Was test optional, ultimately, a disservice to kids or was it the right choice?

Parents Forum
909

I’m not condoning this sentiment, but I do understand it a bit.

My kid was lucky and was able to test a few times. Worked his butt off all summer to get the score he did. When we saw his score, we all celebrated. We were so happy because he was so happy. And he was so happy because he had worked so hard, and it had paid off.

So, I totally get the personal feeling of wanting to relax a bit with the knowledge that your kid has secured at least one important data point.

And then, you hear that that data point may not be important. You hear that that kids without that data point will be on the exact same playing field. You hear that applications are way up because that previously-important data point is now moot. (Ok, maybe not totally moot but perhaps diminished).

I’m not saying it’s a reasonable thought, but it’s a human thought. We all get frustrated and our frustration is typically based on our own personal circumstances.

1 Like
910

I think that most kids who have what it takes to get into an elite school also have high test scores (or would have high test scores if they had the chance to take multiple tests). I also think there are a not insubstantial number of kids out there who have what it takes but, for whatever reason, can’t crack a 31 on the ACT or 1,400 on the SAT. I think in years past, those test scores hurt those kids’ chances. Maybe some of them got in anyway, but most of them did not. I am saying that those kids benefited from TO. I’m not saying it’s a bad thing that they benefited, I’m just saying that they did. It’s like Looking Forward always talks about, the competition is so fierce, all it takes is one thing to trip you up. This year, the kid with the stellar application and the 1370 SAT didn’t have to worry about getting tripped up by the 1370.

911

“My kid was lucky and was able to test a few times. Worked his butt off all summer to get the score he did. When we saw his score, we all celebrated. We were so happy because he was so happy. And he was so happy because he had worked so hard, and it had paid off.”

Here’s the fallacy here (not being argumentative, just pointing out the facts). You have no idea if your kid’s hard work paid off. No idea. And that holds for whether it’s a Covid year or not, test optional or not. There is not a single competitive type college where JUST getting a high score is going to mean admissions or not. Not one.

So kid’s score went up? Great. But maybe spending those hours doing something else would be the “make or break” in admissions- working on the stamp collection to write a kick ^&* essay about a hobby which is meaningful. Maybe spending the time reading a biography about John Adams and impressing the heck out of the AP history teacher in September who asks “Please may I write a college recommendation for you”.

You think it paid out because the score went up. And that’s great. But there’s no linear relationship between a score of X meaning admissions results of Y. And there are so many other things that matter- all of which are ALSO time consuming.

So perhaps the kid works hard, the score goes up, and it doesn’t pay out? Sure, the satisfaction of working hard for a desired result. But scores go up all the time without the hard work- kids get faster at math, their verbal skills increase, just by virtue of being in HS and their brains being actively engaged.

Kudos to your kid- but just pointing out that holistic means holistic, and higher scores IN AND OF THEMSELVES do not necessarily mean a kid can turn a reject into an acceptance.

6 Likes
912

Seems to me that the kids who went test optional were not able to jump into “that next level” of college. Rather, they cemented the level they belonged in with “maybe” more certainty. Of course, when they applied, they were worried about what test optional might really mean. I am going by 20 or so kids who I know who have applied test optional this year. Each that tried to jump up to the next college tier hit their head on the ceiling and came crashing down with a rejection. Even on CC, I have not read that a single applicant who was a top 25 kid got into a top 10 because of the huge advantage they gained by not submitting tests. Has anyone?

4 Likes
913

completely agree with this. So far, we don’t know anyone who went TO and got into a big reach. RD will be interesting.

Our D went TO and has only heard from safeties (all schools between a 40-60% acceptance rate) but did get merit at all. We are hoping that at least transfers into her getting into some of her more match schools (most with more like a 25-30% acceptance rate). Certainly not counting our chickens that she will get into her one bigger reach even though, using the GPA history from our school, she should at least get WL. This school tends to care about high scores so I think TO makes it even more of a stretch. IF she gets into that school, I will then be comfortable saying that TO was an advantage for her.

