<p>Another thing to check is to see if the school has any course materials on line to look at (MIT is well known for this, but some other schools have assignments, book lists, etc. available). If so, she can check sample freshman level courses that do not have strict prerequisites of high school course work that she has not completed (e.g. introductory economics, psychology, and computer science; math if she has completed at least precalculus).</p>
<p>If the school has on-line placement tests in English and math, she may want to try those to see if her high school work meets the college’s expectations.</p>
You mean bottom 25% score range? Are you saying your philosophy is that your kids should only apply to low-match and safety schools, and should never aspire to anything that doesn’t come easy?</p>
<p>We didn’t guide our kids all that much and allowed them to apply where they saw fit. S matriculated where he was in the top 25% of admitted students for scores but probably low for class rank & GPA. D was about the middle of the school for scores and again low for class rank & GPA. S seemed to cruise through EE while D is working pretty hard (creative fields and health challenges make life unpredictable). We let our kids’ gauge how much challenge they were willing to take on, as they have had to grapple with health challenges for the past 12+ years and had a better sense of what they felt they could manage. It has worked well for them and us–we have no regrets.</p>
<p>I think many kids probably know themselves pretty well. (Of course, mileage varies by kid & family.)</p>
<p>For us, S tends to skate along when he can. He did it in public school and that was one of the reasons we sent him to private school, where the bar was higher and he had to work significantly harder to stay with his peers. The U & program he was in required him to step up his game to keep up and he did; it worked well for him. D has also had to reach some in her program at the same U and it is working out for her too.</p>
<p>The standard deviation calmom quotes is for the entire population of test-takers not for individual test-takers. It has no relevance to the question of whether two particular test takers perform differently. Suppose that in some alternate universe, the standard deviation was 100 but individual test-takers’ scores did not vary. Then, for example, Mary would get 1400 every time she took the test. If Mary outscored Joe by 20 you would know with certainty that Mary had a higher expected score. So, the standard deviation of 110 is at best a red herring here. </p>
<p>Even if one did the statistics correctly, the important question is not whether individuals at some college’s 25th and 75th percentiles have expected scores that are significantly different in a statistical sense; rather, the question is whether Mary’s 20-point advantage is meaningful. One “natural experiment” in the SUNY system suggests that SAT scores are meaningful:</p>
<p>I would think this would also depend upon the school and the major, how she fits into the profile of students taking the classes she takes, and how performance is evaluated in these classes.</p>
<p>The low ACT scores indicate to me that OP’s daughter has some difficulties with standardized or multiple choice testing, in areas tested by the ACT. OP did not mention whether her daughter had tried and failed to raise these scores. If her daughter is planning a major that involves skills not tested by the ACT, I would not worry.</p>
<p>However, at some schools, in some majors, evaluation is based primarily or exclusively on multiple choice testing, especially in core or “gatekeeper” classes, from physics or calc to economics, history, or psychology. Students having problems can seek tutors, but they will not get individualized feed-back on homework or exams from professors or graders. If this will be an issue, best to avoid these schools, majors, or classes.</p>
<p>I have been in HR and recruiting for over 10 years and I have to tell you I have never seen a request for College class rank on an application. I have seen GPA requested, so tell D to go and do her best. She would not have been accepted if they thought she was not capable of the work!</p>
<p>I’m not the person who made the original post here, but I agree with it. I don’t see the point in going to a school where you’re out of your depth. For example, my son, who was quite successful as a computer science major at a state flagship, went on to get a master’s degree from another state university, and now earns a good living as a software engineer, probably wouldn’t have lasted a semester at MIT if he had chosen to apply there and by some bizarre miracle, had gotten admitted. </p>
<p>In addition, I think it’s important to recognize that a lot of the kids in the bottom 25% are recruited athletes or members of underrepresented minority groups, and both of these groups of students are often offered extra support that your kid, if he/she is not a member of one of those groups, will not get.</p>
<p>Later in the op-ed, it was mentioned that the average entry SAT scores were in the 1069 to 1164 range (for the “after” scores of those where the SAT entry bar was raised – presumably CR+M only). As these scores are in the middle to upper middle range (not at the extreme ends of the range), it is entirely possible that the predictive value of the SAT scores in this range may different from that at the extreme ends of the range.</p>
<p>But the point is that the SAT scores do not determine ability! The SAT is NOT an IQ test and it doesn’t function well as an achievement test, either – it is basically a very rough measure of mathematics and language skills. Useful for most colleges to know, but the admissions staff do not use the scores as their primary criteria for admission, any more than you would use the reported temperature reading on 3 random days out of a year to draw broad conclusions about the climate of an area where you were considering relocating. </p>
<p>One out of every four students that any college accepts has SAT scores in the bottom quarter. I posted here that my daughter had scores in the bottom quarter and graduated within the top 5%. She worked hard, but it was NOT a struggle. She did not find that the bulk of the other students were smarter than her, and certainly they weren’t more capable i an academic setting. </p>
