SAT/ACT single most predictive factor at Yale

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Why is that Dean Coffin so profoundly unlikable?

2. Our NYC private is now advising submit if it's over 25% cut off

3. I'd submit a 1500 to any school in America.

Chicago private. CC also advising to submit if over 25%

DC private advising to look at CDS pre-covid (2020) and submit if over 50%.

Is this official advice? From your college counselor at your private school?

If so, I am very surprised. I don’t even know where to get the stats from. Are they giving it to you?

you can look them up on the CDS for that year. spelled out quite clearly

Ok NP here. Curious about this new “25%” thing.
I’m not seeing a difference for Northwestern ACT composite range in CDS pre COVID to last year?
33-35 in 2022-2023 and also 2020-2021?
Should I be looking at 2019-2020 instead?
Or maybe there’s no real difference…and these numbers are what they are?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting podcast out this week by Dartmouth’s Dean of Admission. While interviewing Yale’s Dean of Admission, Yale shares that SAT/ACT is actually more predictive of academic success than transcript at Yale (despite general surveys nationally showing the reverse). Dartmouth has found same as Yale. These findings are institution-specific and could be limited to these sorts of hyper competitive places. Yale found the math score to be particularly predictive for persistence as a science major. Dartmouth had indicated the same. Clark Univ. said transcript is more predictive for them.

My impression is that Yale and Dartmouth really want scores, especially students coming from underresourced backgrounds, from which, as discussed in podcast, an ACT score of 30, while low for the college, would show ability in context. They are concerned these students aren’t submitting because score is below 25th percentile for college. My prediction is that at least Yale and Dartmouth return to test required or at least more strongly encouraged (Dartmouth has already put out test preferred statement).
Not surprisingly, it sounded like although the scores are very important as a threshold matter for determining if student can succeed academically, it sounded like they aren’t that important once that threshold is crossed. This makes sense as they have too many able applicants.
Discussion starts at minute 6:10 with Yale’s statement at 9:12.

Data Dive, Part 2
https://admissions.dartmouth.edu/follow/admissions-beat-podcast

The UC colleges did a deep dive on the millions of students that have gone through their system and also found that standardized test scores were the single best predictor of college success. It also didn’t vary by household income; a 1300 predicted just as well when it came from a student from an affluent family as it did from a student from a poorer family. The push to eliminate standardized testing has nothing to do with their effectiveness in predicting college success.

Link to that study? I only find studies finding the opposite - that GPA is best predictor.

Come on. In all logic, you know that's crap. GPA is wildly inflated in most public schools (I know, my kids are in public!). Obviously GPA can't predict anything.

Best study I’ve seen was the one the Iowa regents did when they went test optional, which showed that while ACT score is generally predictive, kids whose GPAs are low relative to their ACT scores (slackers) don’t do as well and those whose GPAs are much higher than their ACT would predict (grinders) do really well.

But, we keep being told that grinders aren't what colleges want.

There’s a lot of “colleges.” It’s totally plausible that Ivy Plus schools don’t want grinders but schools like Iowa and Iowa State love them.

What's the opposite of a grinder? Serious question.

Naturally curious, self-driven learner, focused on learning purely to expand the mind - without necessarily a “have to be the best/smartest” or grinder attitude…..

A kid who learns just to learn. A kid who does some thing not because it will get him or her bonus points in the admissions, process or class/school or a job search.

My kid with bad grades. They just want to learn darn it!

yea, there is no way an elite college would want kids who "get bad grades but are naturally smart" because otherwise it would mess up their average GPA, unless of course, they just give out As like candy.

Or, actually, I know of an elite college that lets students drop their class if they are getting a bad grade right up to the week before finals. Can't do that at a public school. There's no hand holding and you just gotta deal with that bad grade.

They want these naturally motivated esoteric east going smart kids who also get good grades easily (no grinding)….

That’s the perfect applicant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
1. They said it’s most predictive factor period. As I wrote above, it was also said that “Yale found the math score to be particularly predictive for persistence as a science major.” Dartmouth was already on record for that.

It's almost like they're not good at educating undergraduates. Sure, a kid with an 800 in math will find it easier to do a science major without any need for remediation. But that means they're relying on high schools (and test prep companies) to do all the work. Guess they're not really able and willing to help the brilliant future scientists with a 700 or, gasp, 650, achieve that same success over four full years.

