Test-optional is not the same as test blind. At places like the University of Chicago, 85-90% of students still submit ACT/SAT scores and ACT/SAT scores continue to remain an important part of the admissions process. As far as I know, Hampshire is the only college in the US that is truly test-blind, and doesn’t consider ACT/SAT scores at all.
SAT subject tests, AP tests, IB tests, O and A level tests, etc. exist as such, being more aligned with subject matter than the SAT which had its roots in attempting to test aptitude or IQ. Harvard’s admission director once said that SAT subject tests were stronger predictors of college academic performance than the SAT. UC research suggests similar.
But since the SAT is the default / incumbent test for college admission, a college wanting SAT subject tests instead would likely lose applicants, particularly from less advantaged backgrounds. Also, how many and which to require can be an issue – how many applicants would apply to a college that wants the SAT subject tests in English literature, a math, a science, a foreign language, and a history (5 total)?
Open admission community colleges are also test blind for admission.
Many less selective colleges have automatic admission criteria, some of which may be GPA or rank only, without regard for test scores, although test scores may be an alternate automatic admission method or be considered for non automatic admission applicants.
In addition, many colleges do not consider any test scores for junior level transfer applicants, even though prior college courses and grades could have significant variance in grade inflation and course rigor.
The SAT and ACT are multiple choice tests. While they do allow admissions officers to compare students across high schools, it’s a very surface-level kind of comparison. Standardized tests continue to play a large role in college admissions primarily because we have colleges which are receiving such massive numbers of applicants that they need a way to cut those numbers down to a manageable level. I think the vast majority of admissions personnel would freely admit that a graded essay would tell them a lot more than an SAT or ACT score…but the volume of applications makes that kind of evaluation too time consuming for larger schools.
I think the SAT and ACT measure something, but it’s a very surface kind of learning. And part of the reason that it is possible to study for these tests is that what you are mastering is not just “English skills” or “math skills” but “think like the testmaker” skills. Notably the SAT does not even claim that those letters stand for “Scholastic Aptitude Test” anymore. That’s good, because if there is one thing I am sure these tests are not measuring, it is scholastic aptitude.
My child did reasonably well on the ACT, but I still think it is a bizarre way to pick a class.
At the end of the day, though, the problem isn’t the ACT or the SAT; the problem is that some colleges put waaaay too much weight on the scores. They should be at most a piece of the puzzle, not THE most important piece of the puzzle.
And people who act like there are granular differences between scores annoy me. Yes, I would concede that someone who scores 1450 is probably better prepared for college than someone who scores 1000. I do not concede that someone who scores 1480 is obviously a better candidate than someone who scores 1420.
Every time I see someone post that they have, say, a 1520 SAT and then turn around and reassure everyone on CC that “I plan on retaking!” I feel like I am in bizarro world. We have let testing become a god. I can think of many things a student with a 1520 SAT could do which would impress me more than retaking the SAT to see if they could raise it to 1550+.
Look, grades are the same way, you think the kid that gets 90% (A) on a math test is statistically better than a kid that gets a 89% (B)? At the end of the day, you need to compare students somehow and grades, test scores, etc. It’s the way the world works whether its the CPA exams, LSAT, GMAT, lawyers passing the bar, medical boards, etc. Is it 100% fair, not really, but its the most objective way we have when comparing individuals.
For example, D20 took the ACT 3x to get a 34 composite while our close friend’s kid got a perfect 36 (in all sections) first try. Both kids are 99th percentile but there is a big gap between friend’s kid (at Harvard) and my daughter, who’s smart and good test taker but is nowhere near our friend’s kid in flat out brilliance and very high IQ. So in my opinion there is a difference between 36 and 34.
Even within a school, grades can vary. There are teachers that are known to be “harder” than others and teachers who give out A’s with minimal effort. My DD ended up with a very hard APUSH teacher and got a B+ in the class. However, she actually learned in that class and got a 5 on her AP exam. Kids with the easier teacher did not do as well as a whole as her class did on the AP exam.
Testing is needed to give some context to grades. It’s not a perfect solution but there really is no right answer.
You all know that test optional schools aren’t really test optional for all kids, right? They aren’t optional for kids from well regarded high schools. Colleges expect to see those scores. The only kids who can get accepted without scores are kids from lower socioeconomic situations. Being test optional allows colleges to choose those kids without having their scores affect their reported score range for rankings.
That’s not true, actually.
