<p>The issue of it being held against them was hypothetical, no?
Can I tell you that grades, scores, summer programs and competition awards are not predictive of a good app? They don’t correlate to an interesting kid who can convey ideas, goals and prep in a satisfactory way. Or that the kid has the balance of needed assets: potential to engage, perspective and maturity, understanding of how he will use his time at the college and has thought out this choice. Sorry, but the app IS the vehicle adcoms use. And any interview comments.</p>
<p>I don’t know, texas, but I don’t see why the yield for RI would be significantly lower than for other New England states. The number of students who apply, their qualifications, the yield, etc., are all random, and thus, most likely consistent with other nearby states. MIT admissions, on the other hand, is not random, so it makes sense that the number of admissions is much lower due to something internal there.</p>
<p>Here are the stats cited for Amherst in the LAC brief in the Fisher case. If you want to read the whole brief (submitted 8/10/12, will help you find it as there are over 75 amici briefs in that case), go to SCOTUSBLOG.</p>
<p>“At Amherst, for example, since 2003, offers extended in recent years to students with African-American backgrounds have varied widely, ranging without discernible trend from 95 to 179, resulting in matriculations of from 22 to 61 in classes of about 450.”</p>
<p>Pizzagirl: The issue raised here about the middle school sat score was that it count against them in admission. I understand that this should not be a consideration in the admission, however, it should not disqualify them as well. Just because they took as 7th graders and got good scores, why should they get rejected? A punishment for being a high achiever? Or having parents who provided that opportunity?</p>
<p>And, why do most people think that if a kid takes 7 th grade SAT and scored 750 in math will not have any other achievement in the next 4 years?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In the fly over states schools suggest some 7th graders take the tests and that could be the only practice before the real thing when some ace them.</p>
<p>Certainly some do other activities, but do they matter? Here may be one answer:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Since this forum allows for a healthy exchange of opinions, I will offer mine in an non-sanitized version. </p>
<p>The above statement is pure and unadulterated horse manure. For starters, claiming or suggesting that the SAT should be recentered (upwardly that is) is such non-sense and indicates a very poor understanding of the purpose of the SAT. The number of students who score a perfect 800 are totally irrelevant. What matters is the average and how this average compares to the targeted average. This is why it was recentered in the first place as the overall performance of the students had slipped. In the meantime, the number of the perfect scorers remain extremely small for both the SAT or ACT. Do we really need to have a “super” perfection? Really?</p>
<p>In addition to the above, why would anyone worry about a “superior” yardstick for the uber test takers? We all know that a small number of students score really high and attain “perfection” on standardized tests, but again this is has NO relevance on the world of admissions. Some of them are accepted everywhere; some others do not fare that well, as this small sliver of their entire package ultimately does not carry the weight that the overly concerned (read obsessed,) the overly “packaged,” and a few cheaters fail to understand. </p>
<p>All in all, the very bright students end up doing extremely well. Perhaps, the admission process might not work perfectly but those extremely gifted (in possibly different ways) do also extremely well in gaining access to a tertiary education. Should we be concerned about the well-being of such students in their K-12 life? Probably yes. But should we be overly concerned about identifying them through the SAT? Especially in middle school? Heck no! Just as we should not be overly concerned about polishing those gems more than they already are, and uncover more ways to separate the cream from the rest of the pool. They WILL get there one way or the other, as they have 12 years, or perhaps a but fewer in many cases. </p>
<p>Our concerns should be about the BOTTOM half of the SAT scorers and start looking at positive actions to curb our unabated descent into mediocrity and quasi illiteracy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>At Dartmouth, the percentages of applicants with 800s on the three sections were (see [Testing</a> Statistics](<a href=“http://www.dartmouth.edu/admissions/facts/test-stats.html]Testing”>http://www.dartmouth.edu/admissions/facts/test-stats.html))</p>
<p>critical reading 8.5
math 13.5
writing 10.9</p>
<p>There is “clumping” at the 800, with the number of applicants having such scores being much higher than 10% of the number of applicants with scores in the range 700-790 (a score range that comprises 10 discrete scores). That’s what I say the SAT has too low of a ceiling for the students that apply to the most selective colleges.</p>
<p>I think it’s fair that the system should be concerned with both high achievers and underperformers. And also seek to serve those in the middle. But, SATs in m/s seems another way to objectify smarts. </p>
<p>Lake, I asked both the CTY ques and offered the opinion on predictive. The elite extra programs are impressive, but don’t automatically convert a high-smarts kid into one who can pull together a strong application. I think some are missing that. And, there should be other activities that don’t simply advance the kid’s own academic interests and future goals. </p>
<p>I also don’t think we need to break out or recenter SATs just because there’s a cluster of high scorers applying to some schools.</p>
<p>" The elite extra programs are impressive, but don’t automatically convert a high-smarts kid into one who can pull together a strong application. I think some are missing that. And, there should be other activities that don’t simply advance the kid’s own academic interests and future goals."</p>
<p>I think the stats-über-alles folks think that the presence of high smarts should be enough.</p>