It's not the job of elite colleges to do remediation. Countries succeed by developing human capital. We are supposed to match elite and advanced opportunities with the kids who are both intellectually AND academically prepared to take advantage of those opportunities. Yet, we keep trying to fit square pegs into round holes, and now the colleges will be ranked on how well they turn away kids who are prepared and take those who aren't. It's great.

[Anonymous]

I'm a professor at a university that has a decent ranking in the 80s on USNews, but a 80%+ acceptance rate so we have a super wide range of abilities.

Kids with ACT/SAT lower than their stellar GPA would predict...generally OK. As long as the ACT isn't TOO low. 28 ACT and 4.5 GPA? I would expect that student to be very successful, as long as they're not trying to major in something like engineering and got a 28 on the math section of the ACT. It's the "22 ACT, 4.35 GPA and valedictorian of HS" situations that can get really dicey (and yes, that is not an uncommon pairing for low SES kids coming from underresourced super rural or urban schools).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The average SAT score is 1028. The average ACT score is 19.

Test scores are extremely predictive of college success. That's why there are a ton of scholarships available for high scores. You want a free ride to Alabama? 32-36 will do it. But test optional is not going away. Colleges love the extra applications. But don't think for a minute that your kid in Bethesda or Arlington can get away with not submitting test scores, unless they have some kind of hook.

For the elite schools, your white kid from the burbs is not getting in without a 1500+ or 34. Plus the 4.0. And what makes things annoying is that TO has bumped up average test scores to the stratosphere. It's tough out there.

Not true.
White kid. 33.
In at Cornell last year.

Agriculture? Architecture? Business? Hospitality?

Business

Geographic diversity? Rural/small town/under represented state?

Please give me some way to dismiss your kid as somehow less deserving of this. Please?

Yup. Actually thought they were going to 'play' the legacy or athlete cards first.

Well, the deans of admission basically said they look at test scores in context of your school/resources. And if yours is below the median test score for this school but is actually way higher than the average for your under resourced/rural/small town/North Dakota HS, that test score is as or more impressive than a 1550 / 34+ from an UMC suburban kid. So the kid that got into Cornell with a 33 may not be from an average or overrepresented geographic area, UMC etc. may have some hook / institutional priority but then again 33 is very close to their middle 50% so who knows. 33 ACT is a very good score and definitely doesn’t put you out of consideration for ivies. I know of a girl who got into Stanford through questbridge with a 29 ACT.

And then she required special summer program to start, and special handholding throughout to survive. What a sad joke.

[Anonymous]

Problem is that GPA grading is inconsistent. A 4.0 W GPA from TJ is equivalent to a 4.5 W GPA from any other HS in NoVA.

Hence the SAT matters. If you score over 700 in Math, surely your Math skills are adequate for college level course work. I dont need to see anything else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting podcast out this week by Dartmouth’s Dean of Admission. While interviewing Yale’s Dean of Admission, Yale shares that SAT/ACT is actually more predictive of academic success than transcript at Yale (despite general surveys nationally showing the reverse). Dartmouth has found same as Yale. These findings are institution-specific and could be limited to these sorts of hyper competitive places. Yale found the math score to be particularly predictive for persistence as a science major. Dartmouth had indicated the same. Clark Univ. said transcript is more predictive for them.

My impression is that Yale and Dartmouth really want scores, especially students coming from underresourced backgrounds, from which, as discussed in podcast, an ACT score of 30, while low for the college, would show ability in context. They are concerned these students aren’t submitting because score is below 25th percentile for college. My prediction is that at least Yale and Dartmouth return to test required or at least more strongly encouraged (Dartmouth has already put out test preferred statement).
Not surprisingly, it sounded like although the scores are very important as a threshold matter for determining if student can succeed academically, it sounded like they aren’t that important once that threshold is crossed. This makes sense as they have too many able applicants.
Discussion starts at minute 6:10 with Yale’s statement at 9:12.

Data Dive, Part 2
https://admissions.dartmouth.edu/follow/admissions-beat-podcast

The UC colleges did a deep dive on the millions of students that have gone through their system and also found that standardized test scores were the single best predictor of college success. It also didn’t vary by household income; a 1300 predicted just as well when it came from a student from an affluent family as it did from a student from a poorer family. The push to eliminate standardized testing has nothing to do with their effectiveness in predicting college success.

