Test Optional Admission Data

Applying to College
474

If “a good education” is “the best form of test prep”, and attending a regular suburban public school is “a good education”, then the students attending these schools have received “the best form of test prep” and the wealthy who have attended schools that are at least as good as these have also already received “the best form of test prep”. So how did I mischaracterize your quote?

Maybe you haven’t, but others who oppose testing have. Guess what? I actually agree with them on that point. As I have stated in an earlier post, I believe that reducing or eliminating the incentives for test prep would do more to level the playing field for the poor than making the test optional.

475

This might be strictly conjecture because it is based on a small sampling of people on the College Confidential message board, but University of Vermont just released their Early Action decisions and it seems that people that applied Test Optional got lower merit scholarships or were even deferred admission versus those that applied with scores.

4 Likes
476

Seriously? You brought up that this particular student didn’t have access to test prep, tutoring, classes, etc. Compared to test prep classes, tutoring, programs, etc., a quality education is “the best form of test prep.” It is. And the better the education, the more prepared the student is to take the tests.

I don’t speak for others. Eliminating the incentives for test prep would do very little to level the playing field. The wealthy have educational advantages that go well beyond their willingness and ability to pay for some test prep.

477

Sounds similar to Auburn which apparently is strongly favoring students who submit tests, as fewer than 7% of total EA admits were admitted via the test optional pathway (no word on what proportion of applicants applied TO). EA acceptance rate was 24%, compared to last year’s overall acceptance rate of 71%.

The acceptance rate for Auburn’s first two early action periods was 24% for a total of 9,600 acceptances. Those students had an average ACT score of 28.6 and an average GPA of 4.21, with less than 7% admitted under the university’s test-optional pathway.

2 Likes
478

This thread is quickly turning into a debate between a few users (we’ve gotten lots of flags). If you post multiple times in a row, or multiple times per day, you may be turning the thread into a debate no one wants to read. Please be mindful of your posts and that you allow everyone to participate. Don’t take the bait if someone tries to provoke you. Much better to just put that person on Mute and move on with the conversation.

Thanks for being a part of CC!

6 Likes
479

More with the subject of this thread (test optional admission data), stats for the class of 2026 early round are starting to come in. In the class of 2025, highly selective colleges often saw large increases in applications, which were attributed to test optional. A comparison with class of 2026 is below for some highly selective colleges. I also included class of 2025 as a pre-COVID test required reference. I skipped class of 2024 due an especially large influence from COVID on application totals.

It looks like MHY are retaining the bulk of the increase in early applications they had last year. Notre Dame is somewhat of at outlier in the large increase in applications from last year (7,744 → 9,683), and Duke is somewhat of at outlier in degree of application decrease. Duke had 4,015 application this year, which is well below their class of 2023 test required levels.

The degree of early round application increasing following switching to test optional last year was highly variable among these listed colleges. MIT and Harvard had very large increases. Penn, Notre Dame, and Duke had little change in number of early applications from test required Class of 2023 to test optional Class of 2025.

MIT Class of 2023 – 707/9,600 = 7% accepted
–Switch from Test Required to Test Optional–
MIT Class of 2025 – 719/15,036 = 5% accepted
MIT Class of 2026 – 719/14,900 = 5% accepted

Harvard Class of 2023 – 935/6,958 = 11% accepted
–Switch from Test Required to Test Optional–
Harvard Class of 2025 – 747/10,986 = 7% accepted
Harvard Class of 2026 – 740/9,406 = 8% accepted

Yale Class of 2023 – 794/6,016 = 13% accepted
–Switch from Test Required to Test Optional–
Yale Class of 2025 – 837/7,939 = 11% accepted
Yal3 Class of 2026 – 800/7,288 = 11% accepted

Brown Class of 2023 – 769/4,230 = 18% accepted
–Switch from Test Required to Test Optional–
Brown Class of 2025 – 885/5,540 = 15% accepted
Brown Class of 2026 – 896/6,146 = 15% accepted

