Interesting thread. I think most of us acknowledge both the inequities and the limitations of an over-emphasis on standardized test scores for admission. That said, I think most of us also acknowledge that course rigor can vary dramatically from HS to HS–and indeed even within the same HS–and grading is subjective. Scores shouldn’t be dispositive, but they provide valuable information about the student and the curriculum. Standardized tests keep private (and rigorous public) high schools honest. When they publish their school profile, if the GPAs are sky-high and the average ACT/SAT scores are low, it’s a red flag to colleges (and prospective parents). On the flip side, when I see universities that boast a 3.8 or 3.9 average GPA but with average SATs of ~1200, my assumption is that there was a lot of grade inflation and/or “recalculating”. There are no easy answers, but if scores were eliminated as a factor, I think it would have implications at the HS and college level.
@Mwfan1921 noted that 91% of Trinity admits were TO. But this is the 5th or 6th year Trinity has been TO. Odds are their AOs already know what they are looking for. (And let’s not forget that most of the athletic recruits, who are a considerable percentage of the entering class, are admitted in the ED round. This number really isn’t shocking.)
And for all of you wringing your hands over whether those stellar scores will count against you, PLEASE take a breath. If your application is stronger with them, they will help.
The unfortunate students are neither the ones with great scores nor the ones who had poor scores and will apply TO. Most of them will probably have the outcome they would have had.
The true losers are the ones who would probably have had strong scores but didn’t get to test and who were late to the EC game. It’s hard to create a strong application without something to work with.
You think the colleges aren’t going to know which students/schools/regions had the opportunity to offer tests – and multiple tests – and which one’s weren’t? Which kids are holding back their scores as opposed to which kids just couldn’t take the test?
Trust me - they’ll know.
What they don’t know is who has a high risk family member and doesn’t test because of that. My junior took the ACT a few weeks ago but some of her classmates who live with grandparents did not.
This is true. Which is why, if I were the parent in that case, I would be sure and ask the counselor to lay that background out in their rec.
Trinity has been operating with the majority of enrolled students not submitting scores for years. Specific numbers are below:
Class of 2023 – 58% did not submit scores
Class of 2024 – 68% did not submit scores
Class of 2025 ED – Apparently 91% did not submit scores
It’s still a few years early to evaluate the effects of such a large portion of the class being test optional on student performance. 1st/2nd year retention and graduation rate statistics are unchanged. The average college GPA of enrolled students increased a little faster than would be expected from grade inflation. For example 41% A grades before test optional, and 50% A grades in 2019. % STEM majors increased after going test optional, but that probably has more to with external factors than test optional.
As expected, % claiming FA increased as a larger potion of the class was test optional and % from private schools decreased. However, rather than public schools, enrollment from parochial schools increased. Parochial was consistently ~9% prior to test optional, then doubled to 18-19% in each of the last 3 years. I did not expect this relationship. Perhaps it primarily relates to other factors.
^@data10, interesting. I’d bet % getting FA increased because they are needing to give more to yield more of the applicants they want. And that TO was part of the strategy to get more of the applicants they want. There are a number of things going on at this school, including a push for greater diversity. Put differently, going TO was part of a bigger strategy; everything that happens there is not the result of it. I don’t think this is what you are saying but it could sound like that.
Our school hosted an SAT and there were also a few options this fall for ACT and SAT sittings at other schools this fall. I’m betting AOs who work with Illinois students know that.
Our D went TO and so far is 3/3. For Santa Clara and LMU, she has classmates who sent stellar scores and got in but D also got in. The AOs didn’t say “your classmate took the test and I know you must have so we will admit your classmate and not you.” At Santa Clara, said classmate got the same merit offer as D too. I know these aren’t super highly selective schools but at least, in this case, D was not overlooked because she didn’t have a test score and the AO knows she likely took one test or more. The other candidate who was admitted had ECs very similar to D and probably a GPA just a bit higher so it was not a situation where her test score boosted her app.
We will have to see how the RD rounds go.
I do not think AOs are sitting around and judging kids for not sending tests. They are reading what was sent in the apps, determining fit and deciding on whether to admit.
To state the obvious, if an application does not include standardized test scores, then other parts of the application become more important with respect to making an admissions’ decision.