Link to that study? I only find studies finding the opposite - that GPA is best predictor.

Come on. In all logic, you know that's crap. GPA is wildly inflated in most public schools (I know, my kids are in public!). Obviously GPA can't predict anything.

Best study I’ve seen was the one the Iowa regents did when they went test optional, which showed that while ACT score is generally predictive, kids whose GPAs are low relative to their ACT scores (slackers) don’t do as well and those whose GPAs are much higher than their ACT would predict (grinders) do really well.

Tell me you’re the parent of a high GPA, terrible test score kid with telling us that.

Give us a break. Having a 3.80 unweighted GPA and a 36 is a worse setup for success in your mind than a 4.00 and 31 or maybe even a 29 because test scores are the weak link in your kid’s application.

No I’m the opposite. I have a high test score, low GPA kid. The Iowa study resonated with me because I can see exactly how my kid’s never study, do no homework, ace every exam approach might make it harder for them to complete college.

You'll be happy to know that I sent one of these kids to a pretty good school on merit, and he is suddenly doing every bit of reading, etc. and acing classes. Sometimes being able to choose your own classes is pretty motivating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Why is that Dean Coffin so profoundly unlikable?

2. Our NYC private is now advising submit if it's over 25% cut off

3. I'd submit a 1500 to any school in America.

Chicago private. CC also advising to submit if over 25%

DC private advising to look at CDS pre-covid (2020) and submit if over 50%.

Is this official advice? From your college counselor at your private school?

If so, I am very surprised. I don’t even know where to get the stats from. Are they giving it to you?

you can look them up on the CDS for that year. spelled out quite clearly

Ok NP here. Curious about this new “25%” thing.
I’m not seeing a difference for Northwestern ACT composite range in CDS pre COVID to last year?
33-35 in 2022-2023 and also 2020-2021?
Should I be looking at 2019-2020 instead?
Or maybe there’s no real difference…and these numbers are what they are?

NP. The difference may be harder to detect with ACT scores. SAT scores show a 70 point difference in the 25th percentile composite and 30 points each for EBRW and math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The average SAT score is 1028. The average ACT score is 19.

Test scores are extremely predictive of college success. That's why there are a ton of scholarships available for high scores. You want a free ride to Alabama? 32-36 will do it. But test optional is not going away. Colleges love the extra applications. But don't think for a minute that your kid in Bethesda or Arlington can get away with not submitting test scores, unless they have some kind of hook.

For the elite schools, your white kid from the burbs is not getting in without a 1500+ or 34. Plus the 4.0. And what makes things annoying is that TO has bumped up average test scores to the stratosphere. It's tough out there.

Not true.
White kid. 33.
In at Cornell last year.

Agriculture? Architecture? Business? Hospitality?

Business

Geographic diversity? Rural/small town/under represented state?

Please give me some way to dismiss your kid as somehow less deserving of this. Please?

Yup. Actually thought they were going to 'play' the legacy or athlete cards first.

Well, the deans of admission basically said they look at test scores in context of your school/resources. And if yours is below the median test score for this school but is actually way higher than the average for your under resourced/rural/small town/North Dakota HS, that test score is as or more impressive than a 1550 / 34+ from an UMC suburban kid. So the kid that got into Cornell with a 33 may not be from an average or overrepresented geographic area, UMC etc. may have some hook / institutional priority but then again 33 is very close to their middle 50% so who knows. 33 ACT is a very good score and definitely doesn’t put you out of consideration for ivies. I know of a girl who got into Stanford through questbridge with a 29 ACT.

And then she required special summer program to start, and special handholding throughout to survive. What a sad joke.

You're right, your poor, marginalized children getting opportunities taken away from them by those pesky low income Questbridge kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting podcast out this week by Dartmouth’s Dean of Admission. While interviewing Yale’s Dean of Admission, Yale shares that SAT/ACT is actually more predictive of academic success than transcript at Yale (despite general surveys nationally showing the reverse). Dartmouth has found same as Yale. These findings are institution-specific and could be limited to these sorts of hyper competitive places. Yale found the math score to be particularly predictive for persistence as a science major. Dartmouth had indicated the same. Clark Univ. said transcript is more predictive for them.