Penn Class of 2023 – 1279/7,710 = 18% accepted
–Switch from Test Required to Test Optional–
Penn Class of 2025 – 1,194/7,962 = 15% accepted
Penn Class of 2026 – 1,218/7,794 = 16% accepted

Notre Dame Class of 2023 – 1,534/7,334 = 21% accepted
–Switch from Test Required to Test Optional–
Notre Dame Class of 2025 – 1,672/7,744 = 22% accepted
Notre Dame Class of 2026 – 1,675/9,683 = 17% accepted

Duke Class of 2023 – 882/4,852 =18% accepted
–Switch from Test Required to Test Optional–
Duke Class of 2025 – 840/5,036 = 17% accepted
Duke Class of 2026 – 855/4,015 = 21% accepted

1 Like
480

Stanford will no longer announce undergraduate application numbers | Stanford News

Top ranked schools are doing everything they can to boost application numbers. Stanford actually says in that press release that they won’t release interim application data because it might scare off applicants:

By focusing on the admit rate, talented students who would thrive at Stanford may opt not to apply because they think Stanford seems out of reach. And that would be a shame.

It is becoming a game for the top colleges to solicit applications from students who have no chance at admission. Which school do you think will be the first to have a sub 1% acceptance rate? Why is that a good thing for students?

It would be a simple thing for schools to post a median 50% range of high school GPA based on a 4.0 scale, just like they do with SATs, and just like I remember schools doing 20 and 30 years ago. They should also publish how many AP’s admitted students have taken by the time they attend school. But they know as well as we all do that if they did that, fewer kids would apply. How many kids would apply to a T10 school if they knew that a 4.0 UW with 10+ APs was needed for acceptance if they are not a legacy? How many would apply if they realized the percentage of the incoming class at those places that came from super exclusive (and expensive) prep schools?

I am assuming that almost everyone posting in this thread went to college. I would recommend using the critical reasoning skills you learned at your school to assess the relevant facts “holistically” and reach the obvious conclusion: TO is about driving applications to top schools, and about hiding the way the schools are actually selecting their incoming classes.

1 Like
481

The article you reference was published in August 2018 and is focused on Stanford no longer breaking out EA and RD numbers during the admissions cycle. Stanford continues to publish aggregate admissions data.

“During the admission process itself, and when admission decisions are issued each fall and spring, the university will not release application numbers. In the past, information about the incoming class, including application figures, was announced every spring. Stanford will continue to provide data on application numbers at the end of the admission cycle as part of an annual public report to the federal government.”

They published the following in October of this year for the class of 2025 which indicates a 3.95% acceptance rate.

image
image1125×2288 138 KB

I have provided the link as it offers prior year stats. If they are “hiding” the exclusivity of the school they are doing it very poorly.

https://admission.stanford.edu/apply/selection/statistics.html

Hopefully this helps any prospective Stanford applicant in understanding, Stanford is very very hard to got accepted into😀

Yes all colleges (particularly prestigious ones) want to have a wide array, diverse and deep applicant pool but that doesn’t mean they are being nefarious in doing so.

5 Likes
482

One thing I learned through my college education: when attempting to make a point, if someone feels the need to state something is obvious, it isn’t.

4 Likes
483

Sorry if I missed this — what information from the latest ED/EA is being provided on the percentage of TO applications/acceptance? In reading information announced by Stanford etc I have not seen those numbers.

484

Here is Exactly that (if not more detail) from Stanford’s Common Data Set…

image
image1920×947 107 KB

Here is the announcement of test optional where they are very specific about how hard it is to gain admission.

“Stanford’s decision to continue the test-optional policy comes after the University reported a record-low acceptance rate of 3.95% for the Class of 2025, nearly 25% lower than last year’s 5.19% for the Class of 2024.”

