At Ivy Tutor, we’re a little dismayed by how some test optional colleges are communicating their test score policies to students. As many now know, the majority of colleges in the United States don’t require college admissions test scores. Students can be evaluated without the added context test scores provide. We understand and respect such policies. Some students stand out in ways that are not reflected in their test scores, if they took them at all, and feel their applications are strongest without scores. What we don’t understand is the deceptive communication that some colleges are willfully engaging in. It raises a fair question: is test optional real, or is “optional” just a comforting slogan? Let’s unpack a recent exchange I had with a highly selective college.
A Revealing Exchange
SELECTIVE COLLEGE ADMISSIONS:
Submitting standardized test scores is optional, and students without scores are not at a disadvantage.ME:
I’m advising a student with a 1490 SAT. He is reluctant to submit a score below a school’s average. Would you recommend that he submit his 1490?SELECTIVE COLLEGE ADMISSIONS:
We don’t have formal guidance for when a student should or should not send their score as we review scores in context, as we review all of our application materials. A good base rule that we’ll often use is if the student is proud of their score, they’re welcome to submit it. If a student does not believe their score is indicative of their academic ability or if they just don’t feel like submitting it, they’re welcome not to submit it. I’m sorry I can’t be of more help here! We really are fully test optional, emphasis on the optional.
The message has the charm I would expect from a carnival barker assuring me the game isn’t rigged. It was exasperating because the doublespeak was easy to spot. The college rep was stating something that could not possibly be true: withholding a test score will not disadvantage an applicant, yet students should submit one if they are proud of it. The latter advice makes sense only if a competitive score can help an applicant. According to the college’s distorted logic, withholding a helpful score merely removes the benefit that score would provide but somehow doesn’t “disadvantage” the applicant. The admissions rep should have appended to the email, “Just don’t think too hard about it.”
A Contradiction in Plain Language
If the deception isn’t clear, I’ll use an example to explain why this messaging is necessarily dishonest. A recent student of ours, whom we’ll call Jasmine, scored a 1550 on her SAT. Among the schools on her list is Northwestern University. Northwestern states that applying without an SAT or ACT score “will not impact our review process or your chances of admission.” Yet on the very same page, the university says that if applicants choose to submit scores, “we will continue to weigh them” alongside the rest of their application materials.
Jasmine’s academic record is strong, but given a few warts on her transcript, her 1550 could materially strengthen her application to Northwestern. Northwestern explicitly acknowledges that submitted scores are weighed in its admissions review. But according to its policy, withholding that same 1550 cannot affect Jasmine’s chances of admission. A literal reading therefore produces a contradiction: the score can strengthen her application, but the absence of that score cannot weaken it. Jasmine should just flip a coin on whether to share her 1550. It will make no difference.
The school is, at minimum, knowingly misleading the applicant, or more plainly, lying. Lying is a strong charge because it implies an awareness that one is misrepresenting factual information. It is possible that dozens of colleges with these policies are staffed by people unable to recognize the glaring contradiction in their own language, but I give the intelligence of admissions officials a little more credit than that. They see the deception and promote it.
What an Honest Test-Optional Policy Would Say
An honest test-optional policy would not be difficult to write. It might read something like this: You are not required to submit test scores, and we will fully consider your application without them. However, strong test scores can strengthen an application, so students should consider submitting scores that provide favorable evidence of their academic ability. That policy would still be test optional. It would simply tell students the truth about the decision they are being asked to make. Instead, many colleges choose language suggesting that the presence or absence of scores is inconsequential, even while acknowledging that submitted scores are part of the admissions evaluation. If colleges really mean what they say about college admissions transparency and helping applicants make informed decisions, this should be an easy problem to fix.
What’s at Stake for Families
What’s the harm, one might ask? From the test-prep side, we see it firsthand. We regularly hear from parents who are considering test prep but conclude that it isn’t worth the cost because so many colleges are test optional. Who could blame them? Colleges are explicitly telling applicants that withholding test scores will not hurt their chances. Yet some of these students are high performers whose scores could materially strengthen their applications—and, in some cases, help them qualify for tens of thousands of dollars in merit aid. The real test-optional disadvantage, in other words, often falls not on the student who withholds a strong score but on the family that skips the test altogether. By taking colleges at their word, families may be making decisions that cost students both admission opportunities and scholarship money.
Because colleges are misrepresenting the practical meaning of their test-optional policies, with potentially material consequences for thousands of students, we will use the next entry in this series to build a database of schools whose published policies contain this contradiction. A string of high-profile controversies has already damaged public trust in colleges, and when institutional misconduct is exposed, colleges are often quick to clean up their act. We think this quieter form of misrepresentation deserves the same scrutiny.
Any college that believes inclusion in our database constitutes libel is welcome to make its case. Presumably, that case would require explaining that its admissions officials were not being deceptive at all—they are simply incapable of recognizing the contradiction in their own policy.