I am a volunteer college coach, and coincidentally, one of my students scored a 1560. The dad asked if it’s worth retaking, and I told him “Nope. Congrats, she is done with testing.”
2 Likes
This is counterintuitive and interesting. Did the report separate SAT math from SAT EBRW and isolate the findings by majors? One would think SAT EBRW has no bearing on a STEM major, while SAT math might have a noticeable impact. Likewise, SAT math is probably irrelevant to a history major but SAT EBRW might play some role. Anyway, thanks for the breakdown!
When I wrote that, I was merely giving an example to illustrate a point. See quote below for context, including the “e.g.”
Although this is just an example, I do think that an SAT math score of below 500 is concerning for a STEM student. The student most likely have not grasped some very, very basic math concepts taught in high school such as fractions, linear equations, exponents, quadratics. As a result, they likely will be lost one month into a pre-calc or calc I or an introductory engineering class.
For instance, you give them a problem that is not multiple choice, they either have no idea how to start, or they’ll try to apply what they “learned” from lectures/textbooks. But when you read their work carefully, you’ll find errors in pretty much every step. There is a lot of “oh no, you can’t simplify them like that” or “how did you go from this to that?” Due to the lack of fundamentals, some of them never answer a single exam question correctly the entire semester. I have encountered this situation time and again, and that’s what I meant by “they will struggle” in my example.
They didn’t believe it guaranteed anything, only that it improved their chances. Likewise, they didn’t believe it gave them a good chance. Only a better chance. As they saw it (rightfully it turned out) they had no chance with a 1560 for their desired schools and they wanted to have a chance, and were willing to do whatever it took to try to make it happen.
In areas with high concentrations of overachieving students, lots of them, up and down the scale. A substantial portion of such families seem to be pushing to get marginal improvement out of their score, to get themselves up to whatever they envision to be the next tier. Kids with 1470s are striving to get to 1500. Kids with 1500 are busting their butts to get to 1550. Kids with 1250 are working and working to get themselves to 1300. The cult is real.
Parent and students alike vastly overvalue these tests. (Why else would we have thread after thread like this one?).
And IMO this is in part why colleges are moving away from. It is to send students, families, advisors, HSs, etc. a message. The juice is not worth the squeeze.
1 Like
It depends on the context, but in rare situations your advice may not have been sound. In my opinion the fact that there is even a question points to the absurdity of the system.
I’m the one who brought this up, so I’ll answer. 
It doesn’t really matter how many people are really like that. I know anecdotally from reading things here for a few years and from speaking with other people I know that there are plenty of adults out there who still assume (because they’re uninformed and are unaware of how college admissions has really changed in the last 40 years) that a perfect SAT or ACT score & a 4.0 GPA is a golden ticket to many high-ranked schools.
MY personal theory is that maybe some of that category of uninformed adults/well-intentioned adults end up reading some of the multitude of media articles about SAT/ACT test scores AND they then add that to their anecdotal examples in real life of people who had high GPA+high test scores, applied foolishly to almost all reach schools, and then ended up either not getting in anywhere or ONLY getting in to the 1 in-state public that they hate and never wanted to attend anyway…
…and it’s THOSE people who cry to the heavens, “IT’S JUST NOT FAIR!”
…and, I don’t know…maybe some of that then reciprocally feeds media organizations posting high-click-worthy articles that stir up feelings in readers of the good old days when it was mostly a formula based on GPA & test score for where you got accepted.
There’s colleges in this country that have been doing TO for a really long time and they have a good system in place for THEIR SPECIFIC college/university that works for them.
How could anyone look at a school that accepts 5% of applicants and think that their kid has a good chance? My own kid, who attends a BASIS charter school in AZ, has classmates who think this…classmates are “standard strong,” but haven’t cured cancer yet or flown to the moon…classmates who right now are applying anyway to Stanford even though it’s a lottery school for almost everybody…classmates who apply anyway right now to Stanford despite their college counselor at the HS advising them NOT TO BOTHER because despite the 1580 SAT and 4.0+ GPA that you have, NO, YOU WON’T BE GETTING IN THERE.
I guarantee you that come March, some of those parents in the collective universe out there will be thinking, “this is all just so random!” and “It’s not fair!” No…it’s not random. Sorry, but the odds are that, for example, 94% of Stanford applicants will get rejected. So hey Eager Beaver Charter School Kid, the odds are 94% that you are NOT what Stanford is looking for and it probably has NOTHING to do with your almost perfect test score.
</ending soap box time>
3 Likes
The above points to a fundamental problem with the current admissions system-it is neither transparent nor predictable, unlike in most countries.
That causes a lot of stress.
5 Likes
Specific numbers are below. There is almost always going to be some degree of correlation, even if the test does not cover anything that is directly relevant to the course. For example, I’d expect there would be a correlation between your score on Candy Crush and how well you do in a US history class, even though there is not a direct relationship between the two. It wouldn’t be a high correlation, but it would be non-zero. If you instead tested something more directly related such as ability to write quality essays and past performance in APUSH, I’d expect a higher correlation.