They also publish this…

image
image1013×1332 84.5 KB

Hope this helps dispel the notion they are concealing anything or hiding their exclusivity.

3 Likes
485

Putting it on their website and hiding it in a common data set are two different things. And the schools know this, otherwise they would put the GPA information on their website, right next to the SAT range. You have made my point.

The top schools are being deceptive and they know it.

486

It is also on their website going back to 2009…

It’s right next to the average test scores.

I am not trying to debate you but to provide accuracy for readers who may take it at face value. Will move on at the risk of offending mods.

2 Likes
487

Readers are welcome to go to every T10 website and see how far they have to dig to find the school’s GPA range for admitted students. I notice quiet on this particular aspect of schools’ marketing by other test opponents. It is difficult to defend why these schools are so coy when it comes to GPA range while they blast their SAT range out to the world.

The fact that Stanford was sloppy enough to openly state that they want more applications when they have an acceptance rate that is already microscopic undermines any defense of this practice.

I was not kidding earlier in this thread when I linked the problems at the open admissions schools to the concerted efforts by top schools to drive applications. There is absolutely a “top school or bust” marketing message to kids, and I see it in my children’s friends among those that are not top achievers. These kids are bombarded by messages, often initiating from universities, that if they don’t go to a top school, then they are a failure. And TO is part of that message, inducing kids to apply to schools they have no chance of attending, with it implied that if they don’t get into a top school, then their life is permanently impacted.

Read the posts on CC in the Chance me threads. There are kids with 3.8’s and otherwise incredible stats that are panicking about their applications. Imagine how a kid with a C+ average feels? I know CC is primarily focused on the top schools, but it is hard to argue that TO and super-selectivity at a handful of colleges is some kind of morally righteous effort when the damage it is doing downstream is really profound.

Stanford can behave any way it wants, it is a private organization. I do wish that other schools would be more openly critical of the practice of driving down acceptance rates for marketing purposes rather than maintain an “Ivory Tower of Silence” like they are doing, because that serves as an implicit endorsement of this behavior.

488

Doesn’t that confirm the schools aren’t hiding their standards, averages and exclusivity? Again not looking to debate but this seems to be a contradiction and you keep coming back at me.

1 Like
489

Did I miss the sentence in @CC_Mike 's message from a day and a half ago that said, “This message applies to everyone except @Catcherinthetoast and @CTDad-classof2022 ?”

2 Likes
490

Throwing up (one’s hands) and deciding this thread isn’t worth it is not the same thing as conceding a position in debate that shouldn’t be happening in the first place.

By Stanford saying they are concerned that the stats would dissuade people from applying, I interpreted it to refer to marginalized students like URM or low SES. Who benefit from TO.

Aaaaaaand I am outta here. :v:t2:

6 Likes
491

Regarding the 2018 Stanford announcement discussed above, that is a reference to press releases. The class of 2026 admit stats in my post above are all from press releases, such as the one for Harvard at https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/12/college-accepts-740-students-to-class-of-26-under-early-action-program/ whose first sentence reads:

“Harvard College today accepted 740 students to the Class of 2026 from a pool of 9,406 who applied under the early action program.”

Ivies, MIT, and most other highly selective colleges make such press releases after their EA/REA/SCEA/ED and RD cycles. They generally talk about the success of their admission cycle, and students can use them to compare schools. In 2018, Stanford joined Caltech among a small number of highly selective colleges that do not make such press releases that announce how many applied and were admitted under REA or RD. Stanford still posts information about how many applied, were admitted, and were enrolled on their website long after the admission cycle is complete; but they do not make press releases listing admission stats at the time of the admission decisions.

The reasons for the change in 2018 are debatable, but I suspect a factor is Stanford’s plans for expansion as discussed at Stanford eyes undergraduate enrollment increase | News | Palo Alto Online | and University plans to expand undergraduate population . . This Nov 2016 article mentions that Stanford may increase enrollment by 100 students per year from 2018 to 2035, and mentions a total enrollment increase by 26% from 7000 students to 8800 students. Stanford said they would stop making press releases listing admit rate at exactly the same time that their possible increased enrollment increase would take effect.

