Is it suddenly harder to get high score in SAT or were people always lying?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think what is happening is the College board is releasing score percentiles by test and then averaging those to report. My kid took the test twice to superscore into the 1%. His friends, many of whom are Asian, would take it as many times as they had to until they hit 1550 and were preparing for years..literally starting in 8th grade. Two kids took it four to five times. There was a stampede to get to the SAT before it went digital in that group. My kid did digital because he didn’t want to bother traveling and staying in a hotel to take it earlier on paper.

This entire group of kids reports as being over 1550 but that isn’t counting superscore and the numerous retakes. This doesn’t even factor in the cheating rings that are out there.

So what college board is reporting is not what is actually being reported to colleges.

I thought that I have been around the SAT block...I have never heard this.

DP. I think this is (was?) much more of a thing internationally than domestically. I've never heard of it in the US, not even on reddit, whereas cheating was significant and common internationally, so common that at one point, College Board had to stop all tests in a few countries.

My understanding is that the move to digital was, in large part, to combat this cheating. No idea whether that has been successful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1560 is at the 99th percentile.

1 in 100 is a lot of people.

Also 1560 is the top 1% of single-sitting scores, but most colleges take superscores. So it’s even more people.

You’re an idiot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1560 is at the 99th percentile.

1 in 100 is a lot of people.

Also 1560 is the top 1% of single-sitting scores, but most colleges take superscores. So it’s even more people.

You’re an idiot

Ah, the scintillating discourse of DCUM.

[Anonymous]

I thought the SAT was distributed on a curve so there are always the same number of high scorers.

I have never seen data on how many kids submit a super score but my hunch is such a significant amount that the scores are significantly increased. Like maybe makes it so 10% of kids get above a 1500? Also, my older kid took the ACT so there are all those high scorers too.

Ironically and sadly a super score didn’t help my kid. Oh well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1560 is at the 99th percentile.

1 in 100 is a lot of people.

Also 1560 is the top 1% of single-sitting scores, but most colleges take superscores. So it’s even more people.

You’re an idiot

Ah, the scintillating discourse of DCUM.

Just putting it in words an idiot can understand.

[Anonymous]

I think there are a lot 1550+ scores getting reported due to retakes, super score, acceleration, intense prepping or cheating.

The math section is very easy if you’ve already done AP Calculus BC or higher. The reading section is ‘preppable’ if it’s not intuitive to your kid. What can make some kids score lower is not really practicing if they need pray, text anxiety or a propensity to make careless mistakes.

The test is optimized for diligent grinders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:On DCUM, there was always a large percentage of parents from magnet schools and other highly rated schools from DMV, and their kids were high achievers from the earliest grades.

These parents were super clued in about what the top universities or the most rigorous majors required. So, for these students getting extremely high scores in SAT/ACT was not something that was impossible. It was a given.

Many of these parents are now panicking because they were banking on getting their sub-par spawn into HYPSM via a legacy hook, but suddenly trump is trying to level the playing field by eliminating the legacy admission boost.

How very cruel of him to level the playing field.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:just remember when people tell you their score, they're reporting the superscore.

my kids never scored over a 1500 on the paper or digital tests. but all three would say their SAT scores were 1530-1560. people say the score they reported on the common app.

also, every cycle there are kids who take it 8 times and their parents can't believe they can't break 1500. every dang time. it's not as easy as reddit has you believe.

This is why it's more meaningful to report a single best score to colleges. A one-shot high score means more than a superscore. Both can be good, but they are different.

nope, disagree. you have to remember why colleges want scores: 1) to show their admissions team this kid can do the work. a very very single seating is impressive, but superscore or single seating works for this. 2) to report to public (and now govt) via CDS - superscore, they want the best number possible. 3) to show faculty via internal memos - superscore, they want the best number possible. 4) to show trustees - superscore, they want the best number possible.

I am tenured faculty (and have admin responsiblities) and have never ever received an internal memo about SAT scores. I also don't believe our trustees are this granular: the information they receive is shockingly thin.

Thanks for that. I believe you.

Can I ask then:

- who is it at the universities who drives this endless pursuit of higher SATs? Is it the admissions office alone? The president? A combination of the two?

Are admins primarily chasing USNWR rank? Or are they truly trying to improve the kids education we pay for?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:just remember when people tell you their score, they're reporting the superscore.

my kids never scored over a 1500 on the paper or digital tests. but all three would say their SAT scores were 1530-1560. people say the score they reported on the common app.

also, every cycle there are kids who take it 8 times and their parents can't believe they can't break 1500. every dang time. it's not as easy as reddit has you believe.

