<p>Nedad, this is not the first time I am guilty of “overlooking” Bowdoin when providing examples. In this case my example would have been stronger with the inclusion of Bowdoin. I have no reason whatsoever to believe that Bowdoin has used selective SAT reporting to boost its rankings. And I also happen to agree that Bowdoin is one of the best schools in the country. </p>
<p>Further the school seems to take care of its business without fanfare or crowing press releases -unless you count the nomination of Brunswick as one of the best towns to retire. :)</p>
<p>nedad:
I am not surprised that kids with 1350 or so (on the old SAT) can do really well in college, even in very demanding colleges. A 1350 or so puts them in the top 7%. I would not conclude that the SATs show a “disconnect.” Perhaps we just have a tendency to overinterprete the meaning of relatively small differences.</p>
<p>Clearly there are also kids with 1600 or very high SATs who have difficulties and do not do well in college or in life. I know several. Some are as you described - dull. Others are weird or disturbed. In fact I would guess those kids with really high IQ or SAT results are more likely to encounter emotional stresses. That is just a guess based on a very small sampling.</p>
<p>The most important function that SATs and AP tests perform is to set GPAs in context, both in terms of the school and in terms of the individual student. A student who gets 90+ for class work but only 1 or 2 on the AP test may have a bad day. Chances are, though that the class was not rigorous enough. Similarly, adcom will look at the record of a student who gets Bs but in the high 700s on SATs differently from that of a student who gets Bs and SATs in the low 600s. And students from East Podunk High who get high scores on the SATs as well as high GPAs will also warrant a second look.
As for essays capturing the essence of who an applicant is: perhaps they do if the applicant was the sole author of the essay. And perhaps they also hide the assistance the applicant had in crafting the essay. Adcoms have no way of knowing which is which.</p>
<p>Edad - I completely agree with you. But you’d be amazed at how many students think minor percentile differences in the SATs show a real difference in intelligence. They would look at a 1600 as “better” than a 1570, and 1350 as terrible, when in reality the scores often depend on the day - literally. That’s why adcoms know what students do not, which is that the scores show a RANGE: a 1350 is seen as “really” a 1300-1400 at least, and perhaps even a 1250-1450.</p>
<p>Marite - very good point. My sister’s town’s high school prints a bar graph on the transcript showing both weighted and unweighted GPA, the bars representing the # of kids getting each grade. The unweighted graph clearly shows that a B+ is the “default” grade, with most kids getting that or above – very weighted to the far right of the graph! But the weighted grade shows something much closer to the bell shaped curve - the whole graph shifts to the left. I think these bar graphs also help to put things in perspective.</p>
<p>I can tell you exactly what the difference is between a 1370 and a 1520 (old SAT): Two months, $685 and 5 sessions with an SAT prep tutor. </p>
<p>My S had no interest in SAT tests, especially not preparing for them. So in March of junior year he rolled out of bed on a Saturday morning and took the SAT cold without doing more than skimming the little booklet the school handed out. 1370: 710V 660M – a respectable score, but not in this day and age of Obsessive Compulsive Ivy Disorder, especially for a junior more than halfway through AP Calculus.</p>
<p>So I signed him up for some tutoring sessions and although he was very annoyed, he complied. Not one minute of these sessions was spent on subject matter. The time was spent teaching the tricks to acing the math section of the test. Believe me when I tell you that my son’s math skills were no better two months later, but the second time around he got 800 on the math and 720 on the verbal. </p>
<p>In terms of his future contribution to the college environment or the world in general, those 150 points were meaningless. But the test prep company made money.</p>
<p>I’m not sure that one can conclude from this anecdote that the extra 150 points were meaningless. I would say that, after being exposed to the format of the SAT, the applicant was better prepared and the new score better reflected his abilities. As for the money spent, chalk it to providing the student a structure for reviewing. Some need this to actually focus on SAT prepation. Others don’t need it. But it helps to know what to expect ont the test.
