dissapointed student needs to know wheter to take the SAT 4 times?

<p>Momsdream, I rarely get annoyed, but your last post did it. </p>

<p>"The simplicity of this topic is being lost in the emotion of some student posters who have much invested into the game of mastering the test."</p>

<p>Since I think that this is directly aimed at me, allow me to respond. It is up to ME to judge what is "too much." You have no idea how much time I devote to the SAT and most definitely have no idea what my motivation or reasons might be. As far as mastering the test, some of us make the choice to "master" what is thrown at us, and othe prefer to spend their time in idle speculation. As far as emotions, I prefer to look at verifiable facts.</p>

<p>As far as addressing the OP question, I invite you to read the text again. The OP asked if he should take the test a fourth time. He did NOT ask if he should spend his time differently. As far as simplicity goes, my answre was simple AND direct. If you think you can improve, AND dedicate time for preparing ... GO FOR IT. The OP stated that he thought he COULD improve, didn't he? Others pointed out the negatives ranging from possible scorns of adcoms to poor time uses. The issue of penalties is immediately relevant to the discussions. </p>

<p>"Once the app arrives at the school and the summary card is being created by the admin assistant, it's very easy to note:
SAT combined score: XXXX
*# of sittings : 10 *
...just as other details are boiled down and extracted."</p>

<p>Number of sittings? Is this pure speculation or do you have any reason to believe that the reports do convery that specific information?</p>

<p>Isn't worth considering the facts behind the number of sittings. What if a student took two old SATs in 9th or tenth grade but HAS to present the post March 2005 tests because some colleges request it? Does this means he has only ONE more chance before earning a negative mark on his scorecard? What is a student was asked to take multiple SAT earlier to qualify for summer camps or scholarships? The above examples are not farfetched cases, but represent real life situations. The reality is that not everyone takes multiples SAT to satisfy a misguided obsession. Every case is different and that is why gross generalizations do not apply. </p>

<p>With this I am done discussing this particular thread. There is no reason to repeat ad nauseam what my position is. In the end, it is a matter of personal choices and concern for factual evidence.</p>

Re: being annoyed - You've been dishing it out to parents on here for as long as I can remember, so I'm sure you can take it as well. </p>

<p>"It is up to ME to judge what is "too much." </p>

<p>Again, reading and quoting something that isn't there. I never used the term "too much". I said "much". You added the "too" to it.</p>

<p>Speaking of Freud ^</p>

<p>This debate is ago old and my SAT worry days are done - so I only offered what I had been told. Seriously, you probably have better insight into it. I cared about the SAT for about 6 months - no more. I think 3X is enough. There are always exceptions to every rule.</p>

<p>this is my take (Slugg, let me get that fireproof jump suit)</p>

<p>Since the OP's question was if s/he should take the test for a 4th time and is looking for an opinion, responders gave their opinion of whether or not OP should go for a 4th round. There is no right or wrong answer on the part of the responder and at the end of the day OP is going to do whatever they want to do despite what we thing or feel about it. </p>

<p>MY issue when reading these kind of questions about testing period is when you get to the point that you are taking the test 3 or 4 times , what is really being evaluated other than your ability to prepare for the test? </p>

<p>Although there needs some objective criteria in the admissions process and for the moment the SAT/ACT seems to be one of them, I think there needs to be a one and done approach to taking the test or being able to take the test a maximum of two times (as anyone can have an off day). </p>

<p>when the college board did away with score choice one of the reasons they stated is that those with money had the means to take the test multile times and report their best score where as a student in a lower ses may have not had that luxury. </p>

<p>Okay, there is no longer score choice so all of your scores are submitted, if the colleges are taking your highest composite scores, or even your best scores on one sitting has much really changed? those with the means to do so can continue to take the test over and over again until they come up with a set of scores they deem acceptable. Maybe they should have students take the test annually and look for an upward trend, or like mini stated just let people pay to get some extra points because they seem to be doing so anyway.</p>

<p>Ok, off my soap box now, maybe someone will have some water to throw on my flames.</p>

<p>As far as testing and admission requirements, my biggest hope would be to see a simpler and more universal system. A better SAT should accomplish this. If I were in charge of the "system" (fat chance!), my recommendation would be to overhaul the entire system, dump the need to equate the SAT to the class of 1946. Without any scientific basis to support my claim, I would probably advocate for having an extension of the current SAT that would be administered in the same manner as the PSAT, but in September or October of the senior year. I would like to see students selecting 6 tests out of 10 subjects, presenting 3 in the morning and 3 in the afternoon. The material covered in the present SAT would be reduced to fit three sessions of 45 minutes (Math, Writing, Verbal). The afternoon would be for three additional Subject Tests to be chosen by the students. There would be ONE testing opportunity for seniors only and everyone would take the tests ... and be done with it. An alternative would be to have two days by moving the AP to other time slots. No more repeats.</p>

<p>There are obvious issues with this, as better preparation would be rewarded -as it is in the PSAT. Fewer testing opportunities do not necessarily help the poorer students. Well-off families could seek outfits that reproduce testing conditions and emulate tests ...for a price. Also, illnesses/accident of students could derail the entire proposition. One option would be to have the tests at the end of the Junior year with ONE possible repeat in October.</p>

<p>One of the elements of such system is that a national database could be created and that TCB member schools could search for their "candidates" for recruiting purposes. While not eliminating the holistic system of reviewing the applications, it could simplify and shorten the courtship of students and schools.</p>

<p>xiggi, interesting approach and appears to borrow somewhat from the "A-level" concept in Britain. The weakness, as you acknowledge, is that it will create a cottage industry for the test prep companies. If you think their advertising preys on fear and desperation now, can you imagine what they'll do if the system only allows one chance. "It's the biggest test of you life. And you only have one chance to go to the school of your dreams. Send us $2500."</p>

It was not so long ago that our good friend Ben Jones came on this forum to write something that was clearly in contradiction with the stated policy of MIT.