This is why it's more meaningful to report a single best score to colleges. A one-shot high score means more than a superscore. Both can be good, but they are different.

nope, disagree. you have to remember why colleges want scores: 1) to show their admissions team this kid can do the work. a very very single seating is impressive, but superscore or single seating works for this. 2) to report to public (and now govt) via CDS - superscore, they want the best number possible. 3) to show faculty via internal memos - superscore, they want the best number possible. 4) to show trustees - superscore, they want the best number possible.

I am tenured faculty (and have admin responsiblities) and have never ever received an internal memo about SAT scores. I also don't believe our trustees are this granular: the information they receive is shockingly thin.

Thanks for that. I believe you.

Can I ask then:

- who is it at the universities who drives this endless pursuit of higher SATs? Is it the admissions office alone? The president? A combination of the two?

Are admins primarily chasing USNWR rank? Or are they truly trying to improve the kids education we pay for?

Who said anyone cares? Most admissions officers care about grades more than SEC scores.

DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:On DCUM, there was always a large percentage of parents from magnet schools and other highly rated schools from DMV, and their kids were high achievers from the earliest grades.

These parents were super clued in about what the top universities or the most rigorous majors required. So, for these students getting extremely high scores in SAT/ACT was not something that was impossible. It was a given.

Nothing is ever given. That comes off as entitlement or delusional thinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought the SAT was distributed on a curve so there are always the same number of high scorers.

I have never seen data on how many kids submit a super score but my hunch is such a significant amount that the scores are significantly increased. Like maybe makes it so 10% of kids get above a 1500? Also, my older kid took the ACT so there are all those high scorers too.

Ironically and sadly a super score didn’t help my kid. Oh well.

This just underscores how many people in the DCUM bubble have no concept of "average." Average high school in rural Minnesota. Average inner city high school. Average high school across town.

Does 10% of Sidwell or Churchill gets above a 1500 superscore? Maybe. Maaaaaybe. Of all SAT takers - ha!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought the SAT was distributed on a curve so there are always the same number of high scorers.

I have never seen data on how many kids submit a super score but my hunch is such a significant amount that the scores are significantly increased. Like maybe makes it so 10% of kids get above a 1500? Also, my older kid took the ACT so there are all those high scorers too.

Ironically and sadly a super score didn’t help my kid. Oh well.

This just underscores how many people in the DCUM bubble have no concept of "average." Average high school in rural Minnesota. Average inner city high school. Average high school across town.

Does 10% of Sidwell or Churchill gets above a 1500 superscore? Maybe. Maaaaaybe. Of all SAT takers - ha!

People do know what average means. We go to DCUM because we know we can find a cohort. Most posters must know these questions can be anxiety-provoking and meaningless if you ask the wrong person. But DCUM lets people _brag_ about their wunderkinds Both of my kids did really well on the SAT on the first try as a junior and sophomore, respectively (1550 paper and 1580 digital). Where else would people even care to hear what I learned from their SAT experiences? That’s what DCUM is for!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our oldest is a junior so only recently started taking SAT/ACT. Before we had or own first hand experience, we used to hear everyone got 1560-1590 in their SAT. After the first couple tries, all the so called smart kids at our school only got 1420-1480. Is the scoring tougher now or were people always exaggerating?

1560-1590 is higher thank 99.5% of the people who took the SAT.


No, you don't know multiple kids at your school who scored in that range.

Look at your school's naviance. It shows the scores.

Maybe 1 or 2 kids per school score that high, on a good year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I had one kid taking the SAT in 2022 (when it was on paper) and one who took the digital year. Lots of kids at their private getting over 1500 both years

I bet if you looked at Naviance, you eould see that very few kids at your private school scored over 1500.

Our high performing high school has between 625-725 seniors on a given year. In all the years we have had kids there, naviance only shows around a dozen kids breaking 1500 on the SAT.

There is zero chance that your private school with a senior class of a couple hundred kids has "lots" of kids scoring over 1500.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had one kid taking the SAT in 2022 (when it was on paper) and one who took the digital year. Lots of kids at their private getting over 1500 both years

I bet if you looked at Naviance, you eould see that very few kids at your private school scored over 1500.

Our high performing high school has between 625-725 seniors on a given year. In all the years we have had kids there, naviance only shows around a dozen kids breaking 1500 on the SAT.

There is zero chance that your private school with a senior class of a couple hundred kids has "lots" of kids scoring over 1500.

What is “lots”? Our public school in NJ has about 80 in a class of 375.