The SAT Tutor To The Rich

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you that crazy poster who was anti-ivy schools, especially Harvard, on the Jeopardy thread a few weeks back?

No, I have nothing against ivies.

This may be anecdotal evidence, but at DS's school everyone who scored near 2400 with little preparation got into ivies and top schools. It's all the not-so-smart kids whose parents shelled out hundreds of dollars for test prep classes and managed to boost their scores who didn't.

Most of the posters on College Confidential's major problem is that they assume college admissions officers are naive idiots who automatically assume higher test scores = smarter kids.

My question is how do admissions officers know who has received SAT tutoring and who hasn't? My DC made excellent scores on SATs with no tutoring other than the practice workbook. Do they just assume the higher-scoring kids had tutors? If so, that seems extremely unfair to those who were never tutored.

In general those that spend resources and time on their children do better in life. It's too bad you didn't do the best for your kid who could have scored higher with proper test prep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you that crazy poster who was anti-ivy schools, especially Harvard, on the Jeopardy thread a few weeks back?

No, I have nothing against ivies.

This may be anecdotal evidence, but at DS's school everyone who scored near 2400 with little preparation got into ivies and top schools. It's all the not-so-smart kids whose parents shelled out hundreds of dollars for test prep classes and managed to boost their scores who didn't.

Most of the posters on College Confidential's major problem is that they assume college admissions officers are naive idiots who automatically assume higher test scores = smarter kids.

My question is how do admissions officers know who has received SAT tutoring and who hasn't? My DC made excellent scores on SATs with no tutoring other than the practice workbook. Do they just assume the higher-scoring kids had tutors? If so, that seems extremely unfair to those who were never tutored.

In general those that spend resources and time on their children do better in life. It's too bad you didn't do the best for your kid who could have scored higher with proper test prep.

What a pretentious and snarky statement. How do you know that PP's kid didn't do as well as your snowflake?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you that crazy poster who was anti-ivy schools, especially Harvard, on the Jeopardy thread a few weeks back?

No, I have nothing against ivies.

This may be anecdotal evidence, but at DS's school everyone who scored near 2400 with little preparation got into ivies and top schools. It's all the not-so-smart kids whose parents shelled out hundreds of dollars for test prep classes and managed to boost their scores who didn't.

Most of the posters on College Confidential's major problem is that they assume college admissions officers are naive idiots who automatically assume higher test scores = smarter kids.

My question is how do admissions officers know who has received SAT tutoring and who hasn't? My DC made excellent scores on SATs with no tutoring other than the practice workbook. Do they just assume the higher-scoring kids had tutors? If so, that seems extremely unfair to those who were never tutored.

It's really obvious when you look at the other parts of the application. The kids who tend to do very well on SAT without studying tend to also do very well in non-SAT related things. The SAT doesn't happen in a vacuum. A high SAT combined with generic, disinterested, and cliche essays just screams that the kid was tutored, and the admissions officers can tell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you that crazy poster who was anti-ivy schools, especially Harvard, on the Jeopardy thread a few weeks back?

No, I have nothing against ivies.

This may be anecdotal evidence, but at DS's school everyone who scored near 2400 with little preparation got into ivies and top schools. It's all the not-so-smart kids whose parents shelled out hundreds of dollars for test prep classes and managed to boost their scores who didn't.

Most of the posters on College Confidential's major problem is that they assume college admissions officers are naive idiots who automatically assume higher test scores = smarter kids.

My question is how do admissions officers know who has received SAT tutoring and who hasn't? My DC made excellent scores on SATs with no tutoring other than the practice workbook. Do they just assume the higher-scoring kids had tutors? If so, that seems extremely unfair to those who were never tutored.

In general those that spend resources and time on their children do better in life. It's too bad you didn't do the best for your kid who could have scored higher with proper test prep.

Ha, says the person who probably offers SAT prep for a living. Thanks but no thanks.

