Great grades but bast test scores

[Anonymous]

^ ACT score, not SAT.

[Anonymous]

UC schools. No tests necessary. They test you on subjects prior to signing up to classes to determine levels.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
If there are no special needs involved, there is no such thing as "doesn't test well". What it means is that there is grade inflation at your kids' school, and the national standardized test score reflects his true performance.

You can help with that by paying for test prep and tutoring. I recommend the senior tutors at Prep Matters, but they're incredibly expensive (they did wonders for my son, though - got him from a 28 to a 35).

I'm sorry, but that's not necessarily true. I know because I went to a pretty demanding prep school where there was no grade inflation, but some of the smartest kids got worse SAT scores than others. Some of them really earned their very good grades, but just didn't shine on standardized testing. Just as high test scores and worse grades doesn't necessarily indicate grade deflation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If there are no special needs involved, there is no such thing as "doesn't test well". What it means is that there is grade inflation at your kids' school, and the national standardized test score reflects his true performance.

You can help with that by paying for test prep and tutoring. I recommend the senior tutors at Prep Matters, but they're incredibly expensive (they did wonders for my son, though - got him from a 28 to a 35).

I'm sorry, but that's not necessarily true. I know because I went to a pretty demanding prep school where there was no grade inflation, but some of the smartest kids got worse SAT scores than others. Some of them really earned their very good grades, but just didn't shine on standardized testing. Just as high test scores and worse grades doesn't necessarily indicate grade deflation.

There are people on this board who constantly say this, that there is no such thing as being a bad test taker. I absolutely believe and know that there is. My DS had a very strong PSAT but when he took the SAT and ACT, he was much more nervous because of all that was riding on it. He is one who had very high GPA and a correspondingly average test score. he took the SAT three times and was almost always within the same 30 points. He did finally get a solid super score, but still lower than you'd expect for his GPA. He is now a sophomore at a great school and has a 4.0 GPA. So no, he's not dumb, he's just someone who gets anxious when it's a big test with alot riding on it. He does great in day to day tests, but when it defines you're entire life like the SAT, he gets anxious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
If there are no special needs involved, there is no such thing as "doesn't test well". What it means is that there is grade inflation at your kids' school, and the national standardized test score reflects his true performance.

You can help with that by paying for test prep and tutoring. I recommend the senior tutors at Prep Matters, but they're incredibly expensive (they did wonders for my son, though - got him from a 28 to a 35).

Boy, the College Board really has done a number on you. Standardized tests are not objective. They don’t measure “true performance,” whatever the hell that means. The only thing a standardized test score indicates is how you did on that standardized test. It has no relationship to the grades you get in school or any other measure of success.

[Anonymous]

Good grades are great, but he needs to have the course rigor too!

[Anonymous]

I have a kid in this category, although like others I wouldn’t use “bad” as the descriptor of his test scores. He’s very successful in school, has great activities, and should have excellent recommendations. His current plan is to go test optional but to take the SAT and ACT again in the spring just to keep his options open. He’s a junior, and right now his top choice is a long-standing TO school; most of the others he’s interested in are taking it year by year, so we’ll have to see what they decide for next year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If there are no special needs involved, there is no such thing as "doesn't test well". What it means is that there is grade inflation at your kids' school, and the national standardized test score reflects his true performance.

You can help with that by paying for test prep and tutoring. I recommend the senior tutors at Prep Matters, but they're incredibly expensive (they did wonders for my son, though - got him from a 28 to a 35).

Boy, the College Board really has done a number on you. Standardized tests are not objective. They don’t measure “true performance,” whatever the hell that means. The only thing a standardized test score indicates is how you did on that standardized test. It has no relationship to the grades you get in school or any other measure of success.

Exactly! Depending on the school and the major, you may not have very many exams and this that you have are unlikely to resemble the SAT/ACT. Being able to do well in class matter more IMO, but definitely a good test taker is also likely to be a good student (but a bad test taker does not mean someone is a bad student).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If there are no special needs involved, there is no such thing as "doesn't test well". What it means is that there is grade inflation at your kids' school, and the national standardized test score reflects his true performance.

You can help with that by paying for test prep and tutoring. I recommend the senior tutors at Prep Matters, but they're incredibly expensive (they did wonders for my son, though - got him from a 28 to a 35).

Boy, the College Board really has done a number on you. Standardized tests are not objective. They don’t measure “true performance,” whatever the hell that means. The only thing a standardized test score indicates is how you did on that standardized test. It has no relationship to the grades you get in school or any other measure of success.

Sorry, but the USA has gone crazy with the holistic admissions and "tests only measure how well you do on the test" garbage. The rest of the world still looks at national exams because they want intellectual cohorts in their universities. MIT, Georgetown and a few others here are the only ones who are prepared to lower their application numbers by bucking the trend and requiring test scores, because they prefer to take a dent on their popularity reputation rather than get a lower-quality cohort.

SAT, ACT, AP tests... they all indicate knowledge AND problem-solving abilities. They are an excellent indicator of how well a person will do in college and the workforce.

