GUEST STUDENT OF THE WEEK: Rohan is a freshman at Dartmouth (and loves it) having gotten in ED for the Class of 2023. He's here to debunk myths regarding admissions and student life at his school. ASK HIM ANYTHING!
Make sure to check out our May Checklists for HS Juniors and HS Seniors. Consult these quick resources to get you started on the process this month.
As we work to adjust to the current reality, make sure to check out these dedicated COVID-19 resources: our directory of virtual campus tours, our directory of extended deadlines, as well as the list of schools going test optional this fall.
Retake 1570?
RockyPA
104 replies10 threads Junior Member
We had our DD21s junior planning meeting with her GC today. While going over her test scores the GC asked if my daughter was going to retake the SAT (she took the October 2019 test) which kind of surprised me. My dd had initially considered a retake but had settled on not doing so. Now with her GCs questioning her decision and encouraging a retake she is again thinking about it. Not sure what to think!
62 replies
Replies to: Retake 1570?
FWIW, as I watch the UMich forum, UMich defers and rejects 4.0/1,600 applicants. The forum is littered with 1,550+ kids that were deferred and can't understand why.
I also attended an evening seminar/meeting a couple years ago at my kid's HS with a Stanford admissions representative. He mentioned that Stanford rejects 70% of the 4.0/1,600 applicants.
Retaking a 1570 is a monumental waste of time. Time/effort budgeted to test prep should now turn to SAT2's (assuming her targeted schools require/recommend them) and AP's.
Nevertheless, I say 1570 is fine, especially as it is single sitting. My own current junior got a 1580 first time on the 10/19 test (not including 7th grade talent search result, also 1500+), and they are done with testing.
I wonder just how many 1570+ single sitting scorers retake? I suspect not too many.
That's my error. The Stanford rep only mentioned Stanford rejected 70% of the 1,600 SAT score test takers. GPA wasn't mentioned. My apologies.
What is the GC's reasoning for retaking? My S20 only has a 1540 from his 2nd time taking the SAT. We called it done after that. That's all he needed to get accepted to a bunch of good school. There are other important things such as spending the time in writing good essays or play play a bigger role in EC.
Think of SAT scores (and GPA) as "threshold" as opposed to the "higher-the-better." Once the quantitative meets the institutional threshold, the rest matters a whole lot. An applicant with the SAT score of 1510 with an outstanding qualitative application package can make it through the admission gate whereas the perfect scorer can be turned away.
I can understand the emotional desire to retake if one of the scores is a 790 (been there...). But that’s not a rational decision.
We do not know whether
Since the numbers of students with SAT score are correlated with GPA and income, which are also correlated to EC opportunities, it is much more likely that the 1600 is no more than an indicator of the other qualifications. I think that almost all of the kids who got 1600 on their SATs and were accepted would have been accepted with a 1570-1590 SAT score as well, especially if it was a single test score.
How many kids who come here who have an SAT of 1600 aren't also 4.0 UW GPAs with the most challenging courses that their school has to offer, have multiple academic awards, glowing recommendations from their teachers and GCs, etc? How many of them have national awards in their ECs as well (national STEM competitions, etc)? Almost every student who pops up here with a 1600 SAT has profiles which would put them in the 50% range or higher of acceptance to Harvard, according to the same hard data.
Yes, exactly. However, until her GC brought up retaking she had decided that the 790 was ok. Now she is reconsidering. Silly mistakes can be repeated though, so she needs to be prepared for that!
Historically on retakes, half go up and half go down. How will DD feel after putting all the (unneeded, IMO) time and energy into prep and her score decreases?
If you think of extreme talent in any field as being beyond three standard deviations above the mean (a reasonable definition in my opinion), then there are not more than about 5,000 kids evidencing extreme academic talent at most in any given year, and some portion will not go to college for various reasons, including choice and being low SES. It's useful to remember here that the Ivy League plus a few other T10 schools alone collectively enroll about 20K students per year.
All that being said, there are a very few kids who, even if the SAT difficulty were doubled, or the time allotted halved, could still score within a careless error of a perfect score, even on the tougher test. Most of these kids will be at 1600 on the current test (that is one reason why there is a fat tail at the 1600 limit), although a few will be down around 1550-1590 of course. (Again, the same measure of conscientiousness could prevent even the kid with extreme aptitude from acing the easier test.)
So, again, it is correct to say that for any given kid, we cannot distinguish the level of talent from a 1600 versus, say, a 1570. But in the aggregate, because idiosyncratic factors wash out and there is a truncation factor because of the low ceiling, the group of kids scoring 1600 will be more talented on average than the group scoring 1580, which will be more talented than the group scoring 1560.... all the way down the line.
For this reason and others, we always observe admit rates rising monotonically with SAT scores, at least at the most elite schools, whenever we can find actual data. Again, this is because in the aggregate scores are correlated with ability, first and foremost, and it is that ability which drives the rest of the accomplishments contained in a successful application.