mistaken acceptance emails

[Puget]

Thanks.   I agree with your comments regarding the standardized tests but I just questioned how committed the schools are regarding 'test optional'.  At another competitive college,  she got an interesting email in December.  The email said that if she could provide additional information, e.g. updated standardized test scores, they could make a decision soon but if she didn't submit any new information, she would be deferred until March.  Again, we decided not to submit the scores.  As further information, we are Asian American and my guess is that among this cohort, test scores are high.  So,  I had told my wife (not my daughter) that not submitting test scores might put her at a disadvantage.  Anyway,  we are glad that at least one school didn't penalize her for this.

I can't speak to all institutions obviously-- some may not be treating applications without test scores equally-- I can only speak to my own university. Last year I did some service work with admissions in which I and some other faculty with relevant expertise helped them think through how to make their applicant ratings more reliable and less biased, and I came away super impressed with the admissions staff. They were really thinking carefully about how to reduce bias in admissions, and were very open to our input. It is an ongoing process as they work on adding other sources of information (like the ability for students to submit a video or supplemental essay). So at least for them, moving to test optional was a careful decision and process with the explicit aim of reducing bias and access barriers. I would hope it would be similar for other institutions, but of course some may have done it just because they didn't want to lose applicants.

I received an acceptance and a rejection to Toronto's PhD program. I was, in fact, rejected.

I received a auto-text rejection from my current job three years after starting said job. Someone must have pushed some button to clear out old job portals and that was the result. I thought about forwarding it to my chair to ask if there was something they had forgotten to tell me. . .

[dismalist]

It seems like those in favor of test optional entrance standards are people of good will with the best of intentions -- give those left behind a better chance.

However, the unintended consequences may be the opposite. The smart poor kid can more easily afford an SAT test and do well on it than to afford the thousand and one other things that will get written into applications.

Test optional means any institution can do what is politically savvy.

[Puget]

It seems like those in favor of test optional entrance standards are people of good will with the best of intentions -- give those left behind a better chance.

However, the unintended consequences may be the opposite. The smart poor kid can more easily afford an SAT test and do well on it than to afford the thousand and one other things that will get written into applications.

Test optional means any institution can do what is politically savvy.

It's test optional, not no tests allowed. That kid can submit the test scores and they will be considered. It just gives more flexibility to applicants.
And our admissions folks (and I doubt they are alone) think very carefully about how not to bias other criteria toward higher SES applicants. For example, in working with them on their rating rubric we made sure to include working to help support their family and family caregiving as examples of service activities, not just the sort of community service projects that can be more accessible to higher SES applicants.

[dismalist]

It seems like those in favor of test optional entrance standards are people of good will with the best of intentions -- give those left behind a better chance.

However, the unintended consequences may be the opposite. The smart poor kid can more easily afford an SAT test and do well on it than to afford the thousand and one other things that will get written into applications.

Test optional means any institution can do what is politically savvy.

It's test optional, not no tests allowed. That kid can submit the test scores and they will be considered. It just gives more flexibility to applicants.
And our admissions folks (and I doubt they are alone) think very carefully about how not to bias other criteria toward higher SES applicants. For example, in working with them on their rating rubric we made sure to include working to help support their family and family caregiving as examples of service activities, not just the sort of community service projects that can be more accessible to higher SES applicants.

I don't mean to disparage anybody's motives, but it does give one hell of a lot more flexibility to the admitters. Which is the point.

[Parasaurolophus]

I received a auto-text rejection from my current job three years after starting said job. Someone must have pushed some button to clear out old job portals and that was the result. I thought about forwarding it to my chair to ask if there was something they had forgotten to tell me. . .

You've mentioned that before. It'll never cease to delight me!

[marshwiggle]

I have a daughter currently waiting on college decisions.  We were thrilled when she was accepted by a SLAC and offered a nice merit scholarship.  I was surprised because we chose not to submit test scores and I always assumed that by doing that, we were essentially forgoing any merit aid.

There is something odd about the term "merit aid" in my mind. Scholarships help institutions to attract good students, so offering them helps their reputation. So if it's for "merit", it has some benefit to the giver. "Aid" suggests its primary value is to the recipient. So a bursary, which is based on need, is an example of aid.

[marshwiggle]

It seems like those in favor of test optional entrance standards are people of good will with the best of intentions -- give those left behind a better chance.

However, the unintended consequences may be the opposite. The smart poor kid can more easily afford an SAT test and do well on it than to afford the thousand and one other things that will get written into applications.

Test optional means any institution can do what is politically savvy.

It's test optional, not no tests allowed. That kid can submit the test scores and they will be considered. It just gives more flexibility to applicants.
And our admissions folks (and I doubt they are alone) think very carefully about how not to bias other criteria toward higher SES applicants. For example, in working with them on their rating rubric we made sure to include working to help support their family and family caregiving as examples of service activities, not just the sort of community service projects that can be more accessible to higher SES applicants.

Do they do followup analysis to see how these students perform in the program? If they're able to pick students who succeed then it's working as intended. On the other hand, if the "non-test" admissions have a high attrition rate, then the other criteria aren't as useful as intended.

[Puget]

It seems like those in favor of test optional entrance standards are people of good will with the best of intentions -- give those left behind a better chance.

However, the unintended consequences may be the opposite. The smart poor kid can more easily afford an SAT test and do well on it than to afford the thousand and one other things that will get written into applications.

