I’ve been shocked to see how high colleges’ so called “average” SAT scores are nowadays. I don’t recall it being like this before super-scoring existed. I’m reminded of two episodes of the Twilight Zone:
Is super-scoring a benign opportunity equalizer for students? Or is it a cynical cash cow for the College Board and manipulation tactic for colleges to climb the USNWR rankings? Is it hastening the down play of SAT scores in college admissions?
Heck, anyone can look great if they photoshop a pic of themselves on a “good hair day” + a pic from when they weighed 10 lbs less. Is the Emperor wearing clothes?
When I was applying to college, there was no score choice and very few schools superscored. I think that was a good thing since it kept gunners from taking the SAT a dozen times until they got the sectional scores they wanted. The schools saw your good hair and bad hair days that way!
@vamominvabeach, I wasn’t aware of colleges superscoring and I took the SAT once a few years after you did. If it was done, it wasn’t by many colleges back then.
My recollection is that colleges saw all score and expected the across to increase with each sitting. I never heard of super scoring. I took SAT twice because I did much worse than PSATs first time. I don’t recall kids doing multiple sittings. But also my understanding is that most kids don’t go up all that much even with classes and retakes.
Back in the dark ages, no one I knew took the test more than once. Heck, some of us took the SAT and the Achievement Tests (aka Subject Tests) on the same day since the Achievement Tests used to be offered in the afternoon.
Once and done on an October day during Senior year.
OTOH, with one kid who truly does have test anxiety, I can see the plus factor for a second take.
I support the opportunity for retakes. Something that is weighed so heavily shouldn’t be dependent on one day. The high school transcript is composed of multiple semesters, so that a good one can balance out a bad one. So too should students have the chance to improve on a performance that doesn’t reflect their abilities.
Isn’t the real purpose of superscoring to allow colleges to report that their admitted classes have ever-higher test scores? (Just look at the disproportionate number of somewhat lower test score kids admitted for starting in spring semester at some colleges – and remember that those students’ test scores don’t get included in the college’s average.)
I graduated high school in 1990. I was trying very hard to get into an out of state school that really wanted a certain SAT or ACT score for OOS applicants. I believe I took the SAT twice and the ACT twice. The school did superscore the SAT but not the ACT. I was 50 points off what they wanted on the SAT and 1 or 2 points off on the ACT. I got wait listed. I finally went over to the school on my Spring break, sat down with an admissions officer, told them how much I wanted to be at their school, and let them know I was accepted at competing schools. I was passionate. I got my acceptance in the mail a week later. Because that all of that was pretty dramatic stuff for a kid, I remember most of it pretty well, but don’t recall my exact scores - haha!
Is there anything that precludes schools that do NOT superscore to report the highest individual scores of their enrolled class. The devil is in the details.
I doubt that there’s all that much over-testing. I haven’t seen the stats on how many kids take the test more than twice, but I suspect its not very many.
Many decades ago, I took it twice, and that was it. My match scores were the equivalent of and 800, and a 730. I don’t remember what the variation was in my verbal. My kids took it twice and we lived with what we had then.
At the most selective schools, I doubt very much that they really discriminate much among kids who are above say, 750. It would be interesting to see the instances of the most tests taken correlated with scores. If I had to guess, it would be from kids scoring in the high 600s attempting to get something that started with a “7”, but that’s just a guess.
That was out house exactly. D got her low side mid 700s and stood pat. S was mid 600s and did a retake to bump a bit. He did but nothing starting with a 7. Neither kid would prep - just walked in and took it. D’s scores confirmed her grades. S’s consistent scores (with a slight bump) over 2 tests I think confirmed that he is capable and evened out the highs and lows of his academic record. He was also quite even over math and reading both times which I think helped with the picture of a bright, competent boy with just a touch of ADHD
