Overexaggerated Importance?

[Xani]

^^ I can attribute my 2 & 3 on the AP's tests to several things:
They were my first two AP tests and in my Sophomore year. Also, I am lousy at Government.

I do worry and stress a lot, but I can't blame anything on that. haha

[momofthreeboys]

Calmom, those were very wise posts.

[mantori.suzuki]

Originally Posted by mathmom

Pet peeve. Mute means "silent". Moot means "subject to debate; arguable".

Thank you!

[coureur]

>>Statistically, you probably want to go down to -2 standard deviations to arrive at the level where scores are a deal breaker<<

Statistically, the deal would be "broken" long before you got to - 2 standard deviations. In a normal bell curve distribution, a span two standard deviations from the mean will contain ~97% of the entire population. Saying you have to be in the last 3% of the population before you can really be counted out seems way overly optimistic to me.

[mantori.suzuki]

"Overexaggerated" is a pretty bad one, too. It's just "exaggerated". The "over" part is redundant.

Peace, out.

[hyeonjlee]

Based on everything I have seen, I tend to agree with hmom5. I have seen her posts for a long time, and in almost all cases, her opinions are actually right on the mark. Well, this is just my opinion, so let's not get into a fight over this.

One thing I noticed in general whenever folks here get into a heated argument is the fact our belief often reflects our bias and desire.

For instance, parents whose kids turned down a tippy top private school and opted a public university with a great merit award WOULD LIKE TO believe that their kids did not miss anything out by not having gone for the big names. On the other hand, parents who are paying through the nose for the expensive private school WOULD LIKE TO believe that the diploma from Ivy and the like is a real game changer. Hence, we tend to argue endlessly defending the choices we already made rather than the pure merit of the choices from a completely objective perspective. Often it's ourselves that we want to convince most rather than other people who hold different opinions. Nobody wants to be plagued by an endless self doubt of "what if".

Same thing about private vs. public high schools. The same about SAT scores. I have seen parents discount or inflate the importance of SAT. And surprise!!! Often it's the parents whose kids' weakness is SAT that play down the importance of SAT, while the parents whose kids' excellent SAT scores must compensate for some other weakness play up the importance of SAT.

Well, with regard to SAT, I can be very balanced. S1 is a minor genius when it comes to standardized tests. He got 1430/1600 in the 8th grade when he was tested for some special program, and in the 11th grade got 2400 first try without even finishing a single practice test at home. On the other hand, standardized tests are S2's nightmare - a true Achilles heel. Life is so unfair, isn't it? S2 blames his brother for using up the family quota for test taking genes. (on the other hand, S2 got a lot of genes for good looks )

So, what am I doing??? I steered my high school junior S2 into early diagnostic mock SAT tests, and based on the results, I have arranged intense one-on-one private tutoring (today was first day: went very well!). This is going to go on until it is no longer necessary (hopefully no later than next June). We started this well in advance with ample room for course correction and additional help, so that we don't panic at the last minute with sub par SAT scores. Why did I do this? Because:

(1) No matter what the adcoms say, SAT is an important factor (otherwise, why are they all put down SAT scores as REQUIREMENT?). "How important" is subject to discussion, but scores DO MATTER.

(2) SAT is the EASIEST factor to correct and improve upon. You can't go back to past and do better with GPA in freshman and sophomore years. You can't suddenly start 100 wonderful ECs overnight in the spring semester of JR year. But, you can prep for SAT and come up with your personal best. When everything is down to wire, why would you NOT work on one factor that is easily susceptible to tinkering (as in, prep course, etc - I am being facetious here).

So, in my mind, telling students and themselves that SATs don't matter that much is counterproductive and not helpful. It may make us feel good for a while, but how does it help the students in their quest to come up with the best possible strategy for getting into their dream school? Whether is it as important as some claim to be is a secondary question. As long as it is part of the criteria, and as long as it is the most localized and easiest thing to fix, not fixing it because we want to believe that it's not that important is not a smart strategy.

S2's mock tests puts him down at around 1700-1800/2400. My hope is, he will be able to raise it to 2000 (super scored): already this puts him in a very good position for his ideal school and an ROTC scholarship at that school (full tuition, fees, books plus monthly stipend: all together worth about $180K!!!) . I think this is pretty doable given that a big part of his problem is a weakness in test taking tactics and a lack of understanding in what they were looking for in the writing section. His personal goal is 2100 (single test), we will see.

