I’m sure when NBA changed the rule, the values placed on some of its players changed. The better 3-point shooters are more valued and more sought-after after the rule change. The compositions of teams probably also changed, however subtly, as a result.
If a non-Caltech “elite” private has said that “test scores make no difference in who gets admitted”, I haven’t seen it. Instead they say something like below (quoted from Harvard’s website):
"Students who do not submit standardized testing this coming year will not be disadvantaged in the application process. Their applications will be considered on the basis of what they have presented, and they are encouraged to send whatever materials they believe would convey their accomplishments in secondary school and their promise for the future. "
“Will not be disadvantaged” is not the same as “makes no difference in who gets admitted.” It might be treated like a student who doesn’t have a 3rd LOR or doesn’t have an interview. If you submits a 3rd LOR, interview, test score, or other optional component, it is considered and may influence the decision. However, if a student does not submit a test score, they will not apply a penalty or assume a low score, and will instead use other components of the application to evaluate whatever they were trying to use test scores for.
The reasons why few colleges have gone test blind is multifaceted. I expect one factor is not wanting to rock the boat. In the past when colleges have gone test blind, it has had negative effects on ranking, such as when Sarah Lawrence was dropped from USNWR ranking entirely as result of being test blind. I think applicants to an “elite” college are more likely to think test blind is unfair than test optional, given that most applicants are high scoring kids who probably want their score to be considered. Administration also has not had time to review what the end result of the policy changes will be. Test optional is likely to result in less dramatic changes than test blind. And while not especially predictive of college performance and probably substantially less predictive than transcript, the predictive ability is >0, particularly when viewed in context of subscores (including SAT II subject), student’s background, and the rest of the application .
a few on the margin, maybe, in that first year (and that could not be avoided). but, in the years to follow, everybody moved on and the game continued to be played like it was always that way. Nobody looked back.
It did take years for NBA players to attempt 3 point shots in volume, though. Once they did, it became more obvious that it was something to be exploited both as a player and when building a team.
I agree that applicants will adapt in the future, but the point some are making that the rule change affected outcomes, at least this year, can’t be just brushed aside.
3 Likes
If the change was not driven by the pandemic, I might feel differently.
I was thinking that and it did eventually become more of a priority when analytics took over. Similarly, I think students will get good at competing without tests, or with tests for people who choose to compete that way. Maybe this is giving more opportunity to everyone - until we see test blind take over. That may need a another catalyst. We will see.
I asked my daughter (junior at Caltech) what she thinks about Caltech going test blind. She really thought that it would not make hardly any difference because the kid who are there are all so passionate about STEM in some way. (They really seem to be from my visits. Very sweet and somewhat quirky kids who love to work incredibly hard). She thought that eliminating the tests would not fundamentally change who gets admitted to Caltech. (Although I have been arguing all night that there would be a few kids admitted who would not have been admitted when tests were required).
Not sure this is correct in a couple of ways. We’d probably see even more 36’s than the .3% or so that we do if it were simply the case that additional practice and work will earn you one. Second, aptitude tests are, indeed, learnable which is exactly the reason why psychologists don’t like issuing the same test more than once to a particular tester.
1 Like
Why TO instead of TB? It’s the first year, folks. What do you expect? FInal directions set before any detail is in?
Lol, “Will not be disadvantaged.” It says not one bit more than it says. Explains nothing more, though I basically agree with Data.
As for “predicting” college performance, ime, when you’re dealing with this level of top performer (by whatever factors,) adcoms are not sitting around anlayzing probable college gpa ranges. As I’ve said somewhere, they have the confidence they’re picking kids with the right skills and attributes that will carry them through. (And plenty of academic support, if a kid hiccups. In some cases, proactive.)
1 Like
UChicago went TO for the incoming Class of '23. At the time they had something like 15% TO applicants and about the same percentage of admits. They were more likely to be majoring in arts and humanities than science and math. The following application cycle (so fall 2019), the number of TO applications was up 20% in the early cycle; not sure how many applied TO overall but my impression is that it was notably higher. I think perhaps that those who believe TO automatically helps someone’s chances at an elite school need to consider that sheer volume of applications might offset that bump. Not sure if that’s been mentioned upthread. Of course, admit rates don’t equate to personal chances either.
UChicago explains why it’s TO and not TB in the following FAQ:
"Does UChicago not see a value in standardized testing?