Test optional means any institution can do what is politically savvy.

It's test optional, not no tests allowed. That kid can submit the test scores and they will be considered. It just gives more flexibility to applicants.
And our admissions folks (and I doubt they are alone) think very carefully about how not to bias other criteria toward higher SES applicants. For example, in working with them on their rating rubric we made sure to include working to help support their family and family caregiving as examples of service activities, not just the sort of community service projects that can be more accessible to higher SES applicants.

Do they do followup analysis to see how these students perform in the program? If they're able to pick students who succeed then it's working as intended. On the other hand, if the "non-test" admissions have a high attrition rate, then the other criteria aren't as useful as intended.

That's the plan! The faculty advising them are all in fields that do data analysis, so one of the first things we told them was to bring us back in when they had data and we'd help them out with that.  Last year was the first year with the new system so it will take a little while to really see.

They are also trying to think more about what "success" means--it seems overly narrow to define it just based on GPA and graduating on time, but of course those are the easiest things to measure. Personally, I'd consider a "B" student who was super involved in the campus and community doing good things and then went off and did good things in the world to be at least as "successful" as a straight-A student who spent all of their time studying.

[Puget]

I have a daughter currently waiting on college decisions.  We were thrilled when she was accepted by a SLAC and offered a nice merit scholarship.  I was surprised because we chose not to submit test scores and I always assumed that by doing that, we were essentially forgoing any merit aid.

There is something odd about the term "merit aid" in my mind. Scholarships help institutions to attract good students, so offering them helps their reputation. So if it's for "merit", it has some benefit to the giver. "Aid" suggests its primary value is to the recipient. So a bursary, which is based on need, is an example of aid.

I wouldn't read too much into it-- they are just groupings in the "financial aid" package, so labeled as "needs-based aid" and "merit aid". And certainly it is of great value to the recipient as well.

[Volhiker78]

That's the plan! The faculty advising them are all in fields that do data analysis, so one of the first things we told them was to bring us back in when they had data and we'd help them out with that.  Last year was the first year with the new system so it will take a little while to really see.

They are also trying to think more about what "success" means--it seems overly narrow to define it just based on GPA and graduating on time, but of course those are the easiest things to measure. Personally, I'd consider a "B" student who was super involved in the campus and community doing good things and then went off and did good things in the world to be at least as "successful" as a straight-A student who spent all of their time studying.

Puget - you may have seen this article (hopefully, the link works):

https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2021/09/13/study-reveals-which-applicants-didnt-submit-test-scores#:~:text=Who%20Didn't%20Submit%20Test,least%20likely%20to%20submit%20scores.


My daughter and all of her classmates are strategic in regards to submitting test scores.  They take the tests and decide to submit or not for each school.  Our state universities require them. 

[marshwiggle]

https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2021/09/13/study-reveals-which-applicants-didnt-submit-test-scores#:~:text=Who%20Didn't%20Submit%20Test,least%20likely%20to%20submit%20scores.


My daughter and all of her classmates are strategic in regards to submitting test scores.  They take the tests and decide to submit or not for each school.  Our state universities require them.

Interesting point from the article:

In terms of states, the report said that the 10 states with the highest percentage of people submitting scores were: Mississippi (over 75 percent), Arkansas, Kansas, Alabama, Kentucky, North Dakota, Florida, Louisiana, Tennessee and Missouri.

The states with the fewest people submitting scores were: Maine (less than 25 percent), Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Oregon, California, New Hampshire, Maryland and Connecticut.

Not being American, I'm not completely up on it, but isn't that basically "Red states submit scores the most, blue states submit scores the least"?

[Puget]

That's the plan! The faculty advising them are all in fields that do data analysis, so one of the first things we told them was to bring us back in when they had data and we'd help them out with that.  Last year was the first year with the new system so it will take a little while to really see.

They are also trying to think more about what "success" means--it seems overly narrow to define it just based on GPA and graduating on time, but of course those are the easiest things to measure. Personally, I'd consider a "B" student who was super involved in the campus and community doing good things and then went off and did good things in the world to be at least as "successful" as a straight-A student who spent all of their time studying.

Puget - you may have seen this article (hopefully, the link works):

https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2021/09/13/study-reveals-which-applicants-didnt-submit-test-scores#:~:text=Who%20Didn't%20Submit%20Test,least%20likely%20to%20submit%20scores.


My daughter and all of her classmates are strategic in regards to submitting test scores.  They take the tests and decide to submit or not for each school.  Our state universities require them.

Thanks- interesting! I do think we shouldn't draw many conclusions based on last year, since as the article notes many students couldn't take the tests even if they wanted to as test centers were closed (this may also help explain the state divide noted by marshwiggle- the states with the lower reporting were probably more likely to have closed test centers, due to a mix of different pandemic responses and where cases were high during testing season). We'll get a much better picture once the choice to test or not is fully voluntary. However, this is in line with what our admissions reported, which was increased applications from first gen and URM applicants after going test optional.

The strategic reporting makes sense, but it also wasn't clear to me if this number included students who are only submitting scores to schools that still require them. That's different than reporting them strategically to test-optional schools when you think they will help vs. hurt you (e.g., based on the average reported scores for that school). At any rate I don't really see anything wrong with that-- we tailor our applications for jobs, students tailor their applications for college.