I say this, not because I approve of the College Board holding the entire US educational system hostage (actually I hate that idea), but because as a foreigner who has received education in multiple countries and taught at universities, I've experienced academic rigor both as a student and professor, and most American universities greatly lack academic rigor... because they don't select the right students. They force families to pay for 4 years of lackadaisical and often nebulous studies, which don't necessarily prepare young adults for the workforce. US higher education can so easily turn out to be an extremely expensive endeavor for so many families - it should really offer more transparency in its admissions, and better instruction once the students get on campus.

Of course you can point to deep problems at the K-12 level that pave the way for issues at the university level. High schools here do not operate with a specific federally-mandated curriculum, they don't give out the same end-of-high-school national exams, if they give exams at all, and they cannot easily be compared. A lot of high schools are just complete shitshows where no learning happens. Students graduating from such high schools aren't exactly prepared for a rigorous college experience anyway.

[Anonymous]

My kid is the opposite - low GPA at a Big3 private and pretty good test scores (32 ACT). I suspect a high GPA and TO is much better position to be in!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone else in this position? My junior has a great GPA, strong extracurriculars, and bad test scores. He apparently doesn't test well.

I know we can find some test prep assistance, but I guess I'm wondering if there is anything else to do to boost his chances. Or are enough schools test optional now to make this less of a problem?

Maybe your son doesn’t actually have a solid academic foundation. Lots is teachers just had out good grades for lazy work and lazy teaching. The SAT is incredibly easy if you’ve been half way awake in school. There’s nothing special about the SAT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kid is the opposite - low GPA at a Big3 private and pretty good test scores (32 ACT). I suspect a high GPA and TO is much better position to be in!

Should be fine at a rigorous private. How low? My Kid did well at top 15 SLACs with a 3.3. Plus Tulane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If there are no special needs involved, there is no such thing as "doesn't test well". What it means is that there is grade inflation at your kids' school, and the national standardized test score reflects his true performance.

You can help with that by paying for test prep and tutoring. I recommend the senior tutors at Prep Matters, but they're incredibly expensive (they did wonders for my son, though - got him from a 28 to a 35).

Boy, the College Board really has done a number on you. Standardized tests are not objective. They don’t measure “true performance,” whatever the hell that means. The only thing a standardized test score indicates is how you did on that standardized test. It has no relationship to the grades you get in school or any other measure of success.

Sorry, but the USA has gone crazy with the holistic admissions and "tests only measure how well you do on the test" garbage. The rest of the world still looks at national exams because they want intellectual cohorts in their universities. MIT, Georgetown and a few others here are the only ones who are prepared to lower their application numbers by bucking the trend and requiring test scores, because they prefer to take a dent on their popularity reputation rather than get a lower-quality cohort.

SAT, ACT, AP tests... they all indicate knowledge AND problem-solving abilities. They are an excellent indicator of how well a person will do in college and the workforce.

I say this, not because I approve of the College Board holding the entire US educational system hostage (actually I hate that idea), but because as a foreigner who has received education in multiple countries and taught at universities, I've experienced academic rigor both as a student and professor, and most American universities greatly lack academic rigor... because they don't select the right students. They force families to pay for 4 years of lackadaisical and often nebulous studies, which don't necessarily prepare young adults for the workforce. US higher education can so easily turn out to be an extremely expensive endeavor for so many families - it should really offer more transparency in its admissions, and better instruction once the students get on campus.

Of course you can point to deep problems at the K-12 level that pave the way for issues at the university level. High schools here do not operate with a specific federally-mandated curriculum, they don't give out the same end-of-high-school national exams, if they give exams at all, and they cannot easily be compared. A lot of high schools are just complete shitshows where no learning happens. Students graduating from such high schools aren't exactly prepared for a rigorous college experience anyway.

Fully agree with this.
The SAT being a combination of 10th grade math and basic English comprehension, a decent score should be a basic requirement... if US universities were not money machines eager to accept any average student with rich parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If there are no special needs involved, there is no such thing as "doesn't test well". What it means is that there is grade inflation at your kids' school, and the national standardized test score reflects his true performance.

You can help with that by paying for test prep and tutoring. I recommend the senior tutors at Prep Matters, but they're incredibly expensive (they did wonders for my son, though - got him from a 28 to a 35).

Boy, the College Board really has done a number on you. Standardized tests are not objective. They don’t measure “true performance,” whatever the hell that means. The only thing a standardized test score indicates is how you did on that standardized test. It has no relationship to the grades you get in school or any other measure of success.

Sure it does, it was designed to have predictive power and it does, just as grades are predictive of future performance. The two, in combination, are particularly predictive of college success.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
If there are no special needs involved, there is no such thing as "doesn't test well". What it means is that there is grade inflation at your kids' school, and the national standardized test score reflects his true performance.

You can help with that by paying for test prep and tutoring. I recommend the senior tutors at Prep Matters, but they're incredibly expensive (they did wonders for my son, though - got him from a 28 to a 35).

Do you remember how many hours of test prep he did? I looked and they are a la carte by the hour so I'm just curious how many hours it might be.