Obsession with “one and done”

[Anonymous]

The only reason I think “one and done” makes a difference is really more of my issue with superscoring. I know kids who have take sat or act first time, and then strategized just focusing on say math OR verbal on a second/thurs test to have a high superscore. In those cases, the strong composites are attributable in part to “test taking strategy” instead of just skill, knowledge, studying (hard work). If superscoring was eliminated, then I agree op, in fact I’d applaud a kid for taking the test once, seeing where they might need to study more, and trying again. But right now standardized testing has become a game.

[Anonymous]

My kid did not prep notwithstanding my plentiful suggestions to hire coaches and tutors. He took it three times using the tests as practice to be honest. Improved a bit. Going from 32 to 35 by super score only but not really much individually each time.

More than anything you are rewarded if you practice a ton so that you can finish the questions in time. The ACT is a time game. And the more you practice the better you will do.

It does not test innate knowledge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Serious question. A lot of people on here strongly advocate for a “one and done” approach to testing or say that kids should be limited to taking the SAT or ACT twice. I really don’t get that. Why does it matter? I understand the socioeconomic argument that kids who can afford coaching will have an advantage, but that doesn’t seem to be the motivation for most of the posters here who push for limits. This seems to be a mantra of parents who are taking issue with schools’ acceptance rates, individual decisions, etc.

I would genuinely like to understand the arguments. If a kid learns from mistakes or studies and improves between tests isn’t that a measure of success as a student? Of their ability to learn? What is the crucial significance in your opinion of getting your score in only one or two tries?

One reason is range restriction. The kid who crushes standardized testing with a 36 - 1600 on their first attempt isn’t able to “push for more” because the test itself has a scoring ceiling, right?

[Anonymous]

If only one chance were allowed, students would simply not sit for an official test until they were certain they were ready to make their highest potential score. I think that's how students should approach their testing strategy in any event, though seats for August senior year would be even more full.

As it stands, my kids who tend to be high scoring and advanced in math I advise to take August of junior year, so that summer prep doubles for PSAT. Then, they might be one and done. We thought my senior was one and done on the Aug junior SAT when he scored north of 1500, though his school required a spring junior year SAT and he increased one section, a nice bonus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I encouraged my son to be "one and done" because I didn't think his test score was all that important in the grand scheme of things. The time he could spend on additional test prep could be better used studying for class, socializing, volunteering, working out, sleeping, etc. (He ended up taking it multiple times to get his verbal up, but that was his choice. He didn't really prep for the second and third sittings.)

I could not care less if other people are one and done. Whatever works for them.

How much did he get though? Probably a high score so of course...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For some reason, folks think the colleges are more impressed by one sitting of a decent score then a million scores that are superscored since maybe it means you focused on one section at a time instead of being able to do a good job in one sitting?

My pre-covid DS took the ACT like 6 times(his choice, not mine). He could have gotten a superscore of 35 if he submitted like 5 tests to do it. Instead he submitted a 34 one sitting. He got into all of his targets and 2 reaches, but not the other reaches. Not sure if it was the right strategy but it was the one he wanted and believed would work.

DD took the ACT 2 times. Second test she scored a 34 in one sitting, but her superscore (also a 34) has a higher English (36 vs. 35). Is there any evidence that colleges ARE more impressed with one sitting of a decent score? DD still deciding about taking it again but is leaning towards not taking it.

[Anonymous]

I don’t think your premise is right. I’m in education and also fairly obsessed with college admissions boards like this and I don’t think there’s a big “one and done” push. The only context I hear it is for high achieving, busy students. Then it’s a strategy that basically suggests prepping for a short time (10 weeks or less) with the hopes the score is what they want and they can move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I encouraged my son to be "one and done" because I didn't think his test score was all that important in the grand scheme of things. The time he could spend on additional test prep could be better used studying for class, socializing, volunteering, working out, sleeping, etc. (He ended up taking it multiple times to get his verbal up, but that was his choice. He didn't really prep for the second and third sittings.)

I could not care less if other people are one and done. Whatever works for them.

How much did he get though? Probably a high score so of course...

Yes and no. His first sitting, 770M and IIRC 610 Verbal? Second was 780M and maybe 630 verbal. Third sitting he got his verbal up to 700 and decided he was done. So, superscore of 1480. Right in the wheelhouse for the schools on his list (Villanova, BC, Wake) but not exceptional for any of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Serious question. A lot of people on here strongly advocate for a “one and done” approach to testing or say that kids should be limited to taking the SAT or ACT twice. I really don’t get that. Why does it matter? I understand the socioeconomic argument that kids who can afford coaching will have an advantage, but that doesn’t seem to be the motivation for most of the posters here who push for limits. This seems to be a mantra of parents who are taking issue with schools’ acceptance rates, individual decisions, etc.