<p>Several others posted similar experiences - either they or their offspring started school under circumstances that would suggest they were on the lower end of the admissions spectrum, and ended up (a) doing well, and (b) realizing that the other students at their respective colleges weren’t nearly as brilliant as they had been led to believe.</p>
<p>I mean, my daughter ended up taking half of her courses at an IVY (because of the Barnard/Columbia relationship). I doubt that she could have ever been admitted to Columbia with her test scores, but she got all A’s in her Columbia courses, even an A+ in a 5-unit course that really boosted her GPA overall. </p>
<p>I just really don’t understand why a parent would want to let a test score earned in high school to set some life-long limitation on their kid. I agree that no kid should ever be pushed to apply to a reach college if they are comfortable with their matches and safeties – but I just don’t agree with telling a kid who is motivated on their own to give up without trying. </p>
<p>I’d also point out that sometimes the “reach” colleges have environments that are more supportive than the safeties – that is, the kid might end up taking chemistry in a class with 35 students and ready access to their prof at a reach LAC, and 500 students and reliance on a TA at their “easier” in-state public. In fact, the overall environment at more selective colleges may be far more conducive to staying in school and graduating in a number of ways – better advising, higher faculty/student ratio, and a peer environment that encourages greater focus on academics.</p>
That’s a CC myth, driven by all of the people who can’t figure out why their kids with the high test score are getting turned down by spots in favor of kids with lower scores. Actually, there are a lot of kids who are athletes and/or URM’s who have very high grades and test scores. </p>
<p>The test score ranges are inflated in any case, because so many students retake the tests and rely heavily on intense prep, or – in the case of those attending private schools and top public magnets – have essentially been prepped for the test all the way through high school. A lot of those kids get bit in the butt when they arrive at college and learn that they are expected to think independently, explain their thought processes in depth, and come up with new and original ideas – rather than simply parroting back what has been taught or choosing from a set of options on a multiple choice test. College exams are nothing at all like the SAT or ACT. Also, for the most part, there are no do-overs in college – if your score on a midterm isn’t what you hoped for, you don’t get to resit the exam and then exercise score choice.</p>
<p>No scientist would be able to publish a research study based on samples where there was such selective, inconsistent testing done – I mean, the basic way the tests are administered completely and totally undermines their validity. PSAT score are much more significant – because every student sits for the PSAT at the same time, only once per year – perhaps that is why National Merit has chosen to rely on junior year PSAT scores as their starting point for selection. Even those present a problem, given the differences in school practices --some kids take the test in previous years, some prep, and some are sitting for the PSAT one time only, cold (no prep), in 11th grade. But at least you don’t have the situation of repeat and mix & match testing. </p>
<p>I’ll bet if the colleges were required to report only first, single sitting test scores on the CDS, you’d see some very different numbers.</p>
<p>Actually, Frazzled kids and friends have found that in some of the intro and weeder courses, from the intro calc sequence to psychology, college exams are exactly like the SAT - multiple choice exams, with solutions posted after the exam. Not at all like what they encountered in high school or in most upper-level classes. Although re-takes are not an option, sometimes the lowest scores can be dropped. If there are three mid-terms and a final, the lowest mid-term score might be dropped. </p>
<p>Generally, this seems to happen at large state schools outside of honors classes, but it apparently also happens at some very well-respected private universities. I would expect that this is less common at LAC’s. I have also been surprised to learn how little writing might be required of students outside of designated classes these days. </p>
<p>I would guess that OP’s daughter would be better able to show what she can do if she avoids these schools and classes. I would ask specifically about grading if this will be an issue.</p>
<p>As for supportive environments, this can vary by major. It is not uncommon for students attending reach schools, especially pre-meds, to take specific weeder classes such as gen chem or organic chemistry at their local public university over the summer, even if tutoring is provided at their school. </p>
<p>Knowing what I know now, I think it is a good idea to ask ahead of time about attrition rates in these classes and majors. But I would tend to agree that a reach school might easily be a better bet for a student with lower SAT scores but high GPA if the alternative would be a less selective school where classes are large, most evaluation is done through multiple choice testing, and support services are limited.</p>
<p>Which schools are these that have multiple choice for calculus? I frequently look at exams from various school websites and can’t remember seeing this. Most calc and physics exams look like they offer partial credit.</p>
<p>Re post #52: a multiple choice exam given in a classroom setting, whether high school or college, is not the same as a norm referenced test. I’m glad my d. ended up at a college where profs generally did not use multiple choice exams, but I don’t think she would have had any difficulty at all passing exams designed to assess progress within a particular course. She did her reading; she paid attention in class. She did very well on AP exams, which are geared to test a specific body of knowledge. </p>
<p>I do agree with bovertine that I would be very skeptical of a college-level math course relying on multiple choice exams, rather than writing out the proofs or calculations used to reach the answer.</p>
