<p>I’m applying to American regular decision and I was wondering whether or not I should do the test-optional form since I got a 29 on the ACT. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.</p>
<p>I believe Act 29 is smack in the middle 50% range (at least the SAT equivalent of ACT 29 is, SAT 1300 was an average among admitted students). General rule of thumb is, if you are a completely “unhooked” candidate (not a URM, athlete, legacy, not from a “rare” states, etc), your stats need to be closer to top 25% than top 50% if you are applying to RD to feel “secure” about the admissions outcome. Of course, it’s NOT always the case. But we are talking about odds here.</p>
<p>So your decision should be based on what other qualifications you have. If you have amazing GPA, EC, etc, then yes, you may be better off doing SAT/ACT optional. If not, ummmm, you may be still better off showing your scores.</p>
<p>By the way, if I remember correctly, you may have to declare earlier than the regular deadline for your intent to go test optional. Check it out thoroughly on their web site.</p>
<p>Good luck.</p>
<p>I am a URM from NY. I have a few of achievements in the sciences (i have them on a previous thread of mine). I’m thinking of not doing the test-optional thing since I am in the middle range; does thats sounds like a good idea?</p>
<p>Hijacking the thread a bit, I hope the AU admissions person is still around and can explain the rationale behind “test optional”. Obviously anyone applying on that basis will have scores that are less attractive than their GPA, so wouldn’t these applications simply be considered on the same basis as those with lower-range scores? So then what’s the advantage to AU in encouraging these applications? Are they concerned they would otherwise lose lots of great applicants who happen to be “bad testers”, or is it simply a way to boost the number of applicants and lower the acceptance rate? AU is free to overlook low scores anytime it wants, so I don’t see the point in not seeing them at all. College applicants have enough to worry about without having to make some arcane calculation, as OP is doing, as to whether it is more or less advantageous to submit scores.</p>
<p>MommaJ–it probably also increases average test scores because instead of having to include a bunch of low scores in the average, this removes them from the equation entirely.</p>
<p>pswilla,</p>
<p>excellent observation. Not only it increase average SAT/ACT, but it also increase average GPA, since the kind of kids who will use the test optional strategy will be the ones with high GPA and low SAT. If AU decided to do this to play the “prestige game”, this is a brilliant strategy!!! It will help them up the USNWR ranking. Note: test scores and class ranking together accounts for 9% of the total USNWR ranking score!!!</p>
<p>Meanwhile, while they are at it, why not also create a GPA/ranking optional track? Then, they will really have the best GPA and SAT scores they can report to the ranking agencies 
Now, that will REALLY work for my kid, whose test scores are much better than the GPA. But, I don’t think they will ever do that: it’s completely politically incorrect to say, “screw the GPA, we are using only standardized test scores”. </p>
<p>Not that I am sure AU is doing it for this reason, but it would NOT surprise me at all if they decided to do it for that exact reason.</p>
<p>We went to AU’s regional information session. I left the session with the impression that they are really interested in playing this ranking and prestige game. They kept saying things like, you don’t need to do any AU supplement in addition to the common app, so why not apply? Oh, did you know that ED admission rate is much higher, so why not apply if you are really interested in AU, etc. </p>
<p>We all know that lower acceptance rate and higher yield (read: more active ED season) are all part of the ranking and prestige game. I do believe AU is underrated, and I assume the school administrators feel it even more acutely with even more regret. One of the easiest way to increase the prestige factor fast is to decrease the acceptance rate and increase the test scores of the admitted students. They are doing exactly that now. Heavy marketing drives to drum up the application (which will result in a lower acceptance rate) and the test optional policy will help them achieve it. </p>
<p>Going through the college admissions game the second time, I became very cynical about the underlying motives of the universities.</p>
<p>OK going back to the question by OP,</p>
<p>Yes, if you were my kid, I would definitely advise that you use the ACT score. ACT 29 is a good score for AU to begin with. For an URM, it works even better. SO, I don’t think there is any reason for you to follow the test optional route. Whether we like it or not and regardless of the whole sociological broohaha debate on test bias and what not, it’s a fact that the average scores of the URM students are lower than the general population average. As such, ACT 29 from a URM student puts him/her on a better footing than the same score of the non URM.</p>