My impression is that Yale and Dartmouth really want scores, especially students coming from underresourced backgrounds, from which, as discussed in podcast, an ACT score of 30, while low for the college, would show ability in context. They are concerned these students aren’t submitting because score is below 25th percentile for college. My prediction is that at least Yale and Dartmouth return to test required or at least more strongly encouraged (Dartmouth has already put out test preferred statement).
Not surprisingly, it sounded like although the scores are very important as a threshold matter for determining if student can succeed academically, it sounded like they aren’t that important once that threshold is crossed. This makes sense as they have too many able applicants.
Discussion starts at minute 6:10 with Yale’s statement at 9:12.

Data Dive, Part 2
https://admissions.dartmouth.edu/follow/admissions-beat-podcast

The UC colleges did a deep dive on the millions of students that have gone through their system and also found that standardized test scores were the single best predictor of college success. It also didn’t vary by household income; a 1300 predicted just as well when it came from a student from an affluent family as it did from a student from a poorer family. The push to eliminate standardized testing has nothing to do with their effectiveness in predicting college success.

Link to that study? I only find studies finding the opposite - that GPA is best predictor.

Here’s an LA times article about it: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-02-03/uc-should-keep-sat-and-act-as-admission-requirements-faculty-report-says

Link to the report: https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/underreview/sttf-report.pdf

From the executive summary: “ The STTF found that standardized test scores aid in predicting important aspects of student success, including undergraduate grade point average (UGPA), retention, and completion. At UC, test scores are currently better predictors of first-year GPA than high school grade point average (HSGPA), and about as good at predicting first-year retention, UGPA, and graduation. For students within any given (HSGPA) band, higher standardized test scores correlate with a higher freshman UGPA, a higher graduation UGPA, and higher likelihood of graduating within either four years (for transfers) or seven years (for freshmen). Further, the amount of variance in student outcomes explained by test scores has increased since 2007, while variance explained by high school grades has decreased, although altogether does not exceed 26%. Test scores are predictive for all demographic groups and disciplines, even after controlling for HSGPA. In fact, test scores are better predictors of success for students who are Underrepresented Minority students (URMs), who are first-generation, or whose families are low-income: that is, test scores explain more of the variance in UGPA and completion rates for students in these groups. One consequence of dropping test scores would be increased reliance on HSGPA in admissions. The STTF found that California high schools vary greatly in grading standards, and that grade inflation is part of why the predictive power of HSGPA has decreased since the last UC study.”

Interesting that this is a UC study but the entire UC system is now test blind for admissions. How does this make sense?

[Anonymous]

My DC graduated from a top 20 university (reach school) last year and got in with a 29 ACT (well below the 25% range) Attended a wealthy suburban HS and took a few AP classes but didn’t get straight As. Not URM or recruiter athlete but had EC and leadership strengths and is an extremely hard worker with strong work ethic and drive. Had great internships from top companies (no connections) and now working for MBB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting podcast out this week by Dartmouth’s Dean of Admission. While interviewing Yale’s Dean of Admission, Yale shares that SAT/ACT is actually more predictive of academic success than transcript at Yale (despite general surveys nationally showing the reverse). Dartmouth has found same as Yale. These findings are institution-specific and could be limited to these sorts of hyper competitive places. Yale found the math score to be particularly predictive for persistence as a science major. Dartmouth had indicated the same. Clark Univ. said transcript is more predictive for them.

My impression is that Yale and Dartmouth really want scores, especially students coming from underresourced backgrounds, from which, as discussed in podcast, an ACT score of 30, while low for the college, would show ability in context. They are concerned these students aren’t submitting because score is below 25th percentile for college. My prediction is that at least Yale and Dartmouth return to test required or at least more strongly encouraged (Dartmouth has already put out test preferred statement).
Not surprisingly, it sounded like although the scores are very important as a threshold matter for determining if student can succeed academically, it sounded like they aren’t that important once that threshold is crossed. This makes sense as they have too many able applicants.
Discussion starts at minute 6:10 with Yale’s statement at 9:12.

Data Dive, Part 2
https://admissions.dartmouth.edu/follow/admissions-beat-podcast

The UC colleges did a deep dive on the millions of students that have gone through their system and also found that standardized test scores were the single best predictor of college success. It also didn’t vary by household income; a 1300 predicted just as well when it came from a student from an affluent family as it did from a student from a poorer family. The push to eliminate standardized testing has nothing to do with their effectiveness in predicting college success.