<p>That is certainly possible. One analogy I like to use involves basketball players. Think of the relationship between height and the performance of NBA centers. There were times when the highest-performing centers were among the shortest (a few years ago when Hakeem Olajuwon ruled the roost). A simple regression might have led one to conclude that height was actually a disadvantage, yet somehow teams never stocked-up on 6’6" centers. The relevant point is that even if one found little or no effect of SAT scores, it might be because of a selection efect.</p>
<p>And I can point to oodles of students who got accepted in the bottom 25% and didn’t do well dropping out after the first semester or first year relating stories of how they felt incredibly unprepared for math, chemistry, or freshman engineering classes. Personal experiences mean nothing as far as stats or life is concerned. They are as valid as pointing to Steve Jobs and saying one shouldn’t go to college as one can succeed to high levels without it. While that is a true statement, it doesn’t trend that way for the majority. One needs to have a certain personality and talent to make it work.</p>
<p>Rather, one should look at their individual student and the circumstances they are in. SAT/ACT scores DO show knowledge learned up to the testing point. The main reason kids who study or are prepped do better is because they learn more math or more vocabulary to get that better score. Repetition helps with that.</p>
<p>As stated before, SAT/ACT doesn’t measure work ethic or personality in general, nor are English/Math foundations in every major - thus negating the major value of a good foundation in those subjects.</p>
<p>Using a blanket statement that one should consider going to a college in the lower 25% of students just because a handful of students succeeded is a huge disfavor for many who may not be in the same situation.</p>
<p>As a default, I would lean toward those who say they wouldn’t even consider applying to those, but I mainly agree with my advice to consider the student, their plans, and the reason they got the lower scores.</p>
<p>The students in the bottom 25% were admitted = college predicts that they can do the work. Students who didn’t demonstrate that ability were rejected. Most colleges care a lot about retention.</p>
<p>How does (knowing) that you are in the bottom 25% affect a person psychologically? Depends on the person…some may have lower academic esteem, some may work harder/seek help, some may find the work surprisingly easy. Most students probably don’t know where they rank coming into the college…they will know how they stand with peers once frosh grades come out. </p>
<p>IMHO being in the bottom percentile for high school GPA is more of an issue than bottom percentile for SAT. Most students who get As in high school like getting them and will desire to do the same in college. Of course there are always those kids who got As in high school without working hard it and then get C’s 1st year in college…many of them soon shape up! </p>
<p>Some students may not be academically ready for all classes…but colleges use placement tests (or HS transcript) and to place students in the best classes for them (for math at my State College they offer to freshmen, college algebra, precalc, calc, calc II, and beyond).</p>
<p>I suspect the reason for poor grades in college is often related to poor adjustment (e.g., too much drinking, anxiety, depression, not being engaged socially, poor management skills, not knowing what they want to study, too much employment outside of class). Think fit …beyond GPA and SAT.</p>
<p>I would agree somewhat with regard to the SAT, but might still have reservations about sending a student with a math SAT at or around 600, who might want to major in math or physics, to a school where they will be in heavily curved classes alongside others who scored above 700. I would worry far less about low scores for majors not requiring lots of math or science pre-req’s, if grades and perhaps AP scores remained high. </p>
<p>I would also keep in mind that AP exams are not entirely multiple choice, not even AP calc exams. This is why some students prefer them to the SAT subject tests or do better on these than on the subject tests. And, some students take the ACT (which is what OP’s daughter took) because it is tied into what is actually taught in high school.</p>
<p>At least some students who do well on AP exams, including calc AB and BC (it is possible to get a 5 while barely “passing” the multiple choice sections in these exams and others) will have trouble doing well in college whether or not they are repeating a class they took in high school (although they will probably still have an advantage if they are repeating) if they need to shift to a format that is entirely multiple choice.</p>
<p>Also, I would be impressed if calmom’s D took calc through diffy-q (don’t remember her major, but since calmom mentioned going to class and doing readings, I am guessing it was not one that required this) and never encountered multiple choice exams.</p>
<p>My experience over 25 years is that kids in the bottom 25% are disproportionately applicants with hooks. If you would like to provide some data showing that my experience is idiosyncratic, we would all be happy to see it. The second sentence is at best a non sequitur and at worst a reflection of a confusion between the converse and the contrapositive. (D2 is a recruited athlete with very high SAT scores, even for her chosen college, but that is not evidence against the proposition.) </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You want people to take seriously studies that find small or non-existent predictive power of the SAT, yet you argue that one cannot take seriously any such studies. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, there is a high correlation between SAT scores and IQ (around 0.7). Moreover, the question is not whether SAT scores are the “primary criteria” but whether the SAT has some predictive power. Incredibly, you now say that SAT is “seful for most colleges to know.”</p>
<p>We get that your child’s college search was impacted negatively by her SAT scores. (Barnard is an excellent school, though, and you might try to be happy that she did well there rather than reliving the college search.) But the fact that some low-SAT students do well does not negate the predictive ability of SAT tests just as Tom Brady’s success does not negate the importance of a quarterback’s mobility and arm strength. (He clearly had other attributes that compensated.)</p>