<p>Over 30 years ago when I went through this process, I seem to recall the objective of most good students was to get an SAT score over 1200. 1200+, along with good grades and a few EC’s was enough to get a student into most (not IVY) of the top colleges and universities.</p>
<p>What I am seeing now seems crazy. Brilliantly talented, all-around great kids who may not be the best test takers are discouraged from applying to schools that would be a great fit and where they would be a true asset. They are being passed up for kids who are blessed with test-taking talent… a talent that has no value in life beyond getting you in to the college of your choice.</p>
<p>While I understand and empathize w/the Admissions counselors who need to level the playing field, I feel that the over-emphasis on SAT/ACT scores is having a negative impact on how our students approach their HS years. Shouldn’t their focus be to work hard talking a challenging course load for the joy of learning and to enjoy activities that will build their character and help further define their interests rather than working with SAT coaches and spending countless hours on SAT prep. </p>
<p>I am curious to hear what other parents and students feel about this subject.</p>
<p>There was a recentering/rescaling since we took it, so you are much smarter than kids now with the same score! Unfortunately, grade inflation has enabled half the class in some schools to have 4.0 gpa’s and the SAT is at least a common measurement. Using SAT II’s may be a better standard, but of course not all high schools prepare for them as well. I had “1200+ along with good grades and a few EC’s” and got into an Ivy; kids with my stats would never apply now!</p>
<p>Muffy333 ~ Thanks for your response. Do you know any specifics on how the test has been rescaled? That’s really interesting.</p>
<p>I realize the issues with grade inflation, huge increase in applicant pool and now there are so many kids who are designing themselves in to what they think will get them admitted to their top choice schools. I cannot imagine how difficult it must be for Admissions Counselors. </p>
<p>However, it breaks my heart to read some of the awesome “My Chances” stats on this site and to see discouraging responses to SAT scores that are less than stellar. It seems the focus should be on achievement and what a student has accomplished with their talents and drive to succeed. I know that many of the smaller liberal arts colleges are able to focus more of the entire student, which is good.</p>
<p>Michelle Hernandez has a whole chapter on this in her book A for Admission. There should be some threads on CC on it as well. In the old days it was so rare to get an 800 that people with double 800s would be in the newspaper; at the top of the scale two wrong would drop you from an 800 to a 740 but in the middle of the scale two wrong might drop you from 550 to 540 (these may be exaggerated, but that’s the general idea).</p>
<p>There have been at least two major revisions in the SAT with which I am familiar. The first, designed to center the V/M SAT score at 1000, was about ten years ago. Under that revision, someone at the 50 percentile increased his or her score by about 100 points on the verbal and by little or nothing on the math. </p>
<p>The second change occurred about two years ago. Verbal was divided into writing (editing, with an essay added) and reading, and analogies were removed. Math was revised to include more complex algebra and geometry. While the latest SAT aims to give the same distribution of scores as the earlier test, the same person will not necessarily receive the same score. Those who are better at the writing (or editing) than reading will not have a reading score on the newer test that is as high as the verbal score on the older test, since the writing questions were pushed to the writing score (which many colleges don’t even consider). Also, someone who is a good math student but not as good when solving every day complex problems may do better on the newer test while someone who is not as good at algebra and geometry as at solving every day complex problems might have done better on the replaced test.</p>
<p>SAT tests were initially introduced to give smart students from poor schools a chance at the best colleges. I still think that the SAT does, in many ways, measure how much a person knows AND how quickly they can apply it. And I suspect that those we sometimes denigrate as “good test takers” or “underacheivers” because their GPAs aren’t as outstanding as their test scores are those who can apply what they know quickly, those who have learned well outside the classroom, and/or those who retain a larger percentage of what they learn (as opposed to remembering it just long enough to regurgitate it on classroom and SAT II tests).</p>
<p>There’s a lot of talk now that GPA plus SAT II is a better measure of success in college as opposed to the SAT I. However, being a super student does not indicate super career, and I think we shortchange both students and colleges if all we seek are super students. I would love to see a measure of SAT I versus success at age 40 - I have known a number of people whose SAT I outshone their GPA who have been very successful in their chosen careers.</p>
<p>Little_Duck,
My implication was that 30 or so years ago 1200+ was considered a good score… a score that would get you in most colleges… which is well above average.</p>
<p>I still believe a 3 hour test is a weak indicator as to how successful a student will be in college and beyond. I think if you were to survey people who have been successful in their careers, you would see a wide range of scores. Qualities like work ethic, time management skills, focus and motivation, creativity, integrity, communication skills and many others do determine success and are better gauged by looking at a students record of achievement vs their SAT scores. Frankly, if I were to see a student with stellar SATs and mediocre grades, I’d think that student lacked many of the important qualities of success.</p>
<p>I’m not so sure that admissions officers weight SATs much more heavily than they used to. A strong transcript with rigorous classes is an important factor. You might be interested in this interview with the deans of admissions at Georgetown and UVA.
[Getting</a> In To Top Schools - Work & Education (washingtonian.com)](<a href=“Getting In To Top Schools - Washingtonian”>Getting In To Top Schools - Washingtonian)</p>
<p>College admission seems more competitive than back in my day. I think demographics account for a lot of that. The applicant pool is larger. I also wonder if the emphasis on college rankings has increased focus on a select few universities. If prospective students widen their search from the most elite schools they’re likely to find lots of wonderful schools where they can get a great education.</p>
<p>I agree with you that students shouldn’t spend excessive time on SAT prep to the detriment of their classes and activities.</p>
<p>Hey, hey, test-taking gets you pay raises if you’re an actuary.</p>
<p>Also, many jobs require you to take tests to evaluate your eptitude.</p>
<p>But, yes, the people on these forums are crazy. I know of plenty of threads with pages and pages of people telling me my SAT isn’t good enough to give me all that great of a chance at getting into MIT, and I have a 2330.</p>
<p>Truthfully, though, if you’re smart enough, you’ll be good at taking tests.</p>
<p>That last comment from my brief life experience, I have found to be mostly true. I have good grades, 1500(SAT I score, 800 math, 700 verbal), and I do take passion in learning, my scores comes from the fact that I am fairly smart. Also, lets face it, these are academic institutions, you go there to get an education, the courses you will take at the college of choice will most likely have tests, if your not good at taking the tests, you will flunk out, thus, they evaluate students using SAT scores as a factor for admission. Obviously, the process is not anywhere near flawless, however, they do what they can with the information at hand.</p>
<p>There are now more students competing for a relatively smaller number of places at the top than 30 years ago. As the demand has increased, so has the competition, which means that, inevitably, ambitious college applicants who want to get ahead learn to ‘hack’ the tests.</p>
<p>For most kids, learning to hack the test is hard extracurricular work that not only requires a substantial sacrifice of leisure time, but a willingness to accept that there is a ‘man behind the curtain.’ I would argue that the initiative, determination and skepticism exhibited by applicants who learn to hack the test is probably a better indicator of success in college (and the real world) than a large vocabulary or the ability to do high school math. </p>
<p>In any event, given the alternative solutions typically adopted by non-democratic societies to correct the imbalance between supply and demand, such as explicit discrimination based upon class, race, gender, religion, and national origin, standardized tests are clearly the lesser evil.</p>