@theaterwork I think that the consensus is that math is the portion of the test that tutoring helps the most. There were certain types of math problems D just needed to learn to tackle. Tutoring exposed that and taught her how to do certain problems quicker. Her score went up a lot with tutoring. She probably went from a 470 on (old) PSAT to a 610 on SAT after about 4 or 5 months of private weekly tutoring. She wanted that 600 minimum since she was applying to NYU.
For verbal her scores went up from a 650 to 720 with no additional practice.
My daughter took a prep class online once a week for 6 weeks and increased her score over 100 points. Mostly in math. The course didn’t teach her new content but taught her tricks and strategies on how to maneuver the test better. Because of her new score and GPA she was given merit monies that have basically made it possibly for her to leave college debt free.
@MomCares
My daughter got a very respectable but not remarkable score without studying at all. That score would not do for a competitive academic school but it was fine for all the good MT schools. She debated taking it again but given that she would likely only increase her score 100-150 points, it wouldn’t put her in the National Merit range or anywhere fundamentally better, i.e. Ivy league. So she skipped it. She did get some merit money from schools but she hasn’t even auditioned there yet so we don’t know what this will all bring. To me, it wasn’t worth hassling her to keep studying and prepping for what I thought would be limited gains.
I want to reiterate, the vast majority of the money in MT programs contained within a broader university/college and outside of need-based financial aid if a school is known to be generous with that, is in academic merit. That is just a thing. More than one school has some sort of automatic formula where X ACT or Y SAT plus Z GPA = a certain amount of money for all applicants in that range.
For the vast majority of MT programs within these broader universities and colleges, you may not need extra points for admission but I urge you, while you can, not to forget about the merit money and not to throw in the towel to chase it no matter if “chasing it” means going from a 24 to 27. Or from a 32 to a 34 (or whatever the SAT equivalent of that means.). At a minimum, inform yourself about whether or not you are already there, or within striking distances of the money that really can make a difference for you. Absolutely in some schools, the bar is not all that high but in others, it could be right within your grasp with an extra push.
We made the mistake of thinking about admissions vs. merit. My daughter scored high enough on the ACT spring of her junior year for me to say, hey, more than good enough for every school you are applying to so you’re done and let’s focus on the auditions and applications. But she was chasing some pretty academically intense schools and another point or two which for sure was within her grasp with an ounce of preparation, could easily have meant better merit money or at least some merit money. I should have made her chase it. I didn’t. I was only thinking about admissions and didn’t understand the merit piece.
In our case, it turns out it didn’t matter because she ended up at her first choice school that only awards merit that is tied to need. But there were a number of other great schools that she got into that if the merit $ had been more convincing, it could have tipped the scales. Why not put all of the best options on the table while there is time for it? Nobody likes to take these tests but the message I suggest is: “hey kid, options are yours to win or lose.” It’s a chance for them to step up as young adults. Or not. But that’s the point.
I totally agree with @halflokum. I would totally expect my child to try to take both the SAT and ACT, if doing so could increase their chances for admissions and possible aid. It really is not that big of a sacrifice. I would also totally expect my child to put effort into increasing their scores by agreeing to classes/ tutoring if I am in the position to pay for it. To me that is part of fulfilling their part of the deal of the “getting into college game.”
The bottom line is that all applicants need to approach the process understanding that they should put in 100% effort to get into the college they want. And should try to get as much $ as possible in the process.
Obviously that means setting realistic expectations. When D got a 610 on math I did the happy dance. I knew that she had reached a realistic goal since she was not a strong math student, but wanted an academically challenging school. So I was thrilled that she put in the effort and had reached her benchmark through hard work. It made me believe that she wanted her dream enough to work hard for it—not just artistically–but by doing work she didn’t enjoy.
To me it was important to see this effort and maturity. In the real world post college, a vast majority of their time will probably be used doing survival jobs that they do not particularly like, just to stay in the game. They won’t have the option of saying "I prefer not. "
I paid tons of $ to send both D’s to NYU, and allowed them both to turn down more scholarship $ at schools they didn’t like as much. But I needed to see that effort on their part–and not just in doing what they are passionate about–but doing all they could do to be a strong applicant overall.