This enrollment increase would have likely made Stanford’s admit rate fall behind Harvard, and later YPM, and perhaps other Ivies; which would tarnish their image among some students. Rather than the press release being all positive news, Stanford’s press release would often instead say Stanford’s admit rate increased (instead of decrease like peers), and the admission director would have to repeatedly explain in the press release that the increased admit rate related to the increased enrollment, and it was a successful admission cycle in spite of the increasing admit rate. I suspect this timing isn’t a coincidence.

However, since then Stanford’s expansions plans have seen a lot of blowback from the local area, and they haven’t been able to get the related permits and expansion started. It seems increasingly unlikely to happen.

Regarding posting GPA on websites, if the goal was simply to increase applications among students who have stats out of typical admission range, then it would make sense to not post any stat ranges on their website – no GPA range, no SAT/ACT range, no class rank range, etc. However, in previous years when test required, the referenced colleges posted SAT/ACT range, and some also posted class rank – it was only GPA that was uncommon, so something was different about GPA. This suggests other contributing motivations.

I expect the primary reason why GPA was singled out is because the referenced highly selective colleges do not primarily use GPA in isolation to make decisions. Instead the full transcript is considered, and GPA is take in context of the specific student and HS. Different high schools use different grading systems, and many are not be out of 4.0. Different students take more/less rigorous courses than others. Different having different degrees of grading harnesses/leniency. Different colleges recalculate GPA different and may limit to core classes, such that B’s in gym have less influence in admission than B’s in calculus. This variation and lack of standardization in GPA is often cited as a reason to require other considerations besides GPA in isolation in admission decisions, that include, but are not limited to test scores.

It’s a similar idea for listing AP classes. Students who attend HSs that offer few AP classes are not expected to take many AP classes. Instead the expected number of AP/IB/DE classes varies based on the number of AP/IB/DE classes and general academic opportunities that are easily available to the student. Posting a 25th to 75th percentile range doesn’t explain this well and would discourage students from applying who may not have any problem with their number of AP classes. Colleges absolutely do want more students to apply, but that is not their sole motivation for not posting typical admission ranges for GPA, AP classes, awards, ECs, LORs, personal/character, essays, interview, … and various other admission criteria on their websites.

5 Likes
492

@Catcherinthetoast right but that’s not the same as a college describing itself as hard to get in, as skieurope points out, those are third parties. At most they say we’re highly selective. Colleges cannot say anything subjectively on that because it’s too general. They can just post student profiles. A hockey player good enough to be recruited by Brown with offers from say Harvard and Yale in hockey has a 100% chance of getting in. In fact the athlete says no to two of those colleges, more specifically, the coaches.

“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.”

@CTDad-classof2022 First off don’t believe everything on a website, there may not be a lot of vetting going on when content gets published. CDS or IPEDS where the college’s information department submits to govt or other agency is your best bet, if the college discloses information on that.

Here is Santa Clara’s university posts an average GPA of 3.68 with this kind of distribution:

Percent who had GPA of 4.0 5%
Percent who had GPA between 3.75 and 3.99 40%
Percent who had GPA between 3.50 and 3.74 35%
Percent who had GPA between 3.25 and 3.49 15%
Percent who had GPA between 3.00 and 3.24 4%
Percent who had GPA between 2.50 and 2.99 1%

Not every college discloses information like that though.

493

I completely agree! I was refuting the suggestion that the schools are concealing in a conspiratorial manner the profiles of successful applicants or the odds of acceptance in an attempt to “bait” doomed to failure applicants. Those stats are broadly available first hand on both the schools web sites and CDS as I linked in several cases.

Subjective descriptions, warnings or interpretations of the data is left to the student, but the info is out there.

2 Likes