Forbes Article and Magic 700s - Page 2

Bay · 10-03-2012, 03:30 PM

I had heard of the 700/700/700 "magic formula" before reading the Forbes article. The way I heard it was, that if you have those scores, you are a threshold competitive candidate for any college in the country. It doesn't mean you will get in; it just means it is reasonable for you to apply anywhere.

Marian · 10-03-2012, 03:58 PM

There is a segment of the student population that shoots for 750s on each section of the SAT and each Subject Test. The rationale seems to be that the students believe that if you have a 750 or higher on everything, no college is going to reject you on the grounds of your test scores. They're going to say "Test scores are not a problem for this applicant" and go on and look at other parts of your application.

Therefore, these kids will retake a test to try to bring up a 680 or a 720 but not a 760.

I don't know whether their reasoning is valid.

drmom123 · 10-03-2012, 04:02 PM

how exhausting for these kids! What about real learning?! I wonder if the colleges are even thinking about this anymore? Do they want kids who are either just brilliant (ie 750 + across the board in one sitting) and/or kids who will just keep testing till they get that grade, or do they want kids who are really bright as well, but just not so great at test taking, and really don't want to keep taking it over and over again just to show they eventually can do it? there is something wrong with our system. and yet, we all play it, right?

sylvan8798 · 10-03-2012, 04:11 PM

What would the corresponding ACT trio be? Just using a composite score would allow for high/low ranges that you are not allowing on the SAT.

intparent · 10-03-2012, 04:11 PM

Well... I think they want the ones that get it in one sitting if they can get it. So if a student can't do that... they keep testing, or apply without those stats, or just don't apply to those colleges. I don't think that strong SAT scores are evidence that a kid does not have "real learning".

Marian · 10-03-2012, 04:42 PM

Quote:

I don't think that strong SAT scores are evidence that a kid does not have "real learning".

If a student spends an inordinate amount of time trying to bring up test scores, to the point where schoolwork and ECs suffer, it may be counterproductive.

But was it counterproductive for one of my kids, who got a 690 on one section of the SAT the first time around, to prepare a bit more and take the SAT again? It didn't take much time and didn't detract from "real learning." And it yielded an 800.

momcinco · 10-05-2012, 03:17 PM

Wow, looking at Brown (thnks for the link!) a kid with an 800 in CR STILL has only a 22% chance of getting in, and even less with an 800 in Math....

It is all sobering and yet good to be aware of when advising our kids/other students.

Momzie · 10-05-2012, 03:31 PM

There's a 13 year old in my son's Kaplan SAT class. I guess this explains it . . . Can't imagine having the money or the time to prep my kids for the sat's for FIVE YEARS STRAIGHT.

mathmom · 10-05-2012, 03:55 PM

My 800/760/680 got into Harvard. (I admit first year writing was even on the SAT, and he no doubt had at least some legacy advantage.)

My 790/680/690 (superscored) got into Chicago, Tufts and Vassar.

I think there's quite a bit of forgiveness for the writing score. I also think you can have a slightly weaker math score if there are other things to make up for it. (Younger son was taking Calc BC and had a letter of recommendation from a math teacher that said he was one of his best math minds in his class even though he did not get the best grades on tests.)

That said, my general advice for students aiming at the top colleges is to try to get over 700 on CR and M, and the subject tests. Over 750 is safer. But good scores will never get you in, it's just that if you have good scores you can feel comfortable that it was something else more out of your control that caused the rejection.

cptofthehouse · 10-05-2012, 04:11 PM

The most selective schools sometimes use a 5 test SAT score is what I have been told. THe SAT1 and two Sat2 scores.

There was a book out that was written by a former admissions person at Duke who explained how that school evaluated applicants. Six areas were assessed by two adcoms on a 0-5 rating, then the scores averaged. Anything below a certain break point or above it were pretty much auto outs or ins unless they were flagged applicants who went through their own assessments. If a certain category came below a 3, it was flagged even if the over all score was high. If the SAT1 score which was one of the 6 areas appraised was over a certain number, and the other 5 areas added up to a certain score, it was an ********* even if the 6 area, 2 person average should turn out lower than the break point for auto admit. Again, lower than a certain number in any category would be flagged.

