At the end of the day there is nothing anyone can do to control or predict how this will all pan out. Parents of kids who worked hard and did well on the SAT are not happy with it being a TO year and parents of kids who worked hard and didn’t do well on the SAT are happy that “this is the best scenario for their type of child”
A standardized test is no measure of success in college or in life for that matter.
I’ll preface any comment I make stating that there was no other option than to open TO this year, but I will agree with a previous post and comment on the data from your school. Ours just doesn’t have that kind of data and I do think qualified kids from unknown schools were probably hurt without a score. We don’t have Naviance. Nobody even tracks our scores unless it is during the day they give the ACT in the fall of senior year ( which most high achievers don’t even take) and I think the average is a 24? We USED to have naviance and the scattergram had about 5 points with only community college admits ( which was not accurate). There is grade inflation and a giant jump in performance between say top 5 kids to the next 15- then a huge difference. Nobody had ever applied to Bowdoin from there before and I feel quite assured that my Val, high gpa with 22 AP/IB blah blah would not have been admitted without his scores. That being said it is all that could be done this year and my applying son also has scores for similar colleges. I do think that no scores in the future will favor known schools.
“One concern I have is that many schools were not test optional until this year, so they have no experience evaluating candidates without having test scores as a data point”
Elites have been reviewing kids for more than stats for quite some time. More than enough time. I think there’s some problem examining this overall scores/no scores issue (on this thread) from such a micro perspective. It ignores that too many applicants slay themselves on the rest of the app. Scores are a benchmark of sorts, but your admit then hinges on what you communicate in the rest of the package (not just content.)
There’s an assumption among many that high scores (and the image of the hard working kid who achieves them) mean a kid is somehow a better “fit” for a most selective college. More “deserving.” It just isn’t so. You really have to step aside from that.
I have always viewed scores as separate from grades, not some “proof” of the grade’s validity. Another hurdle, so to say. And then, that’s that. Elites aren’t admitting stats, they’re admitting multi-dimensional individuals who offer more (we hope.)
I don’t agree profs, facing kids who had lower scores (now or in the past) would then lower their class standards. Not at an elite. Instead, it’s the flip side. In my experience, the concern is whether any kid who’s iffy in any respect would be able to keep up with the bar set by classroom peers with their better preparation. Ime, it comes up often: whether this kid can reasonably keep pace. But that can be communicated in other ways.
The overall problem circles back to this issue with the rest of the app package. Sorry to say, too many applicants have the impressive stats, but present weakly in the rest.
Actually I don’t think that’s necessarily true. Our school’s SAT scores are only slightly above the average for NYS. It’s a huge comprehensive school with a very diverse population both economically and ethnically. There’s a decent sized cohort of kids in the honors and AP classes and those kids challenge each other. In fact I think some of their teachers were better than those in my fancy prep school. If you pulled out the top 100 kids in each class, I bet their scores would rival those of the “better” school districts.
Absolutely I agree with this for low income, urban schools being a disadvantage. (replying to profSD about lower HS kids who are at a disadvantage.)
we know a kid at school in son’s district; av. school ACT score 15.6; kid was new to the country, learned English, worked hard, had good grades, and scored a 28 ACT. now at Harvard. No way in heck would that kid have been considered without that ACT score, coming from a school with an average of 15.6 ACT. That test is one way for the underprivileged to shine, especially when they are in schools that bump the GPA to get kids to graduate.
Intermediate economics courses and economics major:
Of the above three, Florida State has the strongest test-takers among its students, but its economics department apparently has the lowest expectations of its students’ math competence.
I believe the earlier post was in reference to the college level vs HS level, but the same principle still applies. Colleges that aren’t very small usually offer several different course levels to chose from, particularly in intro STEM classes.
For example, Harvard requires that all incoming freshman take a math placement exam to help better understand HS math background and help decide what math starting point is most appropriate. Based on placement exam score, HS course background, AP scores, personal goals, planned major, feedback from placement officer, and other factors; the student decides on which math course to choose. Harvard offers any of the following intro math starting points and sequence options – Math Ma,b; 1a,b; 19a,b; 20; 21a,b; 23a,b; 25a,b; and 55a,b. The lowest level (MA) is a half normal speed calc/pre-calc type class , while Harvard’s website describes math 55 as “probably the most difficult undergraduate math class in the country”. Very few students attempt to take math 55, and most students who do attempt it drop out to a slower/easier math sequence by the end. However, top math students, such as IMO participants do tend to take it, so other students won’t see IMO level math students in their intro math classes.
There are generally less options at very small highly selective colleges. One of the most extreme examples is Caltech. Like Harvard, Caltech also requires all incoming freshman to take a math placement exam. Students whose placement scores are lower are required to join a special section of Caltech’s lowest level math course that has a different instructor than the standard class and meets more often, giving the students who need it a extra attention and a better chance to catch up.
There are also other options. For example, Caltech students who do well on the math placement exam, but still feel they have some weak points or other areas they would like to improve may choose to skip the special section mentioned above and instead simultaneously take an additional special calculus problem solving while taking the standard math class. The special problem solving class gives extra attention and helps insure that they are not missing gaps in math knowledge.
Note that neither of the above colleges base placement decisions on SAT score. In contrast, Caltech has chosen to go test blind (not optional) for the next couple years. Caltech doesn’t appear to be concerned about the lack of SAT score making it impossible to teach classes. Caltech does appear to very concerned about incoming freshman being well prepared for Caltech’s rigor in math/science, but they evaluate preparedness in different ways than looking at SAT score. Their website lists a variety of ways that freshman applicants can demonstrate this mathematical preparedness besides SAT score.
