Is Test Optional hurting those took the test this year (vs those who did not)

Herman_Snerd

Herman_Snerd

5-Year Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2017
Messages
1,416
Curious if those applicants who actually took and performed well on either the ACT or SAT are feeling they may be at a disadvantage this year with applications vs prior years? Maybe since it may be harder to stand-out against those who have no score (but won't have that counted against them)?
 
Last edited:
@Herman_Snerd i enjoy your posts. But I can’t follow this one for some reason 😬. Are you wondering if people who test well, feel they are at a disadvantage to those who cannot actually test?

If I’m reading that right, the question confuses me. I would think somone unable to test would be at a ‘disadvantage’ to somone who has a great a score?

To expand on this...I’ve been wondering lately if candidates are actually having this problem. Unable to test. I know there were many cancelled earlier, but haven’t heard if candidates are still unable to test presently 🤔
 
justdoit19 said:
@Herman_Snerd i enjoy your posts. But I can’t follow this one for some reason 😬. Are you wondering if people who test well, feel they are at a disadvantage to those who cannot actually test?

If I’m reading that right, the question confuses me. I would think somone unable to test would be at a ‘disadvantage’ to somone who has a great a score?

To expand on this...I’ve been wondering lately if candidates are actually having this problem. Unable to test. I know there were many cancelled earlier, but haven’t heard if candidates are still unable to test presently 🤔
Click to expand...
Thanks for that feedback - points made. I've reworded in hopes that may clarify. This year you have people who took and didn't take the ACT. For those who took it and rocked it/ aced it, in prior years that really would have stood out. But this year applicants who did not take the exam have definitely been told that no score will not be counted against them. So I'm curious if anyone feels this is a disadvantage for those who did well, since they're now competing against no-score candidates.

IMO those who did not take the test but would have not shined have an advantage this year - esp. the kids who have near a 4.0 in HS but would have scored like 1160. I'm curious if others have an opinion on this year's setup. I think in those cases they are going to get a mulligan / a pass on what might have exposed a weakness.

Thanks!
 
Herman_Snerd said:
Thanks for that feedback - points made. I've reworded in hopes that may clarify. This year you have people who took and didn't take the ACT. For those who took it and rocked it/ aced it, in prior years that really would have stood out. But this year applicants who did not take the exam have definitely been told that no score will not be counted against them. So I'm curious if anyone feels this is a disadvantage for those who did well, since they're now competing against no-score candidates.

IMO those who did not take the test but would have not shined have an advantage this year - esp. the kids who have near a 4.0 in HS but would have scored like 1160. I'm curious if others have an opinion on this year's setup. I think in those cases they are going to get a mulligan / a pass on what might have exposed a weakness.

Thanks!
Click to expand...
IMO the school profile will help assess the high school record/gpa when act/sat is unavailable. Easiest for boards when there is a standardized test to do that work for them, though I think that tests smarts and not always work ethic/motivation/persistence etc. hence, bigger weight this year on essays, recommendations and the interview.
 
The way I look at it, a good score will always be a plus and will surely be noticed if not formally. Think of it this way: I think it's Montana State PMS who has commented more than once that the board reviewer effectively doubles whatever the file shows. So the file shows a 4.0 itself, and then the reviewer doubles it in effect by giving the application a good score because (at least in part) of the 4.0. Same, if less so, this year with a high SAT/ACT since the SAT/ACT won't count on its own. And depending on the reviewer, he/she might well really allow a good SAT/ACT to affect the score he/she gives the file on the unstated assumption that no score = middling score.

That's how I think of it anyway.
 
The good score can always help; just makes your application better. I'm involved with admissions at a school, and this has been what I've been instructed to tell applicants.
 
I took the test four times. I went from a score that was not so great to a score that I am really proud of. In my congressional district and state (Mississippi), the testing availability only had some minor hiccups. So while I do think it could disadvantage some with higher scores, it just depends on where you live. I do not think that it is going to effect me very much unless I am placed on the NWL.
 
It's tough for those with limited testing opportunities. Our testing site were shut down until late fall. We know one kid who had one chance at the test and did not do well and lost out on an AFROTC scholarship. His first and only opportunity was in Dec so there was no chance for improvement for him. The rest of his stats were stellar so had he not taken the test he would have received the scholarship. It was heartbreaking. It's hard to directly answer your question but I think there are definite winners and losers in the testing world this year.
 
Herman_Snerd said:
Curious if those applicants who actually took and performed well on either the ACT or SAT are feeling they may be at a disadvantage this year with applications vs prior years? Maybe since it may be harder to stand-out against those who have no score (but won't have that counted against them)?
Click to expand...
I think that those that were able to take the SAT or ACT, and scored well have an advantage. Why? because it would be a data point that is available vs those that did not take the tests. I wouldn't be surprised if the SA's have used some correlation analysis to judge those that did not take a standardized test.
 
Herman_Snerd said:
Thanks for that feedback - points made. I've reworded in hopes that may clarify. This year you have people who took and didn't take the ACT. For those who took it and rocked it/ aced it, in prior years that really would have stood out. But this year applicants who did not take the exam have definitely been told that no score will not be counted against them. So I'm curious if anyone feels this is a disadvantage for those who did well, since they're now competing against no-score candidates.

