My son has a 1580 and is applying to highly competitive engineering programs. We are from a middle class very average town. He has no hooks (not Urm). So, it’s an extremely competitive situation even in regular years.
I don’t think it’s fair at all that he’s potentially only competing with the kids that submitted scores. It just don’t feel very holistic to me. If a lack of scores isn’t a disadvantage and scores say very little about a student’s ability to achieve, then all the kids should be considered in one pool together. And, if the end result doesn’t perfectly align with the percentages of kids who are TO versus those with tests, then so be it. That would be the true definition of holistic admissions IMO.
If applicants can choose whether to submit test scores, one of the measures for admissions, why not also let them choose whether to submit another (different) measure? Aren’t we on a slipery slope? Of course, many kids couldn’t take the tests, so the test requirement has to be relaxed or removed. But is it fair? That’s a different question. For the sake of fairness, test-blind, not test-optional, is the only choice.
Given that this is a top-end score for nearly any college or engineering division, that can only help him at a test-optional admission college.
The ones who really lose in test-optional are those with mid range test scores who will either be at the lower end of test submitters if they submit their test scores, or who will be assumed to have lower test scores if they do not submit their test scores.
Obviously, at a test-blind college, losing the ability to show a top-end test score loses whatever advantage that top-end test score may give.
The kid with the 1580 is competing with the same other high scoring kids as she would if it were a normal year. All those high scoring kids were applying anyway.
The difference is that some otherwise high scoring kids don’t get identified as high scoring because they don’t have test results to submit. Under the theory that high scores are compared to each other, TO is a benefit to the high scorers because there are fewer of them.
So I highly doubt that the AOs are dividing the apps into two piles. That would not be fair to those without scores.
If your kid wants to go to a competitive engineering school, they should show they are good at engineering/math/science. Like they built something interesting, did well on a math/physics/etc competitive test or a glowing recommendation.
IMO I don’t think high math SAT is a differentiating factor in a highly competitive engineering school. I would not hang my hat on that. If your kid took the AIME or AMC, those numbers will be a lot more relevant than math SAT.
I’m for SAT testing for the general schools, but the ones that focus on the best in certain subjects (engineering, music, performing arts, athletics, etc) … I think the SAT is not that important relative to demonstrating ability in whatever that school is focused on.
I want to elaborate on what I said above a little more.
Take a highly competitive engineering program where the average SAT score is 1570. Now, imagine your kid busts his butt all summer and gets a 1570…yay!!
In a normal year, if he gets a high score…he competes with the entirety of the applicant pool.
But, with Test Optional policies this year, kids are pretty much only submitting scores that fall within the middle 50% range. So most kids who submit scores will have the 1570. My point is, the entirety of the test submit group is going to have a high score, somewhat close to the 50% mark.
It’s like telling your kid “Awesome job on that 1570! Guess what, you’ll only be competing against kids who also got a 1570.” At some point it feels like: well then what’s the point of the high score?
I’m sure there are some magnificently qualified kids in the TO group who couldn’t test due to covid. I don’t mean to offend anyone at all
We are all just advocating for our kids in this crazy, crazy year. Even if we don’t agree, I appreciate and love the conversation!!
Thank you…great recommendations regarding the application process for engineering schools!
Unfortunately we come from a town that hasn’t historically supported STEM programs in general. It’s been a challenge to find opportunities outside of the school system. He loves engineering though and is a self-starter so fingers crossed that comes through in his writing
I can guarantee you that most people in our school have never heard of the AIME or AMC.
If he is a self starter that works on robotics and has jumped through hoops to overcome his town’s lack of support for STEM, that is a great story. Perseverance and demonstrated interest/ability in engineering, IMO, are going to get him much further than a perfect or near-perfect SAT score.
IMO focus on the essay portion to describe obstacles to being good at STEM, and how your self-motivated kid pursued it anyway.
But let’s say in 2019 1000 applicants in engineering school x got 1570 and above. If your kid is one of them, and it were random who got accepted among those 1000 kids, your kid has a 1/1000 chance for each spot.
There likely won’t be MORE high-scoring applicants in 2020 than in 2019, right? There will be fewer because not all of the high scoring kids got to submit their scores. Let’s say 20% didn’t get to submit. Your kid now has a 1/800 shot for each spot if it were random.
If it isn’t random based on a threshold of scores, then it is the rest of the app that tips admissions for an application.
That is super-simplifying it, but the point is that your kid has to be competing with the whole applicant pool, unless the number of slots for high scoring kids goes down, too. Maybe that is happening, but probably not so much to make it harder for a high scoring kid in 2019.
But what do I know? Everyone is doing their best (including the AOs) and wants the best for all kids in the class of 2021.