My S did minimal preparation for the SAT, and spent no money on it except to buy the 10RealSATS, but he had encountered the test before in 7th grade.</p>
<p>1 down-- but how about the kid who walks in with no prep, no tutoring, and gets that 1500+? that’s the one who’s figuring out how to think about it on the fly, and I do think it shows something.</p>
<p>My kids had no idea what SAT “tricks” were, and no patience with prepping or tutoring. Not every high scorer was propped up by money to get there.</p>
<p>My D did a minimal amount of SAT prep work with a “tutor.” Her scores came back about 100 points less than she expected based on a few practice tests. She looked at the data on the SAT webpage: average increase in scores for a second try was 13 points; less than 4% will increase scores by more than 100 points, with 45% showing no increases. She decided not to take the SATs again. At the time I felt it was the wrong decision. She felt she was not going to learn anything useful by trying to study for the SATs. She was busy the school and doing things she really liked. Does that count at least partially as conscientiously objecting?</p>
<p>I don’t think this anecdote is evidence for or against practicing. It is hard taking into account subjective factors when doing practice as opposed to actual tests. Some find the fact that the test is real make them focus better; others find it intimidating and get flustered. Whichever way, practice scores are not necessarily a good guide to actual scores. </p>
<p>But your D was correct in thinking that she was not going to learn more by studying for the SAT if she was already familiar with the format and the expectations, and the time between tests was short.</p>
I think that this piece of data, though anecdotal, is interesting. I’ve read that it is possible to increase the math component significantly through coaching, but that the verbal piece is much less malleable. I’ve also read that many colleges, especially the super-selective schools, will place more weight on a high verbal score, since that tends to have a higher correlation with other measures of academic ability. Anyone else heard of this?</p>
<p>I’ve also heard this about verbal score, although, of course, it depends on which major a student wishes to pursue. MIT places more emphasis on the math score than on the verbal score, as one would expect.</p>
<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>
<p>1Down2togo – "His Math IIC was also 800 (without more prepping–once you know the SAT drill, you know it). "</p>
<p>I think that your son’s issue with the SAT I is probably exactly what you said – overthinking. My son had the same issue and also scored an 800 on the SAT II Math IIC without any prep. I do think, though, that looking at both his SAT I and SAT II give a different picture your son’s (now well-documented) potential. Where the first SAT I by itself didn’t demonstrate his mathematical abilities, even that taken with the 800 IIC would have shown something significant about it.</p>
<p>sjmom, that’s my point… Setting aside the SAT II score for now, he got two SAT I scores, 660 in March and 800 after retaking in June. The first SAT I math score didn’t demonstrate his mathematical abilities but the second SAT I math score did. </p>
<p>Here is my point: his mathematical abilities did not change in two months. What changed is his approach to taking the test. The 150 point increase did not demonstrate increased mathematical abilities. It demonstrated an increased ability to take an SAT test. There is nothing about being good at taking SAT tests that prepares you for doing anything other than taking similar kinds of tests. I just think way too much time, energy and money is being poured into SAT testing. I think a standardized test has value but it’s been blown way out of proportion.</p>
<p>Hundreds of thousands of students with a math sAT similar to your S’s spend thousands of dollars on tutoring, and don’t raise their math score anywhere near where your S’s went up. AS you retell the account, it seems much more clear that he was a 1500 type student who was blocking himself. That seems to be the exception, not the rule. It’s not the hundreds you spent that brought him up 140 points on one test; he had that knowledge already, as you demonstrate.</p>
<p>My S got a 690M the first time he took the SAT. He didn’t need tutoring; he needed to look at the question and answer key, and realize that he’d been answering to hastily and should pay more attention. He did, and went up 70 points on the M (10 more on the V.) </p>
<p>I think your story illustrates the same thing.</p>
I agree to some extent – but I don’t think that the majority of students invest the time and money that people on CC are willing to spend. My point earlier is similar to that which Garland makes above: high scores are not a fluke. I think there may be false negatives in SAT results (high aptitude kids not demonstrating their abilities via the score) but I don’t believe that there are false positives (lower-ability kids scoring higher than their underlying abilities would allow.) </p>
<p>I view the SAT as a tool. It is ONE indication of aptitude, and as such I don’t think it should be dismissed as completely unrelated to the college selection process. I also believe that most colleges, with the possible exception of stats-driven public universities, look at ALL the pieces of the pie – GPA, essays, SAT I, SAT II, APs or college courses taken, outside activities – and make the best decision they can with the information available. I don’t know of a better way to do it. It’s not a perfect system, but if you remove one variable, such as the SAT I, you clearly increase the impact of the other variables. How can that be more fair than the current system? At least this way, a student from an average school can demonstrate high ability through testing, or the kid from a school without APs can show their strengths through other tests. The more views of a student that are available, the clearer the big picture becomes.</p>
<p>Without pointing the finger at anyone, I am always a bit perplexed by stories of students who are surprised by the type of questions that show up on the SAT test. Most everyone I know is supposed to get a good look at standardized tests throughout middle and high school. Unless someone takes the SAT before the PSAT, I believe that most everyone has a good idea about the type of questions. </p>
<p>I never understood what motivates anyone who aspires to attend a competitive collge to take the SAT without a modicum of dedicated preparation. In high schoo students try to identify the idiosyncracies of teachers and speculate on the type of tests he or she may give. Teachers who give multiple choice and take-home tests are quite different from the teachers who prefer to give essays. The SAT, being different from most daily HS fodder, needs to be understood and … respected. After all why would students spend the last four years doing their darnest to avoid Bs and Cs, torture themselves with school activities, will take a slew of AP or college courses only to approach a simple four hours test with the most cavalier attitude?</p>
<p>FWIW, the SAT is not a test of pure math or pure english, it is a test of time restricted reasoning and mental agility. People who spent time working on various types of puzzles will find most problems easier, especially after seeing the proposed solutions. I always like to make the analogy to crosswords puzzles: the first two or three times one attempts a new type, it is very difficult. Despite the puzzles being different, after a few weeks it gets easier and easier. The person does not get “smarter” but more tuned in to the tricks and definition of the authors. The SAT works in similar and diabolic ways. :)</p>
<p>Ok…I didn’t really read all of the posts on this topic, but I want to put in my two cents on that list that says the SAT/ACT is optional.</p>
<p>I have a problem with a list that is from a non-profit who doesn’t do enough research to realize that Pittsburg State University is in Kansas, not Pennsylvania. I would really reserach any of the schools you get off of that list to make sure they are up to date and such.</p>
<p>xiggi, taking the SAT in March of junior year without preparation is not all that risky. There are several more opportunities to take the test again, and you never know, you could get lucky in March and be done with it. My daughter took all her tests just once. Her scores were fine, they could be higher but they’ll do and she is like her older brother–hears a different drummer–and has no interest in SAT test “puzzles”.</p>