Elite colleges: Test Optional students are not at a disadvantage; We use holistic reviews that look at students in a broad context; Test scores only tell a small part of the story.
Also Elite colleges: our average SAT score is 1550
No wonder kids are confused 
MIT just announced that there has been an unprecedently increase (+62%) of EA applicants this year, even more than Harvard’s increase (+58%). I bet TO applicants contributed to the bulk of those increases. Princeton’s decision not to offer SCEA this year may have also contributed but that effect should be much smaller (Princeton had less than 6k SCEA applicants last year).
Dartmouth must have a very generous definition of “low income” if it exceeds the number of Pell eligible students, since Pell eligibility probably ranges up to the bottom 40-50% of the household income range.
How much is their application fee? That’s quite a lot of revenue for them
$75. Revenue from application fees would be about $1.1m assuming few ask for fee waivers.
$75 for the application, plus an extra $15 if you submitted the optional Maker Portfolio
Wow so if their applications are up 40-60%, can’t say going TO was a tough decision for them
“No way in heck would that kid have been considered without that ACT score, coming from a school with an average of 15.6 ACT.”
But he wasn’t chosen for exceeding the scores of non-college bound peers.
I often see comments on CC that being the best in a low performing school is somehow its own fairy dust. Sure, it adds some zing. But there’s always a background question, for an elite. Can this kid thrive here (can he or she survive?) A simple 28 is not enough, no matter whether it’s better than others at the hs. Instead, this kid likely had plenty that said, "No matter the score, he has the “it.” There had to be more.
There are plenty of kids at low performing hs who, themselves, exhibit vision and drives, academic strengths, get solid LoRs, etc, despite a low score. I disagree that they’re at a disadvantage based on the hs itself. Adcoms are looking at the whole package. Some of those lower SES kids are out there, doing a variety of meaningful things and achieving. (Not enough of these kids, right.) In many cases, their sum total exceeds that of more advantaged kids.
The elites aren’t taking them just for the sake of taking them, then leaving them, so to say, to the wolves, to the various new challenges a tough college will throw their way. They look for a pattern of strengths.
Here is another example of how student test scores do not necessarily correlate to academic rigor or content taught in the college:
WUStL: 33-35 ACT, 1450-1560 SAT
UCB: 29-35 ACT, 1330-1530 SAT
However, there was a recent thread started by a WUStL student looking to transfer due to disappointment with the academic content when comparing the WUStL courses with “the same” courses at UCB (student and twin sibling at UCB were both at home doing distance learning at their respective colleges): Should I transfer out of WashU? . This is despite the fact that WUStL has higher student test score ranges than UCB does, which you claim means that WUStL should be teaching at a higher level, which is the opposite of what the student posting the linked thread found (apparently in math, physics, and/or CS courses).
@ucbalumnus, Berkeley and Wash U are peer schools in my universe, and have quite similar academic profiles ( though you seem to think they are quite different). Let’s try schools with an actual difference-say, Furman and Stanford? Pepperdine and MIT? Elon and Princeton? You may believe the courses are “all the same” but I do not, and have a good basis to judge.
So many comments in this thread represent College Confidential at its worst. To those complaining about the unfairness of it all, let me see if I have this right:
Your kids have high test scores to submit because they are smarter/ worked harder/or are better planners than those without scores.
It’s okay to take a test over and over again to obtain a good superscore, allowing weak scores to hide behind a superscore. But it’s not okay for a student with a weak score to hide behind the TO option.
TO applicants should have to disclose the reason for not submitting scores so that AOs can sort the inferior students from the unfortunate ones.
TO applicants are so lacking in intellectual horsepower that colleges are going to find themselves having to downgrade their curriculum in order to accommodate these substandard students.
You find all of this terribly unfair because not only does it lower the chance of your kid’s acceptance, but if accepted your poor kid is going to be in class with a bunch of dummies.
Have I missed anything?
This is coming from a parent whose kid was not able to take the test due to every session being canceled in our state. D21s hours of studying and our $3,500 test prep package turned out to be a waste of time and money. When I joined CC two years ago, I posted stats for my daughter, never imagining that she wouldn’t have an official score to submit. The concept of it being unfair has never crossed my mind because it seems trivial compared to what others have suffered (examples include death/unemployment/homelessness). Seriously people, get over yourselves.
^^ And who’s to say that a student with high scores won’t have an edge because the school wants to be sure that to the extent it has, and has to report, scores, those kids’ scores will help.
Just an alternate theory.
Every year, almost everyone feels that they are at a disadvantage for some reason. Wealthy kids worry that with their obvious advantages, they should have crafted more impressive resumes. Less well off kids lament that they didn’t have the opportunities better off students did. Athletes, legacies, and other hooked students had an edge. At some level, it’s true but at another, every kid who is “all that” will be able to get a great education wherever they land. There are SO many terrific schools out there. This is, undeniably, a really stressful process and we are living in a really stressful timessful time.
It may seem really hard to believe right now, but it’s not a competition and it will turn out alright!
@GoldPenn, I don’t have kids with applications any more, so I really don’t have any stake in college admissions. Nevertheless, I don’t know of any tertiary education in any country that doesn’t require a standardized test of some kind. Since most of the world uses some test, the choice of US colleges not to do so will be controversial, not necessarily for selfish reasons.