<p>High stats and intellectual vitality are two different measures. The kid who drives class discussion and makes a professors life possible is often not the kid with the 2400 SAT and often not the kid with the highest grade in the class, but colleges need them too. Elite schools do often embrace holistic admissions because not all aspects of thinking and/or creativity are quantifiable. Of course there are those candidates who exemplify both kids of intellectual prowess, and I wager that those kids really succeed in admissions and garner acceptances from many uber selective institutions.</p>
<p>Beliavsky, in another thread–I believe the one you started about race being considered in admissions–numerous posters presented data that confirm that top colleges DO NOT CARE about perfect SAT scores. They are happy with scores above a certain threshold (say, 730 or so in each section). It has also been amply demonstrated, throughout this site and in real life, that SAT scores are not the most important criterion in college admissions or in success afterwards. Why do you continue to fixate on this one factor of measured intelligence? You said this earlier in this thread:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>and</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I guess what I don’t understand is why you can’t accept the fact that top colleges don’t share your view that test scores are the true (and only) measure of the “very brightest students.” Your type of parenting may produce children who can ace the SAT, but of course that still doesn’t guarantee them either success in college admissions or in life. Instead of fighting what is, why wouldn’t you work to help your kids achieve a more robust intellectual prowess as mythmom describes above?</p>
<p>“say, 730 or so in each section” Ok. So how is 730 the magic number?</p>
<p>It’s not. That’s the “or so” part. The point is–there is no ABSOLUTE number that assures admission. And that is really vexing to those who can’t beat the current qualitative system and would strongly prefer a quantitative system that they have a better chance of beating.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>With that everything else we say pales in comparison. It’s too self-centered to complain about not getting in both good schools A and B even in the name of fairness.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why? This is exactly what employers want nowadays: lots of folks working in retail and fast-food for near-minimum wage, without too much complaint, because jobs are scarce and their opportunities are limited.</p>
<p>he needs to apply to a safety school…asap. thats the first rule! you ALWAYS need a safety school!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m all for looking past stats if they see a candidate who is more intellectually creative, drives discussion, thinks “out-of-the-box”, however you want to put it.</p>
<p>I don’t see them doing that, though, at least for most of the top 10 schools. In fact, I think if you have top stats, then it’s hard to move the needle at all in admissions at all with intellectual prowess.</p>
<p>And I think that’s unfortunate because the that’s where you find the people who can intellgently challenge the existing paradigms rather than just be skilled enough to parrot what they are told.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know where this idea comes from that the kid with the 2400 SAT is a bump on a log who can only succeed quietly with a number two pencil in hand, filling in ovals. I don’t see a distinction between high stats and intellectual vitality – put that high stats kid into a class that actually challenges him and you’ll see plenty of intellectual vitality; in most typical classes, he spends at least half his time daydreaming, waiting for the others to catch up.</p>
<p>The kid with the 2400 SAT is more likely brilliant than bright. Bright kids tend to lead discussions because are motivated by the external reward of praise from the teacher. Brilliant kids are internally motivated; they don’t care about praise, just about learning. They also quickly learn that if they attempt to lead a discussion that said discussion soon becomes a one-on-one with the instructor that quickly flies over the heads of the rest of class. It’s much safer, if one wishes to fit in, to just become the reliable go-to kid the teacher automatically calls upon when no one else has a clue.</p>
<p>The high-stats kid almost always has the highest average test scores in his areas of expertise. He may lose points for not making the prettiest posterboard presentation or not turning in every busywork assignment on time, but he’ll understand the subject material best in the end and, that, in my opinion, is what we really should be grading.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t take what admissions officers say at face value. The Dartmouth site linked to in post #1127 indicates that students with an 800 on any SAT section are admitted at appreciably higher rate than students with scores in the 700s. Inference is complicated by the fact that as a group the 800 scorers probably outperformed the 700-790 scorers on other academic measures.</p>
<p>Many of the parents here are highly educated and are economically well-off. Maybe not in the top 1%, but perhaps in the top 10%?</p>
<p>If my analysis is correct, I would expect to see an attempt to pass on the privilege to the next generation dress-upped as concern for the general welfare. If so, the CC parlance may be an effective argument for just about any topic for those who want to maintain the status quo, as long as that system they defend works reasonably well. I decided to test my theory in an area totally unrelated to college admission and see where it takes me.</p>
<p>The other day I was talking with friends about leadership change in the US vs China. Like a broken record, someone mentioned the idea of one person one vote. This gave me the opening I was looking for. I immediately launched into CC parlance, explaining to the offender how he is number-driven and how he needs to think holistically, and that if people dont like the system they can always go somewhere else. I also mention how HYP and the Holy See use similar systems and seemed to go from strength to strength etc. etc.</p>
<p>There was no comeback. None. Interesting.</p>