**********
P.S. I have extensive training in statistics. I looked at enrolled students' SAT score distribution in many top colleges. My conclusion??? There is practically no chance from statistical and probabilistic point of view that SAT scores were NOT important part of admission decisions, not withstanding the adcoms loud protests otherwise (the lady doth protest too much). Without that explanation, there is no way the enrolled students stats fall where they do. Well, I don't want to get into this heated debate again. If you are interested, I will send you a link to the analysis I performed that I posted on other threads.

Peace! We are not trying to change the system on this board. We are dealt with a deck of cards. Let's play them as well as we can and help our kids.

[hmom5]

Whenever I read Calmom's posts on women's colleges--rightly or not--what I see and hear is "oh. just ignore stats, my daughter got into Barnard with below 25th percentile scores so you can too."

And while I know nada about Calmom's DD, I've just assumed she was a candidate who had something very significant to offer beyond scores that Barnard wanted. The simple FACT is that someone with below 25th percentile scores who does not have something they really want is left outside the gate.

While women's colleges, in general, have lost their day in the sun and take less to get into thean they did in the dark ages when many of us entered colleges, the 25th percentile means about the same at them as at any other colleges--most with them will be rejected.

They recruit athletes, have legacies, URMs, staff kids and even a few development--leaving little room for the unconnected at the bottom of their pool. Simple fact.

[hyeonjlee]

OP

I don't know your story. If this was the umpteenth SAT you took with some prep in between, let it rest. However, if there is a reason to believe that this is an under reporting of your "true" score (meaning, you did not really prep or this was only the first test, etc), then I don't think it's a bad idea for you take another one on Dec. The reasons:

(1) If you don't get ED acceptance, you still have to compete for RD and other schools.

(2) There are schools that give out merit awards, and in many cases, SAT is an important part of the merit award decision.

(3) Believe it or not (I was quite amazed when I learned this), some (yes, NOT ALL) employers hiring freshly minted bachelor's degree holders ask for their SAT scores (most notably tippy top Wall Street firms like Goldman Sachs). So, depending on what you want to do, your SAT scores may cast a really long shadow.


*****************
Standardized tests are a fact of life. If you have any ambition for graduate education, almost all reputable graduate schools require some form of standardized tests. I had to take GRE, and later GMAT also, and both were very important part of the admission decisions. I hear that LSAT scores are extremely important for law school admission. So, you see, there is no escaping!!! (sigh for my S2!!!)

[kantianethicist]

^The OP wants to major in biology. Of course, plans do change, but I highly doubt (based on her preferences and strengths) that she'll be going to either law school or business school in the future. And she's probably not unethical enough to want to work at Goldman Sachs (semi-joking.) I don't believe her SAT scores, which are not THAT awful, will haunt her for the rest of her life. She's anxious enough without dumping that on her.

It's one thing to give the young lady advice she asked for, but quite another to scare the **** out of her. What happened to the sensitive soul with the orchid metaphor?

[science fiction]

^The OP wants to major in biology. Of course, plans do change, but I highly doubt (based on her preferences and strengths) that she'll be going to either law school or business school in the future. And she's probably not unethical enough to want to work at Goldman Sachs (semi-joking.) I don't believe her SAT scores, which are not THAT awful, will haunt her for the rest of her life. She's anxious enough without dumping that on her.

It's one thing to give the young lady advice she asked for, but quite another to scare the

Ii don't understand this sentiment. Sharing straightforward facts without any harsh words - why is it considered "dumping on her or scaring her" It's not like the poster was making things up. Don't shoot the messenger.

Also, if I were Xani, I would rather hear this since it gives me a choice of what to do and what not do to. I may not like the fact that SAT scores may cast a long shadow, but if it does, I would rather know it now so that I can do something about that while I can if I choose to act upon it.

I come to the parents forum since most of the input students give each other is pretty pathetic: like the blind leading the blind. We are a sturdy bunch. Don't treat us like porcelain dolls. We would rather hear the facts. We will make a decision. I hope the wise parents are not self censoring in fear of scaring us. As long as the language is civil, we can take it (even uncivil languages - trust me, we dealt with worse at school).

