Goosegg posted:The test optional strategy is intended to boost the pool of underrepresented applicants. First gen, kids graduating from poor schools, socio-economically challeged (think Appalachia or inner city), etc. The purpose of broadening out the application pool was not to enhance or give any advantage to athletic recruits.
"The University of Chicago, which made the SAT and ACT optional last year, reports a record enrollment this fall of first-generation, low-income and rural students and veterans." https://www.google.com/amp/s/w...uestions-of-fairness
Most, but not all, college baseball aspiring kids, will not fit into those categories (except - maybe - first gen).
Goose - I follow your logic but read on.... I agree that test-optional was put in place to boost the pool of underrepresented applicants and therefore not intended to enhance or give advantages to athletic recruits. When you say most baseball kids won't fit into these categories, while a broad generalization, it's likely very true.
However unless I am way off base, test optional is for all students applying not just first gen, kids from tough socio-economic backgrounds, its also for baseball kids, kids from well off families etc. You may not be making this point but I thought I would seek clarity. My daughter applied and got into her school which was a test-optional school without shooting in her ACT (which was quite good but on the average).
The point of clarity is for the OP. He's Junior in HS trying to process this information. His application will be treated just like every other student who applies test optional no matter what his economic, first language or athlete vs non athlete status might be.