I would genuinely like to understand the arguments. If a kid learns from mistakes or studies and improves between tests isn’t that a measure of success as a student? Of their ability to learn? What is the crucial significance in your opinion of getting your score in only one or two tries?

For us, it is just part of the escalation of the college arms race. Whereas back in the day when no superscoring, you take it maybe twice at most and you apply to like 5 colleges (because you are typing out each application). Now there are kids taking it 3+ times, applying to 20 colleges, etc.

Superscoring has completely skewed things. You can create a very high score out of two or more good but not great scores (at least what DCUM considers great). Definitely know kids that never cracked 1500 in one sitting that superscored to over a 1550 by focusing their prep on one section over another.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I encouraged my son to be "one and done" because I didn't think his test score was all that important in the grand scheme of things. The time he could spend on additional test prep could be better used studying for class, socializing, volunteering, working out, sleeping, etc. (He ended up taking it multiple times to get his verbal up, but that was his choice. He didn't really prep for the second and third sittings.)

I could not care less if other people are one and done. Whatever works for them.

How much did he get though? Probably a high score so of course...

Yes and no. His first sitting, 770M and IIRC 610 Verbal? Second was 780M and maybe 630 verbal. Third sitting he got his verbal up to 700 and decided he was done. So, superscore of 1480. Right in the wheelhouse for the schools on his list (Villanova, BC, Wake) but not exceptional for any of them.

It is a very high score. I wouldn't care if my ds retook his with this sort of score. He got a 1210.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I encouraged my son to be "one and done" because I didn't think his test score was all that important in the grand scheme of things. The time he could spend on additional test prep could be better used studying for class, socializing, volunteering, working out, sleeping, etc. (He ended up taking it multiple times to get his verbal up, but that was his choice. He didn't really prep for the second and third sittings.)

I could not care less if other people are one and done. Whatever works for them.

How much did he get though? Probably a high score so of course...

Yes and no. His first sitting, 770M and IIRC 610 Verbal? Second was 780M and maybe 630 verbal. Third sitting he got his verbal up to 700 and decided he was done. So, superscore of 1480. Right in the wheelhouse for the schools on his list (Villanova, BC, Wake) but not exceptional for any of them.

It is a very high score. I wouldn't care if my ds retook his with this sort of score. He got a 1210.

Thank you. It is a very high score in the grand scheme of things, but not in the context of his high school or his reach schools. But again, I don't think that any additional time spent on prep to gain an extra 20-50 points would make a material difference in his admissions results.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serious question. A lot of people on here strongly advocate for a “one and done” approach to testing or say that kids should be limited to taking the SAT or ACT twice. I really don’t get that. Why does it matter? I understand the socioeconomic argument that kids who can afford coaching will have an advantage, but that doesn’t seem to be the motivation for most of the posters here who push for limits. This seems to be a mantra of parents who are taking issue with schools’ acceptance rates, individual decisions, etc.

I would genuinely like to understand the arguments. If a kid learns from mistakes or studies and improves between tests isn’t that a measure of success as a student? Of their ability to learn? What is the crucial significance in your opinion of getting your score in only one or two tries?

Life is a mystery op. I honestly don't care if you are "genuine" or not with your question. It isn't any of your business. I would spend less time worrying about other people's choices that have nothing to do with you and just live your life.

OP here. There is no need to be so rude. I’m not prying into your family’s choice or asking your kid’s scores or anything else personal. I was merely asking why some people on here seem to suggest that kids should only be allowed to take it once or twice and why they think that should be superior in the eyes of colleges.

I hope your day gets better.

[Anonymous]

I like the idea of allowing it to takenmultiple times but you can only pick the score from one sitting not the superscore approach

[Anonymous]

Way back when I did one and done because I was surprised at the score and didn't think I could do much better. DD took it three times to take advantage of super scoring and ended up with a 60 point bump, which moved her from 25th to 50th percentile for her target school, very much worth it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have used that phrase, but I wasn't advocating for it. It's what my kid did. He felt his first score was good enough and so did his college counselor. I couldn't have paid him to take it again. He was "one and done."

OP here. That’s different from what I mean. I’m asking about all the people who applaud the return of mandatory scores or who are complaining that their child didn’t get in to a certain school. I’ve just seen what feels like a LOT of people saying that testing should be limited, not that kids might be happy enough with their first score.

That is a completely different topic from your OP.