% Within Course Grade Variation Explained by Math SAT
Natural Sciences – 13%
Social Sciences – 10%
Engineering – 7%
Humanities – 5%
% Within Course Grade Variation Explained by Reading SAT
Social Sciences – 13%
Humanities – 7%
Natural Sciences – 7%
Engineering – 3%
% Within Course Grade Variation Explained by Average HS GPA + SAT Sections
Social Sciences – 19% (highest weightings are GPA + SAT Reading)
Natural Sciences – 19% (highest weightings are SAT Math + GPA)
Humanities – 12% (highest weightings are GPA + SAT Reading)
Engineering – 11% (highest weightings are GPA + SAT Math)
2 Likes
There are students who KNOW they have a good chance. Examples of students who know are ALDC, and winners of major STEM and humanities awards (some awards result in admit rates of 60%+). If you aren’t in these or similar groups, your chances are likely considerably worse than 5%.
2 Likes
People often confuse correlation with causation. I am not saying you did it here, but consider what MIT said about 740 math scores vs 800 math scores.
4 Likes
Only if you are shooting for T20 or bust. The good thing about the US university system is the sheer number and variety of colleges available, both public and private. Every strong student will almost certainly get into an excellent college where they will receive a great education, IF they cast a wider net than HYPSM. If you build a good, balanced college list - including a solid safety or two - there really shouldn’t be extreme stress.
2 Likes
The cult of the tests is so strong that not even what MIT says about test scores is enough to convince families that chasing after scores is a waste of time.
1 Like
It doesn’t sound counterintuitive when you realize that Merced has a mix of (probably higher potential/more ambitious/hardworking) Central Valley kids from schools where SAT scores are low, plus somewhat less accomplished (and therefore perhaps lower potential/less ambitious/hardworking) Bay Area kids from schools where SAT scores are higher. Whereas Berkeley and UCLA attract high potential/high ambition/hardworking students from across the state.
You would be better looking at a state with a more uniform educational system and/or a flagship university which is a choice for strong students throughout the state.
1 Like
This. There is a strong component of “controlling the admissions process” that comes into play when discussing testing. AOs want to shape their class as they fit, and there are student families that want to be able to expend effort to achieve their goals. The testing issue shifts some of the control (and transparency) one way or the other.
Yes, it would be relieved by not hyperfocusing on tippy top schools, but many including Chetty are pushing the advantages of such schools…
There is a cult of achievement, whether it be tests, or grades, or violin playing, or sports, or non-profit founding… it’s all the same.
3 Likes
See @hebegebe’s post on correlation and causation directly above. When a 1570 doesn’t move the needle, then how does testing shift control to the families?
It’s not all the same. Playing violin has value beyond college admissions, or it least it should. A college admissions test is only that.
I expect the odds of admission for kids with perfect test score are far more than 6%. Stanford Magazine reported that kids with a perfect 2400 SAT (back when there were 3 sections) had a 31% admit rate during the 2007-2013 period. During this period the overall admit rate was ~7%. I suspect this higher admit rate for perfect SAT score kids more relates to things the university values that are correlated with the high score than the score itself, as hebegebe discusses in more detail above.
If you have perfect knowledge, I expect admission to be quite predictable. This includes things like knowing how admission readers will rate your course rigor, intellectual vitality, ECs/awards, LORs, essays, interview, …; knowing whether you fall into a hook or institutional need category and how much it is valued; and knowing how you compare to the applicant pool that year. However, this type of information is not available. What is available is stats, so people often focus on stats, rather than the other important parts of application that aren’t as clear. If your stats are in range of admits, many assume that means you have a good chance of admission. If admission decisions are wildly inconsistent for applicants with stats in that range, it means decisions are random or "a crap shoot ".
In spite of this lack of clarity, there are some kids who do have exceptionally high chance of admission. For example, I have a relative who had near perfect stats. In addition to the near perfect stats, the student also was a recruited athlete for a revenue earning sport, a triple legacy (divorced), an URM, and had notable academic + personal achievements outside of the classroom. I doubt that it was a big surprise that the student was accepted.
3 Likes
I am not worried about T20 schools. Kids should have a strong idea of whether they will get into their state flagship, and many do not know, at least in Cali, it seems.
2 Likes
In the case of California, however, the state flagship is a T20…But there are many and diverse UC campuses and many and diverse CSU campuses, all offering an excellent education at a great value. Every student in California has a near-guaranteed pathway to a solid education (whether at a UC, a CSU, or a CCC to UC transfer).
1 Like
This is where the beauty of a McGill comes in for many. Look up the grades and scores in your area of study, and you pretty much know the outcome before applying.
5 Likes
Yes, that is true everywhere, but not relevant. There are always fine schools available, regardless of gpa, scores, or any other qualifications. It seems reasonable to expect that state taxpayers know with reasonable certainty ahead of time their chances of admission to a flagship, or other major state university, and frankly that seems quite arbitrary in Cali.
1 Like