<p>Lizmane–I think your cynicism is appropriate and your thoughts are right on target regarding the motivations of AU admissions (and I believe AU is not the biggest offender–just look at Tulane, Tufts, Wash. U.)–it is an unfortunate reality of our ranking-obsessed culture, and it certainly isn’t teaching prospective undergraduates anything useful other than “perception is more important than reality.”</p>
<p>Again, hoya has no idea what he is talking about. How does Tulane getting a lot of apps help it in the rankings? % admitted counts for all of 1%. What a ridiculous statement.</p>
<p>the acceptance rate by itself may account for only 1 % of the USNWR ranking calculation. However, the appearance of being “highly selective” does have impact on other, weightier components in the ranking calculation and the general public perception of a prestigious institution. </p>
<p>For instance, USNWR started to include “guidance counselor” assessment (very hefty weight, something like 20% ? I don’t recall the exact weight). Psychology is psychology. When people start to see the acceptance rate going down, they start thinking “prestigious institution”. I bet this influences the GC’s view of the institution. I heard this also affects alumni giving, which accounts for a good % of USNWR ranking calculation. The more prestigious their alma matter appears, the more they are likely to “give”. (don’t ask me to provide a source on this. I read somewhere but can’t recall where. you can dismiss it if you like - but common sense wise, it makes sense. we all want to cheer the winners and want to identify with them).</p>
<p>Every schools wants to be put in the category of “highly selective” in various college admissions review web sites. I have yet to see a school wiely publicizing how their acceptance rate is going up. Many/All schools proudly publish how they acceptance rate went down. </p>
<p>Besides, when more students apply, others hear about the school too, and it goes on and on. The whole number game (increasing the applicants and decreasing acceptance rate) is often a starting point of a virtuous circle. that’s why many colleges are so up and arms to increase the application number. </p>
<p>Last season’s sensation was University of Chicago, whose application number shoot up by 42% and the acceptance rate went down by something like 9% (Wow, these are truly amazing numbers for a school that does not practice ED!!!)</p>
<p>by the way, I don’t blame AU playing this strategy. I believe AU is underrated considering the caliber of the students it is already attracting and the opportunities it provides. They have an under capitalized commodity. Any good business person will do his/her best to address this problem by tackling the easiest problem set that has the largest immediate impact first. </p>
<p>What I hope, though, is that they don’t lose sight of what is a truly important long term value of their institution - the education and preparation of its student. In order to achieve this, they need to upgrade the quality of their faculty, provide more enriching academic experience, etc. However, these take time and long term investment, and results of these efforts won’t show in a year or two. </p>
<p>I hope they are working on both a short term marketing strategy and long term quality improvement.</p>
<p>My son may or may not apply to AU. If ED/EA to another institution (s) works out, we won’t bother with AU RD. See, this is the whole impact of perceived excellence and prestige. If my son’s perception was reversed, it would be AU ED with a potential for RD for the other school(s).</p>
<p>I understand your reasoning, but it is all speculation. There is no proof that these numbers affect the counselor’s ratings, for example. In fact, it was clearly demonstrated that the counselors tend to rank the local state schools and other ones in their area more highly than the school’s stats would place them, regardless of issues such as % admitted. It is all rather a tragedy, the way the rankings have skewed many people’s common sense. But that is another issue.</p>
<p>As far as how % admitted plays to public perception, granted it has some effect. But for the vast majority of students, they are going to look at the average stats of the people being admitted and/or enrolling, and see how their stats stack up against that. Then they might look at % admitted and things like that. Of course I am not including Harvard and the few super selective schools in that, because they are in a category by themselves.</p>
<p>FC,</p>
<p>Yes. as it stands now, my opinion does not trump yours based on any empirical hard evidence. </p>
<p>I was just using some common psychology and easily observable business marketing/sales phenomena.</p>
