I respectfully disagree. The TO students generally accepted at top schools have proven academic rigor by maintaining perfect or near perfect grades in honors, AP and IB programs. They submit high scores on the AP “standardized” tests in their subjects of interest, they receive their Seal of Bilitarcy or IB diploma. The AOs are familiar with the schools and how challenging the curriculum is in these schools. Just because a student goes TO, does not mean he or she will find herself or himself ill-prepared for college. Perhaps it just means that he or she is not strong in math, and has chosen not to submit a standardized test result that could put a blackmark on the application. Why should a student not strong in math be considered a “lower standard” student for any college curriculum that does not require a single math class?
This doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface on the inherent bias in these standardized tests - but I won’t go there on this thread, as I got hammered on another one for even hinting at racial inequities in these tests.
I just find it fascinating that so many parents cannot see how useless a standardized math test is to a student going into the arts, political science, history, English, linguistics, and so on - yet continue to view this move toward TO as opening the floodgates to underachieving or unprepared students.
I’m with the folks who think it won’t end well. We know many kids who are TO, most are middling kids from schools where 20-40% of kids are getting an A average. Grade inflation. Hey, if they sail through college good for them.
I’m not worried about my kid in any college. Never could understand how someone could totally write off standardized tests but still believe the same kid is going to do well on in class tests. A test is a test.
Not an argument to win/lose. Some like tests, some don’t. My friends whose kids tested poorly did not submit this year. Even kids who tested in the 50% range of schools didn’t submit. There are some school where the test scores are staggering because only the top 75% is using scores. This can’t continue.
I think the era of standardized tests in the way they were used in the past is probably gone for good. Even medical schools have shifted the step 1 exam to pass/fail now. If SAT scores start being required again, I imagine they will carry less weight in whatever algorithms these schools use to make decisions relative to years ago.
As that happens, I think there will be less variation among the college populations. As vast numbers of students have good grades, there will be little to distinguish among them, so where the applicants end up for college will be mostly random. There will be a few outliers like MIT and its closest 5-10 peers which can still review math competition scores and similar outside indicia of talent. Otherwise, colleges will revert closer to the mean
Sometimes I think that’s the point. Holistic acceptances gives all the power of acceptance to the AO’s who have no formula for acceptance. Subject scores, gone, SAT/ACT, gone. The only thing left is GPA and it’s crazy variations from school to school. And the AO’s opinion of who should be admitted reigns supreme. Seems like many people like this approach, I’m not a fan.
I would just hate to see a kid with great grades from a school with massive grade inflation, but a 600 on SAT math end up in Engineering at Cornell. During my DD’s private tour, 50% of the kids in the engineering library were in tears or close to it. She was told that’s the norm.
If a stem kid isn’t crushing SAT math, they shouldn’t be trying to major in stem at a T20. It just won’t end well.
You’re right. I’m the parent of a STEM kid. And I DO believe that a kid not doing well in SAT math does not bode well for success in stem at a T20, as SAT math only covers up to about 10th grade math and is really very easy for a math kid.
But for LA majors, I agree that punishing them for doing poorly on SAT math is inappropriate, and probably frustrating knowing they will never see that math ever again in college.
Lord help us all when Medical School admissions is going soft on testing requirements in the name of… what? Why? Why wouldn’t you want the best and brightest who can prove they can perform under pressure? The world has gone mad.
High school grades and course rigor are a better predictor of college success than test scores. There have been studies that show this to be the case. It makes sense when you consider that someone who persevered and world through 4 years of high school is likely to do the same in college, compared to someone who did loads of test prep over a shorter time to get a good test score.
Grade inflation does make it harder to compare grades across high schools but class rank is one way to normalize. Also looking at how rigorous were the classes compared with what was offered at the school. Colleges have very good data on previous students from a high school, their grades in high school, and how it translated to college grades. So there are ways to normalize. Test scores can still be a supporting signal but it’s not a great indicator by itself of future success.
Agree with this. Speaking of UVA, the “surprises” from our HS last year that weren’t admitted EA had either high gpa/rank and poor rigor or or high scores and low rigor, or “4.0 uw” but not great rank, or some combination of those situations. On Naviance they look more"surprising" unless you know the details from the parents or peers. We have more and more grade inflation in “regular” classes than AP, so lots of “perfect” 4.0uw don’t mean what they seem to. The piles of 4.0uw on CC do not provide the context: rigor and relative rank are rarely shared. While I do think it is more competitive EA now that ED was added a couple years ago for UVa, the vast majority of decisions probably make sense if one could see the whole file compared to the pool.
A lot of schools don’t rank and a lot of people say GPA’s and course rigor are better predictors. But not all agree. Many also think SAT’s do matter. Probably 50/50 maybe on CC 60/40 against SAT/ACTs.
I agree test scores alone are not great indicators. Not having any national standard is also not a good way to go. GPA’s and even rigor vary a lot.
Personally, I think all should be used. But the trend is away from any stat that measures anyone in any way that can be compared/a standard. It is what it is.
Class rank only helps if the population of the high school more or less follows a bell curve with applicants. Those applicants who attend very demanding high schools with either selective admissions, or a disproportionate number of high achieving students, will be penalized.
I do know students who deliberately transferred out of affluent high achieving high schools in Texas to more mediocre ones so that they could qualify for the top 6% auto-admission in Texas. It worked for them, but is that really something we should encourage? Be sure not to surround yourself with smart hard working kids so your class rank is better?
Many private schools don’t rank. Possibly for that reason. None of the private schools in the greater DC area rank. And AOs from schools in the east know the school reputations and rigor. But I wonder about schools farther away, or schools that don’t get a lot of kids from our area. How can they compare kids when it’s likely apples to oranges as far as ACTUAL rigor in a particular school?
Whatever criteria are used there will be people trying to gain advantages. There are prep classes for SATs, essay consultants, and kids transferring to different schools. I don’t know how you make any admissions strategy fool proof and perfect in all cases. All you can do is put in a system that is the most fair to the most people and achieves the college’s objectives.
Is it your belief that UVA has done that, that it would be perceived as fair by the taxpayers of Virginia (recognizing that private schools have more discretion in such matters)?
Our private school “doesn’t’t rank” either–but the vast majority have a school profile that goes to colleges which indicates gpa ranges, And/Or, the GC will comment on general relative rank(top 10%, top 25%, top few, etc), and also comment on relative rigor. The colleges know, especially UVA for any school in state and likely many others around the country: that’s part of the AO’s job, to know different HS. And, as others have said, they keep track year to year and almost certainly keep data on applicants/matriculants etc.
Agreed not all schools rank. My three children went to three different high schools locally - one township high school, one IB high school (honors only classes), and one parochial high school - and none of them rank. I am only aware that the township high school increases the GPA depending on AP and Honors courses. The IB high school doesn’t inflate.