[Anonymous]

The kids who tend to do very well on SAT without studying tend to also do very well in non-SAT related things.

This can also cut against students with very high SAT scores, but less than perfect gpa, because the less-than-perfect gpa may be asignal that the very bright student did not work hard, or turn in assignments, etc.

Having a gpa that matches the SAT score is probably better than having a super-high SAT score but a 3.7 gpa.

[Anonymous]

I boycott this forum!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The kids who tend to do very well on SAT without studying tend to also do very well in non-SAT related things.

This can also cut against students with very high SAT scores, but less than perfect gpa, because the less-than-perfect gpa may be asignal that the very bright student did not work hard, or turn in assignments, etc.

Having a gpa that matches the SAT score is probably better than having a super-high SAT score but a 3.7 gpa.

Yes, my DC had a high ACT (34) and a lot of Cs. It doesn't look good.

[Anonymous]

My kid also had great testing scores but low GPAs. The counselor warned about low GPA and high SAT, and advised to take ACT as well to support her ability. The GPA sucked for DC...

[Anonymous]

My DD took a class before SAT, but prepared ACT and subject-tests on her own. Not sure if the tutoring worked or not though...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The kids who tend to do very well on SAT without studying tend to also do very well in non-SAT related things.

This can also cut against students with very high SAT scores, but less than perfect gpa, because the less-than-perfect gpa may be asignal that the very bright student did not work hard, or turn in assignments, etc.

Having a gpa that matches the SAT score is probably better than having a super-high SAT score but a 3.7 gpa.

This is such a gross distortion of reality. What a pretentious and presumptuous person you are. You don't think a 3.7 is a high GPA?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The kids who tend to do very well on SAT without studying tend to also do very well in non-SAT related things.

This can also cut against students with very high SAT scores, but less than perfect gpa, because the less-than-perfect gpa may be asignal that the very bright student did not work hard, or turn in assignments, etc.

Having a gpa that matches the SAT score is probably better than having a super-high SAT score but a 3.7 gpa.

This is such a gross distortion of reality. What a pretentious and presumptuous person you are. You don't think a 3.7 is a high GPA?

S/He specifically said super-high SAT. If a kid has a 2250+ SAT (which is, btw, beyond 99th percentile), then yes, a 3.7 GPA is a little on the low side. That implies, assuming nothing lower than a B and 3 years of 2 semesters of 7 classes, 12-13 Bs. That's a lot of Bs for a kid who beat out almost everyone else who took the SAT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Getting a perfect score will give you a scholarship so this is worth it
You have to get in first, and there are no guarantees, perfect score or not.

College Confidential is full of 2400-scorers who are agonizing over why they didn't get into their 1st, even 2nd choice schools.


No, College Confidential is full of people who only scored 2200+ with heavy tutoring agonizing over how the college admissions officers saw through their ruse.
Are you that crazy poster who was anti-ivy schools, especially Harvard, on the Jeopardy thread a few weeks back?

Wow talk about crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you that crazy poster who was anti-ivy schools, especially Harvard, on the Jeopardy thread a few weeks back?

No, I have nothing against ivies.

This may be anecdotal evidence, but at DS's school everyone who scored near 2400 with little preparation got into ivies and top schools. It's all the not-so-smart kids whose parents shelled out hundreds of dollars for test prep classes and managed to boost their scores who didn't.

Most of the posters on College Confidential's major problem is that they assume college admissions officers are naive idiots who automatically assume higher test scores = smarter kids.

My question is how do admissions officers know who has received SAT tutoring and who hasn't? My DC made excellent scores on SATs with no tutoring other than the practice workbook. Do they just assume the higher-scoring kids had tutors? If so, that seems extremely unfair to those who were never tutored.

In general those that spend resources and time on their children do better in life. It's too bad you didn't do the best for your kid who could have scored higher with proper test prep.

NP, but I couldn't help but comment on how ridiculous this comment is.

You have no idea what that poster did for his/her child.

You sound ridiculous for no reason.