Ok.
But I still think you’re missing how much the rest matters. The score is just an entree.
It does sound like you’re saying you mind him competing against kids who have “the rest,” but not the score level.
But it’s always been a matter of more than the score. 100 or 1000 engineering wannabes with, say, a 1580 or near enough, were competing based on their full packages.
Yes I agree, the SAT score is but one data point. My comments above really only addressed the rumored theory that schools may try to keep percentages aligned. Ie: if 25% of kids applied with test scores, approximately 25% of the accepted kids will be those who submitted scores.
But what if, after holistically reviewing everyone, they determine that the top 50% are kids who happen to have test scores? Will the colleges sway from a “pre-determined” alignment of percentages? Or, will they be so concerned with the optics around accepting enough TO kids that they take kids who are holistically weaker?
Simplified: in a situation where only 25% of kids submitted test scores, would a college ever announce that 50% of accepted kids were those that submitted scores? Or would that be terrible optics-wise? Would they get too much flack with people saying “See, applying test optional was a disadvantage; you lied to us when you said otherwise.”
@DoingOurBest, I think you have hit the nail on the head by noting that this approach of matching offer % to test % is rumored.
Most schools initially divide applications by geography for reading purposes. It seems unlikely that this year the pool will be divided by whether or not there’s a test score. I would expect that there will be a check on how balanced the class looks on a number of measures before decisions are released.
They know that applicants without scores fall into three groups - the ones who have scores they are not submitting, those who couldn’t test but would have had excellent scores, and those who couldn’t test and would have had dicier scores. It’ll be up to them to work through all the applications without scores and figure out which is which. Sure, they’ll get a few wrong but odds are most will be right.
As I have been reading through this thread, I am hoping that all the parents here are using this thread to vent and express their worst fears. And I am especially hoping they aren’t telling their kids with scores that if they aren’t accepted, some undeserving TO kid will have stolen their place. Even in regular years, there are valedictorians with high test scores and interesting ECs who are not accepted to any of the elite institutions. They may grumble about bad luck or about the process overall (especially how it favors hooked kids), but they generally don’t assert that the kids who were admitted were frauds or less deserving.
I know everyone is anxious and wants the best for their kids and that this all comes from that caring place, but we also need to be mindful of how we express this to our kids. A kid with a 1580 is indeed fortunate that they had the opportunity to test and to add a confirming score to their application.
FWIW. When my D21 finally did get to take an SAT at the hastily arranged school test day on 10/14, I was surprised to hear that only about a tenth of the senior class took it.
So either 90% of the seniors (500 +/-) had already taken the test pre-Covid (or drove to another state) and were happy with their score or more than likely they got sick and tired of the “prepping and stopping” merry-go-round and just decided to go TO.
I’m writing a little play about a kid applying to Julliard. What do you think?
Person A: My kid did awesome on the SAT.
Person B: Great. What instrument does he play, and what are his awards and performances?
Person A: He plays the harp, and there is no harp teacher in our town, but the SAT is unfair.
Person B: Ignore the SAT. Tell me about the harp.
Person A: Well, he had to build his own harp out of a shipping box and the entrails of a dead cat. But look, the SAT … it’s not fair.
Person B: He worked that hard to get a harp? That’s awesome.
Person A: Hypothetically, though, another harpist is getting in because they didn’t submit the SAT.
Person B:
I’ll drop off this thread now, BUT: if you want to maximize your kids’ chances of getting in, take all the energy you are spending thinking about the SAT, and redirect it to the ESSAY.
If so many of the TO students are unqualified, why did Harvard only reject 924 applicants and defer 8,023? Would they really defer unqualified students?
The 747 accepted students will join the 349 students from the class of 2024 who deferred enrollment.
Of the 747 accepted:
119 African American
172 Asian
75 Latinx
8 Native American/Hawaiian
90 International students
126 First Generation
___ Legacies
___ Recruited athletes
Wouldn’t it stand to reason that Harvard would eliminate unqualified applicants rather than deferring them, knowing they’ll receive at least another 35,000 applications for the RD round?
In my daughter’s HS all the higher achieving kids take the SAT the fall of their junior year, so they would have been basically done by the time the pandemic hit. My D took it once in October 2019 and got a good score (1570, which she was unhappy with, but decided to not bother to retake).
Does Harvard normally defer most non-admitted EA applicants? If so, then they may be just following their historical practice.
Stanford gets a lot of flack for rejecting most non-admitted EA applicants, so perhaps Harvard and other colleges deferring most non-admitted EA applicants is a way to “be polite”, even though it means that most such deferred EA applicants have no realistic chance of admission.