<p>I do believe though that college is a “product” people buy. All commonly observed marketing psychology can easily be applied here. Harvard et all are operating in a seller’s market. Third tier universities are operating in a buyer’s market. Most colleges and universities would rather be in a seller’s market rather than a buyer’s market (like any other business man/woman with a product to sell). </p>
<p>One of the easiest way to transition from a buyer’s market to the seller’s market is to create a huge demand that outstrips the supply. One of the easiest way to create a demand is to increase the “perception” of prestige. </p>
<p>When you look at it from this perspective, you can see why universities and colleges are hell bent on sending all these marketing materials to students, sending admissions officers all over the country, provide a “VIP” application path with waived application fee, etc. </p>
<p>Yield management tactics should also be put into this context.</p>
<p>As I mentioned earlier, the more I learn about this whole college application and admissions game, the more I realize that we are all involved in a marketing and sales transaction, and they should drop the pretense that this is some sort of a noble operations a la Ivory Tower spirit and we should lose any naivete that schools have the applicants interest at heart.</p>
<p>I like your analysis, and really do agree with it on the whole. Colleges absolutely market themselves, even Harvard and the other elites (Brand maintenance). There is nothing wrong with any of that in the least, and I don’t think most schools would deny it. Most are past the “Ivory Tower” illusion when it comes to admissions strategy, I am sure. I think the issue is whether they engage in “underhanded” tactics or deception. I personally think most people that think this see things that just are not there, or misconstrue the real motivations. Certainly, sometimes a tactic that had a more straightforward, reasonable motivation can result in certain “side effects”.</p>
<p>For example, Tulane has a 5 step strategy designed to get some students that would normally pick higher ranked schools (Duke, Vandy, Wash U, even sometimes Ivies) to come to Tulane. They know this is a numbers game. If they go after 10,000 students with those kind of credentials, they might only get 100 or 200 for example. But that can be 10%+ of an incoming class, so that can be significant. While this strategy has created very high application numbers, it also creates a very low yield. Tulane just doesn’t care about that, they have a goal and in fact the last 3-4 classes reflect a great deal of success in this regard. Not only that, this years class was “too large” by about 130 and they are going to try and keep next year’s class at 1400, 230 less than this year’s. It is simply ridiculous to always impute superficial motives to what these schools do.</p>
<p>What about the students who are ACTIVELY solicited, encouraged, pursuaded by Tulane to apply only to be rejected or waitlisted? It’s not like they are simply targeting high-scoring individuals or NMSQE/PSAT high scorers–THEY SOLICIT ANYONE AND EVERYONE–only to reject them? Come on. That’s dirty.</p>
<p>Annnnnddd, getting back to the OP’s dilemma, test optional programs force students who have middling scores to make ridiculous strategy decisions. I think the whole idea is nonsense.</p>
<p>
Just because someone gets marketing material from any school does not mean they are automatically accepted. Even a personal application. Note the word “application”. If it were automatic they would just send an acceptance letter. Yeesh. Anyone that thinks otherwise needs to be “pursuaded” to think harder. ANYONE and EVERYONE?? Hardly. Now you are sounding hysterical.</p>
<p>Wrong Fallen Chemist: My daughter received numerous solicitations from Drexel, saying that she should apply right away cause her SAT scores were what they wanted. She hadn’t even sent these score out yet. Ridiculous. Tulane sent almost as many as Drexel. It was tacky and unprofessional.</p>
<p>You are certainly welcome to think these things are tacky. They really are not unprofessional, that doesn’t even make sense. But in any case, I am not sure where I am wrong. The student doesn’t have to send the scores out. The schools buy the data and market to the students based on whatever parameters they choose. Even Harvard does it. My D scored a 2330, never had considered Harvard, but got a letter from them inviting her to apply. Frankly, I considered it neither tacky nor unprofessional. I also didn’t think that when she got solicited by schools that were, quite bluntly, well below her academic level. She had never heard of many of these schools, and a couple actually caught her interest. What’s wrong with that?</p>
<p>I applied test-optional and I had an average SAT score. I don’t care if the admissions counselors think that I didn’t do well. Whatever, I just don’t think that the SAT is an accurate measurement of what I can do.</p>