IMO those who did not take the test but would have not shined have an advantage this year - esp. the kids who have near a 4.0 in HS but would have scored like 1160. I'm curious if others have an opinion on this year's setup. I think in those cases they are going to get a mulligan / a pass on what might have exposed a weakness.

Thanks!
Click to expand...
@Herman_Snerd With all things being equal, it’s my opinion that having a very good test score would help a candidate. That means that their interview and application must still be strong, as well. It’s another tool that an ROTC board or college admissions officer can use to assess scholastic potential of an applicant.
 
justdoit19 said:
@Herman_Snerd i enjoy your posts. But I can’t follow this one for some reason 😬. Are you wondering if people who test well, feel they are at a disadvantage to those who cannot actually test?

If I’m reading that right, the question confuses me. I would think somone unable to test would be at a ‘disadvantage’ to somone who has a great a score?

To expand on this...I’ve been wondering lately if candidates are actually having this problem. Unable to test. I know there were many cancelled earlier, but haven’t heard if candidates are still unable to test presently 🤔
Click to expand...
I have been unable to test since March of last year. I'm in Los Angeles, and things have been mostly closed since then.
 
CrabbittMom said:
We know one kid who had one chance at the test and did not do well and lost out on an AFROTC scholarship. His first and only opportunity was in Dec so there was no chance for improvement for him. The rest of his stats were stellar so had he not taken the test he would have received the scholarship. It was heartbreaking. It's hard to directly answer your question but I think there are definite winners and losers in the testing world this year.
Click to expand...
Apologize if my question shows ignorance, but if he wasn't satisfied with the test (i.e. it didn't go well), and a test wasn't required this year, then why did he submit it?
 
franknd said:
Apologize if my question shows ignorance, but if he wasn't satisfied with the test (i.e. it didn't go well), and a test wasn't required this year, then why did he submit it?
Click to expand...
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I believe some scores are better to submit than nothing at all. I guess it just depends on what the score was, and what he thought was satisfactory to submit.
 
franknd said:
Apologize if my question shows ignorance, but if he wasn't satisfied with the test (i.e. it didn't go well), and a test wasn't required this year, then why did he submit it?
Click to expand...
My understanding, from looking over DS’s shoulder while he does his SA applications: SAT/ACT scores are not in fact optional. If you were able to take it, you need to submit scores. If COVID prevented you from taking the test, then you’re off the hook (but I believe you need to show proof that you made a good-faith effort).
 
MidCakePa said:
My understanding, from looking over DS’s shoulder while he does his SA applications: SAT/ACT scores are not in fact optional. If you were able to take it, you need to submit scores. If COVID prevented you from taking the test, then you’re off the hook (but I believe you need to show proof that you made a good-faith effort).
Click to expand...
Yes, I believe that is the case for USNA.
 
justdoit19 said:
@Herman_Snerd i enjoy your posts. But I can’t follow this one for some reason 😬. Are you wondering if people who test well, feel they are at a disadvantage to those who cannot actually test?

If I’m reading that right, the question confuses me. I would think somone unable to test would be at a ‘disadvantage’ to somone who has a great a score?

To expand on this...I’ve been wondering lately if candidates are actually having this problem. Unable to test. I know there were many cancelled earlier, but haven’t heard if candidates are still unable to test presently 🤔
Click to expand...
I think it is more is the competitive advantage of testing well watered down or eliminated due to no testing requirement?
 
franknd said:
Apologize if my question shows ignorance, but if he wasn't satisfied with the test (i.e. it didn't go well), and a test wasn't required this year, then why did he submit it?
Click to expand...
It was bad luck/timing on his part. According to his mom, the AFROTC went test optional the day after he took the test and he had set his scores to go before he knew the results. He also anticipated doing better than he did but it unfortunately backfired for him. By the time all this was realized he was too late to retake before the official boards. (We live on the west coast with most tests being canceled until just recently. We had to drive to Idaho for my DD to take a test.)
 
CrabbittMom said:
It was bad luck/timing on his part. According to his mom, the AFROTC went test optional the day after he took the test and he had set his scores to go before he knew the results. He also anticipated doing better than he did but it unfortunately backfired for him. By the time all this was realized he was too late to retake before the official boards. (We live on the west coast with most tests being canceled until just recently. We had to drive to Idaho for my DD to take a test.)
Click to expand...
That’s also a strategy issue. Sending scores before knowing if they are competitive or not. Remember, one doesn’t have to send a score at the time of testing. In fact, my advice to my own has always been to NOT send that first test. And see how you are doing, first. Well worth the $13, imo.

Readers, this is a good thing to talk/think about before filling out those codes on testing day.
 
OP , I think you are an advantage to my son who submitted his Sophomore year (low but qualifying) score because every test after that was canceled. I wonder how those kids who didn’t test weigh against my son. His stats without his score are amazing: 4.0, leadership, sports, excellent interview. So I wonder how those who did not submit weigh against him. I would hope they would notice the date the test was taken but it is what it is really. No point worrying now, my son has multiple backup plans and scholarship offers he’s happy with
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top