Link to that study? I only find studies finding the opposite - that GPA is best predictor.

Here’s an LA times article about it: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-02-03/uc-should-keep-sat-and-act-as-admission-requirements-faculty-report-says

Link to the report: https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/underreview/sttf-report.pdf

From the executive summary: “ The STTF found that standardized test scores aid in predicting important aspects of student success, including undergraduate grade point average (UGPA), retention, and completion. At UC, test scores are currently better predictors of first-year GPA than high school grade point average (HSGPA), and about as good at predicting first-year retention, UGPA, and graduation. For students within any given (HSGPA) band, higher standardized test scores correlate with a higher freshman UGPA, a higher graduation UGPA, and higher likelihood of graduating within either four years (for transfers) or seven years (for freshmen). Further, the amount of variance in student outcomes explained by test scores has increased since 2007, while variance explained by high school grades has decreased, although altogether does not exceed 26%. Test scores are predictive for all demographic groups and disciplines, even after controlling for HSGPA. In fact, test scores are better predictors of success for students who are Underrepresented Minority students (URMs), who are first-generation, or whose families are low-income: that is, test scores explain more of the variance in UGPA and completion rates for students in these groups. One consequence of dropping test scores would be increased reliance on HSGPA in admissions. The STTF found that California high schools vary greatly in grading standards, and that grade inflation is part of why the predictive power of HSGPA has decreased since the last UC study.”

Interesting that this is a UC study but the entire UC system is now test blind for admissions. How does this make sense?

NP. That is the result of the politics of the board of regents. It was a long battle that ultimately culminated with a court order during COVID that forced test blind, which a certain segment of powers-that-be were happy to accommodate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting podcast out this week by Dartmouth’s Dean of Admission. While interviewing Yale’s Dean of Admission, Yale shares that SAT/ACT is actually more predictive of academic success than transcript at Yale (despite general surveys nationally showing the reverse). Dartmouth has found same as Yale. These findings are institution-specific and could be limited to these sorts of hyper competitive places. Yale found the math score to be particularly predictive for persistence as a science major. Dartmouth had indicated the same. Clark Univ. said transcript is more predictive for them.

My impression is that Yale and Dartmouth really want scores, especially students coming from underresourced backgrounds, from which, as discussed in podcast, an ACT score of 30, while low for the college, would show ability in context. They are concerned these students aren’t submitting because score is below 25th percentile for college. My prediction is that at least Yale and Dartmouth return to test required or at least more strongly encouraged (Dartmouth has already put out test preferred statement).
Not surprisingly, it sounded like although the scores are very important as a threshold matter for determining if student can succeed academically, it sounded like they aren’t that important once that threshold is crossed. This makes sense as they have too many able applicants.
Discussion starts at minute 6:10 with Yale’s statement at 9:12.

Data Dive, Part 2
https://admissions.dartmouth.edu/follow/admissions-beat-podcast

The UC colleges did a deep dive on the millions of students that have gone through their system and also found that standardized test scores were the single best predictor of college success. It also didn’t vary by household income; a 1300 predicted just as well when it came from a student from an affluent family as it did from a student from a poorer family. The push to eliminate standardized testing has nothing to do with their effectiveness in predicting college success.

Link to that study? I only find studies finding the opposite - that GPA is best predictor.

Come on. In all logic, you know that's crap. GPA is wildly inflated in most public schools (I know, my kids are in public!). Obviously GPA can't predict anything.

Best study I’ve seen was the one the Iowa regents did when they went test optional, which showed that while ACT score is generally predictive, kids whose GPAs are low relative to their ACT scores (slackers) don’t do as well and those whose GPAs are much higher than their ACT would predict (grinders) do really well.

But, we keep being told that grinders aren't what colleges want.

There’s a lot of “colleges.” It’s totally plausible that Ivy Plus schools don’t want grinders but schools like Iowa and Iowa State love them.

What's the opposite of a grinder? Serious question.

Naturally curious, self-driven learner, focused on learning purely to expand the mind - without necessarily a “have to be the best/smartest” or grinder attitude…..

A kid who learns just to learn. A kid who does some thing not because it will get him or her bonus points in the admissions, process or class/school or a job search.