As @halflokum said earlier- spending some time/money prepping for ACT/SAT could easily bring the biggest payoff of anything in the college process. Tell them to think of it like rehearsal. After D’s 1st round We did private coaching a 4 sessions (I think 2 hrs each) to work on testing strategies etc. Payed off big time. I know that as you are in the process it seems like you can’t possibly add one more thing, but think long term …
In full disclosure, both of our kids were applying to extremely academically selective schools, and I firmly believe that if they hadn’t done well enough the first time they would have put in preparation for a retake.
To me, if you want to get into a school, “well enough” should be close to the 75th percentile of accepted students if you want to make sure you will definitely get in.
“Well enough” is also making sure that there is not a disconnect between the classes you take (honor or AP, maybe?), your grades–and how they compare to your test scores. To me if you take an honors or AP class load, I’d expect test scores to reflect that and be upward of 85th percentile in most sections (or at least the subjects that reflect your strengths.)
Then “well enough” also can mean meeting the threshold for merit aid or special scholarship $. Those numbers need to be researched for all schools and scholarships. Many scholarships have specific cut-offs. If none are mentioned, I would again use the 75th percentile + for accepted students for gpa and test scores as a benchmark.
I think it’s important to clue kids in to what is realistic. So if they love a school, and want a shot at really attending, they need to know all they need to do to be able to up their chances. In many cases it’s more than just nailing the audition, but has to do with getting those scholarships, too.
No point to protect them from hard work if that is what it takes to make an acceptance a realistic option.
All true, @uskoolfish, and in our kids’ cases they both lacked hooks (not URM or first time college or underrepresented state or legacy or development or…) which also impacted their definition of “good enough”.
We told all three of our Ss that money was part of their college pictures and they were expected to “earn” some part of that. They could get a job, start a business, get scholarships. The biggest bang for their buck - after GPA (the “job” they had in the first three years of HS) - was in test scores. H and I were willing to pay for private test prep, but they had to put in the time. When compared to getting a HS/college job their “hourly wage” for test prep was astronomical. The lowest “pay-off” for our three Ss was $3000/year at in-state school (that S raised ACT from 26 to 29). Not bad for 10 - 20 hours of enforced test practice. As others have said, it’s all about the strategies, not learning new material. The ACT Science is definitely a processing speed/reading comprehension test and S was able to raise that score by 6 points through practicing the strategies.
You don’t even have to be shooting for selective schools for this to be a big pay-off. A 3.2 GPA and a 28 ACT score gets you $2500/yr at Wright State - which is already a “cheap” school. The awards go up incrementally, including full-ride. Underrepresented students have additional opportunities.
MT S did test prep for PSAT which helped him achieve National Merit (full ride at WSU and near full ride at UC/CCM), but also prepped him for SAT. He had very good ACT/SAT scores - taken mid-junior year - but wanted to increase them for chances at UMich. He said he did not want to do test prep tutoring, but swore he would do it “on his own”. HA! The books sat there and the online courses were never revisited after the first attempt or two. Halfway through summer before senior year, he admitted that perhaps he should do the private tutoring. We scrambled to fit 6-8 sessions in while also getting ready for auditions and prescreens. He retook both tests in September/October. One score went down and the other stayed the same. I think the tutoring was a good idea, but the timing stunk. By summer as rising senior, S was very quickly losing interest in being a “student” and became totally absorbed with all things MT - dancing, singing, acting, piano, composition, music theory. If we had to do it over again, I would do the tutoring in summer/fall entering junior year for tests taken in late fall/winter of junior year.
The one that counts is fall of junior year. In many school districts, kids take it in fall of sophomore year as well. This gives students slightly more experience and a chance for tutoring/ focused studying if a student is going after any of the national merit awards that are based on PSAT scores in junior year.