Should DC submit 1500 score to Duke?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:my kid did Khan too (and only Khan), got 1530 and was one and done. I dont know why preparing for a test and then doing well on a test is any different than preparing for your classes and doing well in your classes.

yes, like every other test you take, you can prep for it. but Khan has flattened the world of test taking - along with books available at every library - and not using any of these tools at all tells me more about a serious student than using them.

Anonymous wrote:
I don't want to upset you, but here's the truth. If instead of doing Khan and taking the test once, you had done what lots of umc+ parents do on here-- and spent more than 5k on private tutoring and coaching for 6 months or longer and took the test three or four times to superscore-- your kid would be closer to a 1600. That's the crazed arms race-- and the privilege-- that many parents on here are looking to preserve.

Anonymous wrote:

Less than 5,000 (out of 2.5M+) get a 1600 or 36 on the first and only attempt.

But nice try ... I'm sure somebody will fall for it.

Of course you won’t fall for it. Because you like reading comprehension. Read the bold text above. PP said super score. No one said anything about “first and only attempt” related to 1600.

And colleges see that, too! They know when it's one and done, in nearly all cases.

I think super scoring and/or multiple admins. are just as weak as pretending you have a legitimate reason for being against tests (other than the obvious fact that you kid can't perform).

I didn't overlook what was said - I speed bumped it because it doesn't matter. The college AOs already know, and most rank over one and done's over the applicants who need repeat administrations to Frankenstein their score.

DP: clearly that is not true. If it was the average enrolled SAT scores at the T20 schools wouldn’t be so high even taking into account TO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:my kid did Khan too (and only Khan), got 1530 and was one and done. I dont know why preparing for a test and then doing well on a test is any different than preparing for your classes and doing well in your classes.

yes, like every other test you take, you can prep for it. but Khan has flattened the world of test taking - along with books available at every library - and not using any of these tools at all tells me more about a serious student than using them.

Anonymous wrote:
I don't want to upset you, but here's the truth. If instead of doing Khan and taking the test once, you had done what lots of umc+ parents do on here-- and spent more than 5k on private tutoring and coaching for 6 months or longer and took the test three or four times to superscore-- your kid would be closer to a 1600. That's the crazed arms race-- and the privilege-- that many parents on here are looking to preserve.

Anonymous wrote:

Less than 5,000 (out of 2.5M+) get a 1600 or 36 on the first and only attempt.

But nice try ... I'm sure somebody will fall for it.

Of course you won’t fall for it. Because you like reading comprehension. Read the bold text above. PP said super score. No one said anything about “first and only attempt” related to 1600.

And colleges see that, too! They know when it's one and done, in nearly all cases.

I think super scoring and/or multiple admins. are just as weak as pretending you have a legitimate reason for being against tests (other than the obvious fact that you kid can't perform).

I didn't overlook what was said - I speed bumped it because it doesn't matter. The college AOs already know, and most rank over one and done's over the applicants who need repeat administrations to Frankenstein their score.

DP: clearly that is not true. If it was the average enrolled SAT scores at the T20 schools wouldn’t be so high even taking into account TO.

There’s a difference between what occurs in the evaluation process (some rank ordering based on attempts) and the end result, what they disclose via CDS. And they know. They acquire data from ACT and The College Board, after all. That data spills the beans.

Were you unaware of that fact?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And the fact that scores are so susceptible to prep makes it more clear you should submit; if the school assumes you prepped and still couldn't get a decent score, that's not a good look.

I don't get you logic. You think it's a better idea to submit a significantly below average score to Duke because you'd worry that, if you don't submit a score, Duke will assume that the student got a significantly below average score. Doesn't make much sense.
And I assume Duke would prefer to not have to put this mediocre score into its average.

Yes. And with no hesitation. The schools average is based on self selecting applicants. All of whom are reaching for a top school. Many of whom have been snookered into not submitting great scores.

Nationally (and internationally) a 1500 is a fantastic score. With 1.5m in the proband you know your percentile really means something. No one gets to opt out of being counted nationally.

1500 is a very good score nationally. But it's NOT a good score for Duke. It's a score that is significantly below Duke's average of scores submitted by enrolled students. Back in the old days, that would have been OK, as everyone had to submit a score and 1500 isn't a horribly bad score. But today, Duke doesn't have to take kids with lower than average scores. This kid might still be admitted DESPITE the 1500, but there's no good argument that the score will help her.

We're in the last years of the SAT, that's for certain. And you'll help your child most by being logical in how you play this game. And for here, Duke doesn't want that 1500 in its mix, if it can avoid it.

It’s certain, y’all. We have someone with a crystal ball up in here!

Gonna be fascinating to see the looks on the faces of the “my kid just doesn’t test well” crowd when the UC system reinstates standardized testing and the rest of the country slowly awakens to how relevant testing is to the admissions process.

Not happening.

Standardized testing has become LESS relevant each admissions cycle. Definitely lower stakes.

Don't be naive.

It is the HUBRIS for me. Smart people who believe they are smarter than they actually are never get it. It takes an absolute catastrophe to open their eyes. And, in the meantime, they're out here giving "sage advice."

