some recalculate GPA some don’t. For example, UCs do, in their odd little way. Michigan does on a 4 point scale, Wisconsin doesn’t.
What’s worse is that some institutional reporting departments recalculate GPA for the common data sets, but sometimes the way IR recalculates GPA is not the same way admissions evaluates it.
They could, but it would be somewhat misleading and confusing to students, because of different standards, different systems, different conversions, and different scales, etc. Look at the inevitable confusion that comes up every year regarding the UC system, for example. Many or most students are initially confused and mislead by UC gpa ranges, because the posted gpa’s aren’t being calculated in the same manner as the students gpa’s. Even California parents are confused.
As importantly, top schools can provide more meaningful and valuable information in the form of percentage in the top decile, etc. That is much more useful information for the student. It tells them where the really stand, and that if they are not at the top of their class their grade point is irrelevant. State schools may view it differently, but then they are differently situated. They generally enroll a much broader grade range from a narrower, more uniform swath of students (more in-state), so saying that x% were in the top decile, etc. doesn’t necessarily convey the same information. One method isn’t necessarily virtuous while the other evil.
Here’s a thought . . . maybe the entire educational system isn’t deliberately conspiring to try to screw over certain kids? Maybe, while schools are under pressures relating to stats, prestige, rankings, diversity, etc. and there will be egregious examples of overstep, most schools are nonetheless trying to attract students that best align with their educational mission? What do you think? Is this even possible?
You example is an odd one, that’s for sure. It is pretty unusual for a child of immigrants living at a “subsistence level” to also be living in a suburban area where a lot of kids apply to elite colleges. Not saying that it is impossible, just saying that it is far from the norm. If that child is living “in a suburban area where a lot of kids apply to elite colleges” then they likely had the “advantage” (to use your term) to attend a school where a lot of kids apply to elite colleges, meaning it was a pretty good school. So in a sense the student has had the best form of test prep, which is a good education.
As for having “a story that AOs wanted to hear,” this sure sounds like a fantastic story to me. This is a child of abject poverty thriving in middle of wealth and privilege. Just the circumstance is a pretty good story.
And by the way, the lack of educational opportunities in poor, rural, agricultural communities are real. They aren’t just a good story.
I don’t know where you live, but there’re lots of poor immigrant families living in suburban areas. They don’t all live in inner cities or rural areas. Immigrants tend to live in areas where there’re other immigrants from the same countries or regions where they came from. Many immigrants have dreams to send their kids to elite colleges so their kids will have better lives. Can you blame them? If you think attending a suburban public school is “the best form of test prep”, you shouldn’t be complaining about the wealthy spending money on tutoring and test prep then. They’re just wasting their money, right?
I didn’t say the situation isn’t real, just that it is far from the norm. Immigrants tend to live in areas where there are also other immigrants from the same places, but even these areas tend to be stratified by wealth, and the (relatively) wealthier areas are more likely to have more kids applying to top schools.
First, please don’t mischaracterize my quote. I said that the best form of test prep is “a good education.” A child who attends a suburban school where “a lot of kids apply to elite colleges” has likely received a good education, at least relative some other demographics
Second, I’m not complaining about the wealthy spending their money on tutoring and test prep. But they are very often wasting their money. Their kids are already much better prepared to succeed on these tests than most kids, because of their education. Generally, the test prep only offers marginal advantages. The real advantage is the quality of their educational experience throughout their lives.
The test advocates are willing to appreciate that admissions is a complex process and a variety of inputs are useful in the consideration of applicants.
Test opponents believe tests are unacceptable, but every other aspect of the admissions process is perfect as is. We have test opponents denying there is grade inflation and defending schools that are deliberately driving their acceptance rates into the low single digits.
A good rule of thumb in life is that the more absolutist and less compromising position is generally the wrong one.
Not sure that repeatedly disparaging and exaggerating the positions of others is really advancing the conversation, but then maybe that isn’t your goal.
Perhaps you yourself might reflect on this statement. Take, for example, your statement above:
Would you consider that to be a nuanced position open to discussion and compromise?