Your transcript shows your academic record in the context of your school, but, since one school can be very different from another, it is useful to see evidence of academic achievement that exists outside of the context of your school. This is why some colleges ask applicants to submit an SAT or ACT score.
For many applicants, an SAT or ACT score can reflect their academic preparedness in this broader context. If you feel your SAT or ACT reflects your academic preparedness well, then please feel free to send this with your application. Some domestic applicants may feel that an SAT or ACT score does not fully reflect their academic preparedness or potential. If this is the case for you, you may select UChicago’s test-optional method of application, and not supply SAT or ACT scores with your application.
We allow students to decide for themselves what optional information best represents their college readiness so that they can submit their strongest possible application. We want students to know: the application does not define them, they define the application."
I really felt that my kids’ scores reflected their level of academic preparation and overall abilities, rather than enhanced their application in any “a-ha!” sort of way. For honors college and scholarships at the state flagship it was a different story; top scores mattered in that case. But for applications to most elite privates, test scores were more “confirming” than “revealing.”
2 Likes
I’ve seen a few people report that Duke received just shy of 50,000 RD applications this year with an anticipated RD admit rate of around 4.5%.
Last year, the numbers for RD were approx 36,000 and 6%.
So, about a 39% increase in applications.
Whether TO policies will help or hurt individual students, I think we can all agree that TO policies have significantly changed the landscape at some schools.
A 40% increase in applications necessitates change in any admissions office. Will AOs spend less time per application? Will they work longer hours? Will colleges hire more staff to read applications? Will new staff be as effective as experienced staff?
With a kid in the midst of the process, it just feels like a crummy year to be applying…so much change and uncertainty. I hope my attitude turns around once results start rolling in 
(FYI: I have absolutely no backup for the current year Duke RD numbers above. But I’ve seen a few people reference them. Hope they’re right )
That’s from an admissions blog with no listed source, so it’s unclear whether it is accurate. The claimed 49,500 applications was for ED + RD, not just RD. If accurate, it’s a 24% increase. Several other colleges with similar selectivity saw a similar degree of increase in the early round. The largest increase I am aware of occurred at MIT. MIT early applications increased by 62% from 9,293 to 15,036.
1 Like
Thank you for the context and the data @Data10!
Caltech is probably among the least impacted. That’s likely the reason it decided to go full test blind, for at least two years to see if there’s any measurable impact. However, for some other colleges, that may not be the case. For example, Vanderbilt, by all indications, places greater weight on test scores. Some state flagships rely more on test scores because they receive too many applications to process them in a purely “holistic” but timely manner. Only time will tell.
I generally agree with that, not because current tests aren’t useful, but because they’re too limited. We shall see, in the absence of these “confirming” signals, the impact on the composition of their incoming classes in the next few years.
1 Like
Per Compass Prep, subject tests and the SAT Essay are being eliminated by College Board. Getting rid of the essay was not at all surprising.
But subject tests? In light of test optional policies, is eliminating subject tests the wrong way to go? Couldn’t subject tests be an alternative submittal?
Part of the issue is that CB had not invested in subject tests for years, were recycling old tests and were unable to keep them secure. Add to that colleges’ declining use of them (even pre-pandemic) and it is a product with decreasing revenues that needs significant investment to fix. Seems CB chooses to fortify its AP offering instead, which was probably the correct choice.
Here’s the subject test thread:
1 Like
Is the writing on the wall for the main SAT test itself? Why or why not?
1 Like
This year it makes sense that many colleges were TO due to the pandemic. I predict that going forward, most colleges will remain TO because being TO benefits the colleges themselves in several ways.
- Drives up application numbers and enhances their selectivity.
- Drives up their average test scores since only students with strong test scores are going to submit their tests.
- Increases the pool of URM and lower SES applicants since these kids are more likely to not have the required testing due to numerous barriers. This will meet the institutional goal of increasing diversity.
However for the upper SES applicants, TO will likely make things harder for them since it is not likely to benefit them and will make selective schools even more selective (which is not saying that this is bad, since increasing diversity is a great goal). If an AO sees a TO app from a private high school or high SES high school in the future (especially in a state like MI where all high school students take the SAT in school), the AO will likely assume that the student did not test well, and it is likely to count against such applicant.
3 Likes