Grades, class rank, academic rigor, teacher recommendations, diversity concerns/building a class, and ECs should provide ample information about an applicant.
Their hands were forced. In some parts of the country it was impossible to get an SAT test seat. My son got canceled twice.
That’s the kind of info a student can include in the covid section of the common app. If a student could have taken the test but didn’t, a good explanation (like living with vulnerable people) will settle any possible question in an AO’s mind.
My son didn’t write anything in the covid section of his application. He felt that his covid-related problems (tests being cancelled, sports seasons suspended, internship called off…) were so common that AOs didn’t need to be reminded. But I appreciated the Common App’s decision to include an extra section for that info, as some students will certainly want to provide context for things they did or didn’t do during the pandemic. Hopefully the students you mentioned did so.
DS had his ACT cancelled 3x but was finally able to take it as were most of his friends that kept at it (or in DS case, had a mom that kept at it and also ensured we got refunds for cancelled tests).
Sounds like there were places in the US that completely cancelled standardized tests and to me those are the kids that TO was meant for…
I agree with this. It’s going to be very hard for some of these very selective colleges to surrender 30% and 50% increases in applications in the future by going back to their old testing standards.
I think test optional allows the AOs to have a bit less transparency in their decisions and so as long as USNWR does not somehow figure out a way to penalize them the colleges will certainly want to avoid going back to requiring tests. Presumably there will be more kids switching out of STEM majors but that is probably a good thing for colleges as I believe STEM is the flavor of the day and humanities have been suffering from declining enrollment. From the colleges point of view, not sure if there is much of a downside to TO.
I’d never send my kid to a school with a bunch of kids that have high STD scores. I am worried enough about meningitis and COVID. No need to add the clap to this list.
[quote=“Publisher, post:255, topic:2803241, full:true”]To state the obvious, if an application does not include standardized test scores, then other parts of the application become more important with respect to making an admissions’ decision.
Grades, class rank, academic rigor, teacher recommendations, diversity concerns/building a class, and ECs should provide ample information about an applicant[/quote]
Among score submitters, particularly those with “higher” scores than grades, there may be a concern that, with such large percentages applying without scores, the weight of factors may be different in this new TO scenario, that GPA is weighed even more heavily than it was before, and that the score will be more of an afterthought. In other words, for those who are submitting scores, is the relative weight of factors different this year than last year? (I don’t think we know the answer to this yet.)
I agree with this. One of my best friends had a perfect Math score and graduated from a HYPMS level school. Yet, he’d be the first to admit that he would have been a poor fit for a LAC like Wesleyan or Williams where he would have been crushed by the amount of non-STEM reading and writing required to fill out his class schedule. I once asked him whether he was dyslexic and he answered, “no”, that he just disliked “non-fact based subjects.” He’s polite and low-keyed. Very logical in his thinking. But, not exactly the kind of person who would involve themselves in running the local school board. And his ability to excel at taking tests has served him well; he’s had a very successful career in i-banking. But, I would hate to have attended a college or university full of nothing but people who were just like him.
It is not obvious that Williams or Weslayan requires more writing, humanities, arts, and/or social science than Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, or MIT. Based on their general education web sites:
Williams: 3 H/A, 3 SS
Wesleyan: 3 H/A, 3 SS
Harvard: 1 W, 3.5 H/A/SS, 1 H/A, 1 SS
Yale: 2 W, 2 H/A, 2 SS, 1+ FL
Princeton: 6 H/A/SS
Stanford: 2 W, 8 H/A/SS (quarter system, so semester equivalent would be about 1+1/3 W, 5+1/3 H/A/SS)
MIT: 1 H, 1 A, 1 SS, 5 H/A/SS
Seems like your friend would have preferred Brown or Amherst or some such.
^LOL. You remind me of my friend. This isn’t about data. We’re talking about what’s available in the curriculum at any given time as well as the general ethos of a place. Some places are just more STEM oriented than others; some student bodies are more concerned with certification than others. And, why would anyone prefer Amherst and Brown to Wesleyan and Williams? That does not make sense.
I.e. because the data is in opposition to your claim, you dismiss the data. None of the listed colleges is lacking in availability of humanities, arts, and social science courses, and a general ethos does not preclude the general education requirements of such courses from being heavy.
Those who prefer less general education requirements, like apparently your friend, would prefer Amherst or Brown for that reason.