1 Like
914

Blockquote
I’d say a lot. There are many schools where 4.0 is the norm for a good solid student. Add in lots of great Ecstatics, good essays and that application looks great especially without that low ACT/SAT that used to be part of the application. Compare that to a school without grade inflation and where most kids are scoring highly not only on the SATs but on APs as well.
The rigor varies at different schools. How things are viewed can impact acceptances and perception. This is particularly true if a student is from a school that is NOT known to the college to which they are applying.

915

Understand and totally agree. I just meant that his hard work “paid off” in terms of his SAT score and that one, singular data point. Not that it paid off in regards to the college admissions process as a whole.

916

Realize it is not the same people, but funny how some think the SAT is an aptitude tests (it is mostly not one btw) and others think that it is all about who works the hardest to get a top score. A true aptitude test should be able to be taken cold and for the most part a score won’t be improved with preparation.

1 Like
917

Data 10 just posted that 24% of Penn’s ED admits did not submit test scores, so obviously some kids who went TO were able to jump to that next level.

918

Back to the admissions officers are clueless theory. While I have seen the top tier private school kids to have an advantage with some colleges, I have not seen the reverse happen. I am sure it does, in some instances, but not something I have seen. I went to one of those disadvantaged schools, and we all did fine.

919

You have a false assumption that the TO kids jumped a level. How could you possibly know that? You are speculating.

8 Likes
920

How do you know they would not have been there in the first place?

6 Likes
921

I think some here are actually looking at all this through the wrong end of the scope.

You are starting with scores and everything related (the prep industry, how wealth plays, your kids’ scores/how hard he or she worked on that, whether scores support the transcript, and it goes on.) And now someone sashays over to the certainty some TO kid took their kid’s rightful place. And the arguments sweep from there. Later, rinse, and repeat.

Imo, you should just start with what holistic is about, in the first place. It’s about the whole, like it or not. (Add to that, adcoms are strangers, all you get is this one app/supp to present yourself. This isn’t applying to the teachers have known you or the College of Mom and Dad.)

With tippy tops, just getting top scores only gets you to the gate. (At a rack-and-stack, it can get your further.) You have a LOT to prove after that, all of it critical, in its own way. Your superior scores are not enough. Not the way to view this.

I think, over a long time on CC, that many ignore just how important “the rest” is, for a tippy top holistic. As homerdog wrote, “…not everyone with a high score has the full package.” Sad, but true. The competition is nutso. This isn’t just your kid with his 36 and 4.0, some rigor, some titles, some awards.

(Lol, it could very well be another 36 who slips past your kid. For lots of reasons. Or, horrors, a bit lower.)

Testing is fine, as an absolute measure. Sure. (I’ve called it “another hurdle” and it’s good to master all the hurdles.) Then its power dwindles. It’s an incomplete way to decide who’s worthy or not. An incomplete view. A limitation in one’s approach. And self-defeating.

The number of kids who get in with hidden low scores is outweighed in importance by how YOU present this “rest.” What it shows of YOUR thinking, readiness, and various academic and personal strengths/skills and traits the college wants. That’s about YOU, your thinking, and YOUR responsibility. The top colleges will continue to find what they consider the best. You can try to figure what that means, beyond stats. Or not. Your choice.

2 Likes
922

Here’s my question. If test scores make no difference to who gets admitted, if they aren’t predictive, or at least not as predictive as GPAs, of what students will do in colleges, why none of the elite privates, with the lone exception of Caltech, chose to go test blind, especially in the midst of a pandemic?

1 Like
923

They certainly make a difference by weeding out the lower half, but there are other ways to get to the same place. Test blind is inevitable, but we may be 10+ years away for the cowardly schools - unless there are strong external pressures.

924

Because they’re kind of important.
But kind of not important.
And, we place value on them.
But not so much that not submitting them will hurt you.
And, they say a lot about you as a student.
But, they also don’t say a lot about you as a student.
And we care about them.
But, at the same time, we don’t care about them.
Because we are holistic.

Now, go study for them.
Or don’t.

8 Likes
925

How? Do applicants with scores below some minimum benchmark all have other defects in their applications?

926

No other business could get away with that amount of obfuscation.

1 Like
927

Actually, how hiring decisions for jobs are made is often obfuscated more from the point of view of the applicant.

1 Like
928

When the NBA implemented a 3 point line (1979 i think), did all the teams have the same exact strengths they had one season before.

The lower half will be decided by the same people, using the updated rules.