[2collegewego]

I do think scores are important-- but they're only one part of the picture. I have one kid who had scores but not the grades to back them up. College admissions results were depressing. I had another kid who had a lot to offer with solid grades (not outstanding-- but very good course rigor) but didn't have the SAT scores one would expect. That kid did well on admissions results and, by the way, Calmom was the one person who sent me a private message and predicted it. She is saying-- like everyone else-- that you need to bring something the school wants to the table... but, in the end, doesn't everyone?

Honestly, these things are very hard to predict. You are in the ballpark but not a definite admit.

What other schools are you considering? If things don't go as well as you would have liked, some of the other women's colleges-- Smith, Bryn Mawr-- may be good options for you also.

[kantianethicist]

^^ I never said anyone was making anything up.

I was not sugar coating either.

I already suggested the possibility to the OP of a retake in December. I was not telling her one way or another what she should do--that is up to her.

In this case, I did not believe that the SAT would follow her, so I did not consider it to be a fact.

I based my assumption on looking at all of the OP's other posts and finding out what her attributes were that she did not disclose in this thread.

She was obviously nervous since others consistently implied that her scores weren't good enough.

There is nothing wrong with treating someone else's child with sensitivity and tact as long as you are being honest and helpful as well, --which I was.

I meant no disrespect to any other poster on this thread--I was merely concerned about a nervous young lady's feelings.

[calmom]

Whenever I read Calmom's posts on women's colleges--rightly or not--what I see and hear is "oh. just ignore stats, my daughter got into Barnard with below 25th percentile scores so you can too."

Er, my kid also got into U of Chicago, which has a slightly higher median score range than Barnard. It's not a "womans college thing".

I've just assumed she was a candidate who had something very significant to offer beyond scores that Barnard wanted.

My daughter had some strengths and some weaknesses, but nothing that I think you would categorize as "very significant". I'm pretty sure if you had seen her profile, you would have reacted the same as you are now with the OP - you'd see the test scores, its highly unlikely that you would recognize the factors that led to my d's admission, because there is nothing that fits the CC idea of a "hook".

But your *assumption* is an example of "confirmation bias". If you believe that a person must have above-median scores to get into a selective college and hear of a student admitted with significantly lower scores, you *assume* that there must be some special hook or extraordinary circumstance to explain it.

At Wellesley there is a pretty big fall off in admission rates for students with cumulative scores about 150-200 points BELOW the OP's. We KNOW that because Wellesley has published its numbers. The OP's scores (unlike my daughter'), are NOT below the 25th percent mark for her school -- they are within range, albeit on the lower end of the mid-50 range. So we know that statistically her chances are just about "average" among Wellesley applicants. (Or to put it another way, she has very typical scores for a Wellesley *applicant*, and her CR score is just at the mean for admitted students.). If she had significantly higher scores, it might boost her chances -- but presenting with TYPICAL scores will probably be a nonfactor in admissions.

She will get a boost because she is applying ED. She's got a strong SAT II in biology and is leaning towards a bio major, which is helpful. I've looked at her other posts in a chances thread and identified a couple of other points that might make her an attractive candidate, depending on how they were presented in her application.

I don't know if she will get in or not. I think her chances are pretty good, but she isn't a shoe-in -- so I wouldn't be surprised either way. Since the Wellesley ED admit rate is about 50% -- I'd put the OP's "chances" at around that level -- 50%.

[calmom]

Originally Posted by science fiction

I may not like the fact that SAT scores may cast a long shadow, but if it does, I would rather know it now so that I can do something about that while I can if I choose to act upon it.

They don't. They really don't.

If a college grad goes to a job interview and is asked for the SAT score... I'd take that as a very bad sign -- because it would mean that in 4 years of college, the student didn't manage to do anything impressive enough to have a prospective employer focusing on his college academic or work record.

[tk21769]

>>"Overexaggerated" is a pretty bad one, too. It's just "exaggerated". The "over" part is redundant.

I was finding it hard to remain mute on this one. Thanks m.s., you beat me to it.

>>For example, a legacy is a "hook" and I suspect that legacy candidates have at least, and probably more competitive stats than any other typical candidate.

Yeah, to hear the talk sometimes, you'd think "legacies" at elite colleges are a breed of mutant, inbred hillbillies who can barely spell.