8/23/25 SAT scores out

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think if forced to choose, college professors would rather teach high SAT/low GPA kids than low SAT/ high GPA kids.

I wonder why that is?

Because ...

Based on data compiled across 139 colleges in 2023, these graphs show the percentage of students expected to be in the top 1% of income earners based on their career status at age 25. As you can see, higher standardized test scores (left graph) correlate very well with future economic success; one’s High School GPA (right graph) shows no such correlation, and instead is consistent with a flat, uncorrelated distribution.

Hmm ... this graph seems to indicate that my DC will earn a higher income if she got a 1430 (95th percentile) on SAT versus a 1500 (98th percentile). The income dot is higher at around 1430-ish than 1500-ish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Senior disappointed as they consistently score about 50 points lower in the room than at home. This was third time and they seem to have maxed out at a 1450 - obviously not terrible but they've studied hard.

This is my DS exactly. Hard to see him so disappointed because he’s such a great kid. He’s feeling some schools are out since he can’t crack 1500.

Same here. Can’t crack it, still in lower 1400s and having to decide whether to submit.

This is why we need to go back to test required.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think if forced to choose, college professors would rather teach high SAT/low GPA kids than low SAT/ high GPA kids.

I wonder why that is?

Because ...

Based on data compiled across 139 colleges in 2023, these graphs show the percentage of students expected to be in the top 1% of income earners based on their career status at age 25. As you can see, higher standardized test scores (left graph) correlate very well with future economic success; one’s High School GPA (right graph) shows no such correlation, and instead is consistent with a flat, uncorrelated distribution.

Now show me the data that professors want to teach high income earners rather a budding social worker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread seems to have a lot of "perfect GPA/ high rigor" kids who are surprised their kids are scoring in the 1300-1400 range (still a great score)!

I think what this shows is that grading standards at high schools (especially public ones) have become so inflated that GPA is a barely meaningful metric any more. Also demonstrates the folly of test optional policies.

Every high school is different. Every kid is different. Test scores should not be dispositive in the admissions context, but it is undeniably useful to have a single uniform and unbiased metric for all kids in the admissions pool (if only to normalize the wildly different quality and grading standards across high schools).

It's also helpful for students to understand their own strengths and weaknesses.

Another +1

In our school (a top private outside DMV), it’s quite common for a junior to get 1470-1550 in their first try, some after trying in 10th grade and getting 1430+, yet none of these kids has ever experienced a 4.0 in their life. They often have 3.7-3.85 GPAs. And before anyone says they must have tests prep tutors to achieve those high SATs, I can tell you our DCs didn’t and you have to then also ask why couldn’t those same tutors help them get the elusive 4.0.

I think schools that inflate GPAs have shot themselves in the foot because they invite college admissions to question the rigor of their curriculum. And when a school sends in 60 applications same year all with indistinguishable 4.0, top rigor, multiple club leaderships and school awards, the easiest way for admissions officers is to reject all of them.

Last year, 5 kids out of 110 in our school cracked 3.9 for their GPA; they all got into HYPMS, as did some with 3.85-3.89.

So what you’re saying is that greater wealth equates to greater test scores? And this is surprising how exactly?

you're reading comp is failing you. they're saying your test scores are meaningful and those 4.0s are not. half of all US high school grads have a 4.0 now.

No, I get exactly what they’re saying. But if we declare GPAs meaningless and only consider test scores, then the wealthier students will be favored on average. Is that what we want?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think if forced to choose, college professors would rather teach high SAT/low GPA kids than low SAT/ high GPA kids.

I wonder why that is?

Because ...

Based on data compiled across 139 colleges in 2023, these graphs show the percentage of students expected to be in the top 1% of income earners based on their career status at age 25. As you can see, higher standardized test scores (left graph) correlate very well with future economic success; one’s High School GPA (right graph) shows no such correlation, and instead is consistent with a flat, uncorrelated distribution.

Hmm ... this graph seems to indicate that my DC will earn a higher income if she got a 1430 (95th percentile) on SAT versus a 1500 (98th percentile). The income dot is higher at around 1430-ish than 1500-ish.

3.4-3.5 GPA also seems to be a sweet spot. So, basically, they’re all going to be just fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread seems to have a lot of "perfect GPA/ high rigor" kids who are surprised their kids are scoring in the 1300-1400 range (still a great score)!

I think what this shows is that grading standards at high schools (especially public ones) have become so inflated that GPA is a barely meaningful metric any more. Also demonstrates the folly of test optional policies.

Every high school is different. Every kid is different. Test scores should not be dispositive in the admissions context, but it is undeniably useful to have a single uniform and unbiased metric for all kids in the admissions pool (if only to normalize the wildly different quality and grading standards across high schools).

It's also helpful for students to understand their own strengths and weaknesses.

Another +1

In our school (a top private outside DMV), it’s quite common for a junior to get 1470-1550 in their first try, some after trying in 10th grade and getting 1430+, yet none of these kids has ever experienced a 4.0 in their life. They often have 3.7-3.85 GPAs. And before anyone says they must have tests prep tutors to achieve those high SATs, I can tell you our DCs didn’t and you have to then also ask why couldn’t those same tutors help them get the elusive 4.0.

