<p>The point of my anecdote, which I guess I didn’t make clear, was that my son was the same person after the 150-point increase that he was before and his contribution at the next level would be no more or less than it would have been had he left his 1370 at 1370. The only “abilities” that the new score better reflected was his ability to take an SAT test. I’m not arguing for or against prepping. </p>
<p>As far as being able to get a 1500 without any preparation and that somehow showing something special about an applicant, that’s not clear to me either. According to the SAT tutor who had looked over the 660 math test carefully, the reason my son’s math score was “low” was he was “overthinking” the problems – using algebra and wasting time when he could have used a “guess and check” method, etc. She said this is not at all unusual amongst advanced math students. He is actually mathematically gifted. His Math IIC was also 800 (without more prepping–once you know the SAT drill, you know it). His unprepped ACT math score was 35. He majored in mathematical and computational science at Stanford. He has a graduate degree in financial math from there. The people in his department all have Ph.D.'s in math or physics. He’s the only one without a Ph.D. Yet, his first SAT math score was 660. My conclusion is that you can’t conclude all that much from an SAT score other than that an applicant is likely to score within a range. Spending money and taking multiple tests to raise scores 50 points is such a waste of time, but yet it does seem to pay off with admissions.</p>