<p>Wait, how did I contradict our stated policy?</p>

<p>Ben did NOT contradict a stated policy of MIT. Also, I failed to read his reply in the thread that discussed how MIT would view the Writing components of the "new" SAT. At that time, I considered that the position made public by Les Perelman must have been "the" stated policy on the subject. It turned out that there was more room for leeway and interpretation by adcoms.</p>

<p>Thanks xiggi! Since it's my job to make sure our office is sending consistent messages across the board, I was a little worried that I'd screwed something up. :-) This process is crazy enough for applicants without colleges being inconsistent.</p>

<p>Regarding the "myth" about adcoms frowning upon excessive sittings (whatever your definition of "excessive" may be)...</p>

<p>Imagine for a moment that you are an adcom at one of the top universities in the country and you are speaking (or writing) to the next generation of frantic, obsessive-compulsive parents and potential applicants. Imagine that you know that it doesn't make any difference to your school whether an applicant takes the test once, twice, or 200 times, and that you know your school will simply use the scores from the best sitting or the the best two or three from multiple sittings and move on. I.e., imagine that truly do not care. What effect do you think this will have on the Frantic Many? How much more pressure, how much more time, how much more energy and how much more money will be poured into SAT testing? My answer would be: LOTS. Word will spread, books will be written, USNews articles will appear, and the new strategy will be to begin preparing for the SAT in 5th grade. How would this help anyone? It would still leave underprivileged applicants in the dust, it would make the lives of the Frantic Many more frantic and less meaningful, and it would further dilute the value of the SAT scores to adcoms because the scores would be even more a reflection of preparation and multiples sittings, fine-tuning and polishing that they already are. </p>

<p>So...if I were an adcom speaking to a group of parents and students who have gone to the trouble to fight rush hour traffic, wolf down a quick meal, brush their teeth and race off to sit in plastic chairs or find their way to an unfamiliar hotel conference room in an unfamiliar part of town, I would not even hint that multiple testings can't possibly hurt. Just my opinion.</p>

<p>I see it differently, 1 Down.</p>

<p>Your are the adcom of an Ivy Leage school and your are driving 20 minutes to visit a school where more than 10% of the graduating seniors will be fed to your university. The tuition at this school is in the $18k range and most of these kids are destined for Ivy and Co. The school is small, personalized and one of the best in the country - per the rankings and reports - . Your visit is with parents.</p>

<p>Why would you not want to tell these parents to consider multiple sittings? You want to increase your SAT median. These kids are coming in droves- as they have been for decades - heck, half of the teachers hold your degree. The parents can afford the repeat tests and tutors. The parents are not frantic...this routine...and they are not sitting in plastic chairs in some obscure part of town....they are sitting in their own school's auditorium, where you, the adcom, have come to visit. </p>

<p>Could it be that a school is really interested in understanding the child's potential for college success? Or, is that too much like right?</p>

<p>"Why would you not want to tell these parents to consider multiple sittings?"</p>

<p>Consider multiple sittings? That's a bit vague, isn't it? To my knowledge, no college discourages sitting more than once. More than once is multiple. Sitting ten times is multiple. So, I guess I'm having a problem understanding your question.</p>

<p>you're both totally overthinking this. I don't think adcoms care that much one way or the other. Surely the #-of-sittings is at or near the bottom of a very long list of factors.</p>

<p>My problem with excessive test-taking involves the excessive studying and excessive time wasted (imho). When I was interviewing students for Yale, I would rather have heard that the student was spending his or her free time doing something meaningful and constructive, not taking 6 or 8 week "courses" (in our town, twice a week for three hours!) to get a higher score. </p>

<p>Yeah, yeah, I know the two are not mutually exclusive. But I can't even imagine the mindset of someone who would do this. It's overkill.</p>

<p>nedad, how many interviewees admitted to spending that much time in test prep courses? Many of the kids taking these courses are also heavily involved in extracurricular activities and are taking the most challenging classes available to them. But when the process becomes as competitive as it is, motivated students will seek to maximize their chances. The only way to limit it, I think, is to discourage students from taking it more than a few times -- which is what most colleges typically do. Anyone can have 1 or 2 bad test days, but I think the College Board data shows that most students don't really improve much beyond that number of attempts. In any case, if a given student really wants to try one more time, and is willing to actually do the preparation required to make a difference, I don't see the harm.</p>

<p>"I don't think adcoms care that much one way or the other. Surely the #-of-sittings is at or near the bottom of a very long list of factors."</p>

<p>Good point .... but if you have gotten yourself into the mindset that only an ivy is good enough, you start looking at the whole list of factors, real and imagined, from top to bottom, and then stressing about the unknowable factors you haven't even worried about yet. </p>

<p>An indequate SAT (in the absence of some pretty compelling hook) is much more likely to get you cut from consideration than taking the wretched test multiple times and ending up with an excellent score.</p>

<p>"An indequate SAT (in the absence of some pretty compelling hook) is much more likely to get you cut from consideration than taking the wretched test multiple times and ending up with an excellent score."</p>

<p>Exactly. But adcoms don't come out and say this outright, do they? So the question is, why don't they? Why perpetuate the myth (obviously I agree with xiggi on this) that they view excessive testing with a critical eye? My money says it's because they don't want to be held accountable for the fallout.</p>