My kid with bad grades. They just want to learn darn it!

yea, there is no way an elite college would want kids who "get bad grades but are naturally smart" because otherwise it would mess up their average GPA, unless of course, they just give out As like candy.

Or, actually, I know of an elite college that lets students drop their class if they are getting a bad grade right up to the week before finals. Can't do that at a public school. There's no hand holding and you just gotta deal with that bad grade.

Yeah, the existential problem with your logic is that we've been conditioned to view an unweighted 3.7 as "bad grades" when, back in reality, the difference between an unweighted 3.7 and an unweighted 4.0 is often a matter of 1 - 3 points, a minor differential often related to a missing assignment(s).

The suggestion that a kid with a 3.7 and a 1600 is going to "mess up" the average GPA at a Top 20 school, but a kid with a 4.0 and a 1460 is going to maintain the average GPA is laughable, at best. There are so many factors that go into a 4.00 in this age of grade inflation, like pleading for extra credit, persistent social engineering of the student's relationships with teachers, and the pressure on teachers to demonstrate strong grades in their classroom.

Further upstream, it was suggested that so-called grinders “have to be the best/smartest”. Consider the silliness of that assertion. Where else in life do the best/smartest need to grind? The answer is nowhere. Grinding is for those who have to do extra. Hardly the domain of the best/smartest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Why is that Dean Coffin so profoundly unlikable?

2. Our NYC private is now advising submit if it's over 25% cut off

3. I'd submit a 1500 to any school in America.

Chicago private. CC also advising to submit if over 25%

NP. Makes sense to me. Felt like I was saying this all last year when the professionals were saying 50%. Essentially, if the score shows the kid is in the ballpark of the enrolled class before test optional (CDS 2020-21), it helps them show they can handle the academics.

Does anyone suppose that high test score kids (1500+) might do better in admissions this year than the crapshoot results of the last three years? Asking for a friend...

I don't know about better, but I do feel like the days of unhooked kids in middle class or wealthier zip codes going TO is over. Submit it or forget it.

There are so many kids who score 1500+ (or the ACT equivalent) that there just aren't enough spaces for them at the top schools.

Someone on here once posted that according to the Common App 2022 report, 76,000+ applicants applied to universities/colleges with an SAT score >1500 or ACT equivalent. There are an additional 98,000 in the 1400-1490 range. That's a lot of smart kids to place.

Your > 1500 data is inaccurate. The number is substantially lower that 76K individuals.

Hmm..It is the top 5 percent out of about 2 million individuals...so about right, I think

https://satsuite.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/understanding-sat-scores.pdf

Where did you get 95th %ile ... ??? Review the data at the link above, and let me know if that changes your opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Why is that Dean Coffin so profoundly unlikable?

2. Our NYC private is now advising submit if it's over 25% cut off

3. I'd submit a 1500 to any school in America.

Chicago private. CC also advising to submit if over 25%

NP. Makes sense to me. Felt like I was saying this all last year when the professionals were saying 50%. Essentially, if the score shows the kid is in the ballpark of the enrolled class before test optional (CDS 2020-21), it helps them show they can handle the academics.

Does anyone suppose that high test score kids (1500+) might do better in admissions this year than the crapshoot results of the last three years? Asking for a friend...

I don't know about better, but I do feel like the days of unhooked kids in middle class or wealthier zip codes going TO is over. Submit it or forget it.

There are so many kids who score 1500+ (or the ACT equivalent) that there just aren't enough spaces for them at the top schools.

Someone on here once posted that according to the Common App 2022 report, 76,000+ applicants applied to universities/colleges with an SAT score >1500 or ACT equivalent. There are an additional 98,000 in the 1400-1490 range. That's a lot of smart kids to place.

Your > 1500 data is inaccurate. The number is substantially lower that 76K individuals.

Hmm..It is the top 5 percent out of about 2 million individuals...so about right, I think

https://satsuite.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/understanding-sat-scores.pdf

Where did you get 95th %ile ... ??? Review the data at the link above, and let me know if that changes your opinion.

The number of individuals in a given year scoring 1500 or higher on the SAT, or 34 or higher on the ACT, is probably close to 32,000 in total. I know there's a desperate narrative floating around that there are more qualified applicants for T20 schools than seats available, but that's simply untrue.