Using some specific numbers from the Bates study, 42% of test optional applicants received FA compare to 34% of test submitters. Test optional matriculants averaged more FA than test submitters, but the vast majority of both groups were higher SES. The NYT study mentions Bates families had a median income inflation adjusted income of ~$250k and 76% from top income quintile, even though ~40% of matriculants are test optional – a wealthier student body than test-required Ivy league colleges.
Generally similar statements could be made about other LACs I am familiar with. Test optional matriculants tend to be lower average SES and lower percent White than the overall student body, yet a large portion are still wealthy and/or White.
Re: #26
That interpretation is more associated with “SAT subject tests recommended” rather than “SAT or ACT optional”.
I agree that test optional really is so, regardless of SES level, at many schools.
For example, Trinity College has many full pay and/or relatively higher SES students applying/matriculating. Last year 60% of students applied TO (yes, 60%!), while 58% of accepted students applied TO…so similar numbers applying and being accepted TO. I don’t know the racial breakdown or fin aid details.
One group where some TO schools do require test scores is from recruited athletes when they send in materials for a pre-read.
Maybe at LACs like Bates, athletes also take advantage of not sending scores. Something like 40 percent of kids are varsity athletes at the NESCAC schools. That way coaches can get kids they maybe could not with lesser scores. In general I think the evidence would show that most kids who got into elite test optional schools are kids who had some sort of hook and were able to get in without scores because of that. I don’t remember where I read it but I believe University of Chicago is using TO this way - to be able to take kids they normally could not if they had sent their scores.
1 Like
Are there studies to show that the kids with lower scores are doing as well as kids with the scores to attended?
Yes, but not all of those are recruited athletes. NESCAC limits athletic slots to 14 for football and 2 for each other sport. There can be variability from year to year at a given school and some schools limit the slots beyond what the conference allows…Bowdoin and Williams both do this, not sure about others.
Sticking with the Bates example, last year there were 643 varsity athletes (unduplicated count) which is 35% of the 1,832 students. https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details
Definitely, and again, depends on the school. Don’t know specifically about Bates, but clearly at Trinity recruited athletes are applying TO given that 60% of last year’s applicants applied TO.
U of C flat out says that it’s going test optional “to enhance it’s accessibility of its undergraduate college for first generation and low-income students.”
They expect to see scores for everyone else…
I’m a test prep tutor who has seen a number of very intelligent students get surprisingly low scores on the SAT or ACT. In my work, I use only the official College Board or Wiley study guides and my students do at least three or more full tests before test date, under timed conditions.
I typically estimate a student’s score after they’ve completed three tests. Of course, I never say “you’ll get x score.” I do say “based on these three or more tests, it seems that you might score approximately 1400…” I’m deliberately ambiguous. Still, it is surprising if a student doesn’t get a score near what their practice tests have shown. I do think that some kids freeze up or get too anxious on test day.
I have some really smart kids who simply overthink everything on the tests. They are more prone to doing this if they view the test as being full of trick questions. I have to help these students look at the tree and not the whole forest.
The issue is that the tests are so unlike anything they do for school. They are very artificial. If these tests are to be relevant, why not just make them IQ tests? Surely it would be harder to prep for them, and colleges would get what they want: choosing the smartest kids. Combined with all the other stuff used in holistic review, that seems reasonable.
@homerdog , I do need to correct an assumption you’ve made. Bates really is test-optional for anyone. Now, I suspect that might be especially true for ED kids. Of my daughter’s group of friends, none of whom are athletes, most of them did not submit a test score. Several applied ED. My D’s friend graduated summa cum laude this year and did not submit a test score. She is not only ridiculously intelligent, but a gifted student who was a very high achiever in all aspects of her Bates experience. She simply couldn’t get a good score on the test.
I agree that in general, for many schools that say they are test-optional, that mostly doesn’t apply to ORM applicants from high-performing schools.
Edit: Yes, I agree that U Chicago seems clear, @homerdog
thanks @Lindagaf . Maybe smaller schools have more liberal policies for TO. See U of Chicago article above. Some schools really do expect to use TO to entice lower SES kids.
But would that suggest that athletic achievement may be a preferred type of EC at such schools, in order to ensure that each incoming class has enough sports-interested students to provide a good pool of walk-on athletes?
Where does it say that SAT/ACT scores are expected or recommended for everyone else?
The quoted phrase merely suggests that SAT/ACT optional will likely be most helpful for 1G/LI applicants, but not exclusively limited to them.