I think schools that inflate GPAs have shot themselves in the foot because they invite college admissions to question the rigor of their curriculum. And when a school sends in 60 applications same year all with indistinguishable 4.0, top rigor, multiple club leaderships and school awards, the easiest way for admissions officers is to reject all of them.

Last year, 5 kids out of 110 in our school cracked 3.9 for their GPA; they all got into HYPMS, as did some with 3.85-3.89.

When you have an entrance exam to get into the high school, you can't take credit for the school's amazing SAT scores. My DD's school is the same way. But these girls all killed it in 8th grade on their entrance test. Not surprising they're high SAT scorers, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think if forced to choose, college professors would rather teach high SAT/low GPA kids than low SAT/ high GPA kids.

I wonder why that is?

Because ...

Based on data compiled across 139 colleges in 2023, these graphs show the percentage of students expected to be in the top 1% of income earners based on their career status at age 25. As you can see, higher standardized test scores (left graph) correlate very well with future economic success; one’s High School GPA (right graph) shows no such correlation, and instead is consistent with a flat, uncorrelated distribution.

Now show me the data that professors want to teach high income earners rather a budding social worker.

Right? What academic is rubbing their hands together just hoping they have future d-bag tech bros and big law walking heart attacks in their midst?

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread seems to have a lot of "perfect GPA/ high rigor" kids who are surprised their kids are scoring in the 1300-1400 range (still a great score)!

I think what this shows is that grading standards at high schools (especially public ones) have become so inflated that GPA is a barely meaningful metric any more. Also demonstrates the folly of test optional policies.

Every high school is different. Every kid is different. Test scores should not be dispositive in the admissions context, but it is undeniably useful to have a single uniform and unbiased metric for all kids in the admissions pool (if only to normalize the wildly different quality and grading standards across high schools).

It's also helpful for students to understand their own strengths and weaknesses.

Another +1

In our school (a top private outside DMV), it’s quite common for a junior to get 1470-1550 in their first try, some after trying in 10th grade and getting 1430+, yet none of these kids has ever experienced a 4.0 in their life. They often have 3.7-3.85 GPAs. And before anyone says they must have tests prep tutors to achieve those high SATs, I can tell you our DCs didn’t and you have to then also ask why couldn’t those same tutors help them get the elusive 4.0.

I think schools that inflate GPAs have shot themselves in the foot because they invite college admissions to question the rigor of their curriculum. And when a school sends in 60 applications same year all with indistinguishable 4.0, top rigor, multiple club leaderships and school awards, the easiest way for admissions officers is to reject all of them.

Last year, 5 kids out of 110 in our school cracked 3.9 for their GPA; they all got into HYPMS, as did some with 3.85-3.89.

So what you’re saying is that greater wealth equates to greater test scores? And this is surprising how exactly?

Ability to full pay and apply ED doesn't hurt either.

[Anonymous]

To normalize, my DC with LDs got a 1200. Not going to submit it for college applications (not selective schools in any event) but proud of his hard work. Sharing the score in solidarity with other parents who have shared "low" scores. And to the PP who said such *kids* are "mediocre," shame on you. Sure, that score is not good, but my kid is an absolute delight and in no way a mediocre person, not that there is anything wrong with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My senior just hit 1500, which was the goal he set this time last year.

It took four sittings over the past year, along with one group class last fall and then a 1v1 tutor in the spring and one more 1v1 tutor this summer. When he got his score this morning, he shouted out from his room that he will “NEVER, EVER” take that awful test again!

that's exactly my senior. But it was in June.

[Anonymous]

I think schools that inflate GPAs have shot themselves in the foot because they invite college admissions to question the rigor of their curriculum. And when a school sends in 60 applications same year all with indistinguishable 4.0, top rigor, multiple club leaderships and school awards, the easiest way for admissions officers is to reject all of them.

This is ... not a major problem at my son's high school. I realize it may be at high schools in more affluent areas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think if forced to choose, college professors would rather teach high SAT/low GPA kids than low SAT/ high GPA kids.

I wonder why that is?

Because ...

Based on data compiled across 139 colleges in 2023, these graphs show the percentage of students expected to be in the top 1% of income earners based on their career status at age 25. As you can see, higher standardized test scores (left graph) correlate very well with future economic success; one’s High School GPA (right graph) shows no such correlation, and instead is consistent with a flat, uncorrelated distribution.

Hmm ... this graph seems to indicate that my DC will earn a higher income if she got a 1430 (95th percentile) on SAT versus a 1500 (98th percentile). The income dot is higher at around 1430-ish than 1500-ish.

Also, there is about a 5% point difference between 1300 and 1600. That range doesn't convince me that a 1600 clearly gives you an advantage in earning potential.

[Anonymous]

My kid got a 1520 (not sure what the breakdown is) and is mad about it. Sigh. Their first attempt, just started junior year. If only I had gotten close to that!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think if forced to choose, college professors would rather teach high SAT/low GPA kids than low SAT/ high GPA kids.

I wonder why that is?

https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/SAT_ACT_on_Grades.pdf

"Students with higher SAT/ACT scores are more likely to have higher college GPAs than their peers with lower scores"

"high school GPA does little to predict academic success in college."

This was a limited study based on a tiny subset of college students.