So, yes, above a certain number, the chances curve seems to get steep and more in ones favor. That does not mean below that number, you don't have a chance.

JHS · 10-05-2012, 05:12 PM

Well, I had a kid whose 5-test SAT score was 3920, no score lower than 750, and perfectly good class rank (the guy behind him got in everywhere, no hooks), and he was rejected or waitlisted at two colleges where he was a legacy. Five years ago, when their acceptance rate was 50% higher than last year's. Grades and scores alone just aren't good enough.

(He was fine, he had great options, but they didn't include the most selective schools to which he applied.)

cptofthehouse · 10-05-2012, 05:19 PM

It's not 100%. The chances are just better given certain stats and at certain schools there are near certain stats for entry.

NotYourBusiness · 10-05-2012, 05:25 PM

Altough many people try to deny it, Standard Scores do play a very significant role in college admissions. I would say that the Forbs article is more correct than wrong. Nowadays, scores below 700 can realy decrease the chances of admission of an "unhooked" student at very top schools.

For a nice detailed analysis about this issue, search google books for this book: "Ivy+ Admission Analytics for the Fox Parent: Intelligence, Strategy and Decision Rules for Breaching the Ivory Citadels"

I have no affiliation with this book, but to me the analysis is very telling.

jandjdad · 10-05-2012, 10:31 PM

NYB, Wow that book had more information and in such detail that I had never seen before. It was almost a blueprint BUT there was no mention of sports, a dearth of extracurriculars and minimal comments on a social life/dating. It worked for his kids but like anything, you can't cookie cut everybody into the same mold.
He went into the explanation for applying ED or EA but there can sometimes be reasons NOT to apply early other than the obvious ones. My youngest son is looking at undergraduate business schools, many of whom require you to apply after Freshman or Sophomore year for admission to the business school. Some of these schools try to recruit higher qualified candidates with merit scholarships, which come with direct admission to the business schools if a minimal 3.0 is maintained. If you apply and are accepted ED, there is no incentive for the school to try and recruit you with a merit scholarship ( and the direct admission) so it makes more sense NOT to apply ED. Granted these are not HYPSM schools but still top 50, as not all top tier schools have undergraduate biz schools.

calmom · 10-05-2012, 11:30 PM

Quote:

My 790/680/690 (superscored) got into Chicago, Tufts and Vassar.

Quote:

I had a kid whose 5-test SAT score was 3920, no score lower than 750, and perfectly good class rank (the guy behind him got in everywhere, no hooks), and he was rejected or waitlisted at two colleges where he was a legacy

My kid with 620/580/730 got into Chicago & comparable schools.

The kid who is turned down with the 3920 didn't miss out because his scores aren't good enough, he's missed out because other areas of his application didn't have whatever it took to get accepted at those schools that year. What that quality might be is unknowable, because it is a combination of subjective factors.

My kid probably got into Chicago largely because she wrote a funny, Chicago-focused essay. That's not all she did, but that's probably the part of her application that brought a smile to an admissions reader, and made the ad com remember her in the spring. (She was deferred EA, then admitted).

You can't plan to get into a college by writing funny essays. The essay could fall flat.

And some universities are more numbers oriented than others.

But the point is that the test scores are probably the least significant data point that the colleges look at.

Currently, 23%+ of Chicago matriculants have test scores in the 600-699 range, on at least one test. See:
https://bigfuture.collegeboard.org/c...ity-of-chicago

That 20% figure is going to fall below the "mid-range" (which cuts off at the 25% mark) -- but it is a significant number. We know its not the bottom line because 2%+ have at least one score of 590 or below.

Chicago is a school that places value on essays and likes quirky students. So that's probably the best use of a Chicago applicant's time: work on those essays, and make sure that those essays don't come off as hackneyed or conventional.

I think very high scores can be a ticket to admission... but only at the types of colleges that don't ordinarily see high score applicants. The elite schools see the students with the 750+ scores all the time. They like those scores, but they aren't impressed by them.