Oh please. If your kid didn’t bomb standardized tests so miserably, you would be out here strutting around and arguing the exact polar opposite of your “forced hand” position now. It’s hilarious. You want to drown out everyone and insist that the practice of placing the entire bet on grade-inflated GPAs is a great idea, and certainly never going to backfire.

Dream on.

Hahaha.... MY kid scored 1540. I'm not not coming at it for his sake. He is doing just fine.

I'm coming at you because you're an arrogant as*.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:my kid did Khan too (and only Khan), got 1530 and was one and done. I dont know why preparing for a test and then doing well on a test is any different than preparing for your classes and doing well in your classes.

yes, like every other test you take, you can prep for it. but Khan has flattened the world of test taking - along with books available at every library - and not using any of these tools at all tells me more about a serious student than using them.

Anonymous wrote:
I don't want to upset you, but here's the truth. If instead of doing Khan and taking the test once, you had done what lots of umc+ parents do on here-- and spent more than 5k on private tutoring and coaching for 6 months or longer and took the test three or four times to superscore-- your kid would be closer to a 1600. That's the crazed arms race-- and the privilege-- that many parents on here are looking to preserve.

Anonymous wrote:

Less than 5,000 (out of 2.5M+) get a 1600 or 36 on the first and only attempt.

But nice try ... I'm sure somebody will fall for it.

Of course you won’t fall for it. Because you like reading comprehension. Read the bold text above. PP said super score. No one said anything about “first and only attempt” related to 1600.

And colleges see that, too! They know when it's one and done, in nearly all cases.

I think super scoring and/or multiple admins. are just as weak as pretending you have a legitimate reason for being against tests (other than the obvious fact that you kid can't perform).

I didn't overlook what was said - I speed bumped it because it doesn't matter. The college AOs already know, and most rank over one and done's over the applicants who need repeat administrations to Frankenstein their score.

DP: clearly that is not true. If it was the average enrolled SAT scores at the T20 schools wouldn’t be so high even taking into account TO.

There’s a difference between what occurs in the evaluation process (some rank ordering based on attempts) and the end result, what they disclose via CDS. And they know. They acquire data from ACT and The College Board, after all. That data spills the beans.

Were you unaware of that fact?

I’m not claiming they don’t know how many times someone took the test to achieve a high score. I’m arguing that they ultimately don’t care as long as the CDS reports high average SAT scores. Based on the Harvard case we know that plenty of 1600 one and done kids were denied admittance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:my kid did Khan too (and only Khan), got 1530 and was one and done. I dont know why preparing for a test and then doing well on a test is any different than preparing for your classes and doing well in your classes.

yes, like every other test you take, you can prep for it. but Khan has flattened the world of test taking - along with books available at every library - and not using any of these tools at all tells me more about a serious student than using them.

I don't want to upset you, but here's the truth. If instead of doing Khan and taking the test once, you had done what lots of umc+ parents do on here-- and spent more than 5k on private tutoring and coaching for 6 months or longer and took the test three or four times to superscore-- your kid would be closer to a 1600. That's the crazed arms race-- and the privilege-- that many parents on here are looking to preserve.

+1, sadly. I grew up in a rural area and went to a very average rural high school. I took the SAT once junior year after doing a single practice test that the school guidance counselor told all of us to try doing at home. I ended up as a nmsf with a spectacular score. When I showed up at the Ivy that admitted me, my scores there were higher than nearly all of my friends, but only then did I learn how the umc rolls. No one else took the test only once and no one else took it without prep. Things turned out great for me, but I realized just how many of my college classmates were there only because their parents ' resources essentially let them leapfrog over some of my smarter high school friends.
Unless we someday come up with some kind of pop quiz type of test that is impossible to prep for and works off of a base of knowledge accessible to all high school students, I'm cheering on the slow death of the SAT.

Isn't it like $100 to take the test each time -- not really an arms race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:my kid did Khan too (and only Khan), got 1530 and was one and done. I dont know why preparing for a test and then doing well on a test is any different than preparing for your classes and doing well in your classes.

yes, like every other test you take, you can prep for it. but Khan has flattened the world of test taking - along with books available at every library - and not using any of these tools at all tells me more about a serious student than using them.

Anonymous wrote:
I don't want to upset you, but here's the truth. If instead of doing Khan and taking the test once, you had done what lots of umc+ parents do on here-- and spent more than 5k on private tutoring and coaching for 6 months or longer and took the test three or four times to superscore-- your kid would be closer to a 1600. That's the crazed arms race-- and the privilege-- that many parents on here are looking to preserve.

Anonymous wrote:

Less than 5,000 (out of 2.5M+) get a 1600 or 36 on the first and only attempt.

But nice try ... I'm sure somebody will fall for it.

Of course you won’t fall for it. Because you like reading comprehension. Read the bold text above. PP said super score. No one said anything about “first and only attempt” related to 1600.

And colleges see that, too! They know when it's one and done, in nearly all cases.

I think super scoring and/or multiple admins. are just as weak as pretending you have a legitimate reason for being against tests (other than the obvious fact that you kid can't perform).

I didn't overlook what was said - I speed bumped it because it doesn't matter. The college AOs already know, and most rank over one and done's over the applicants who need repeat administrations to Frankenstein their score.

Most elite schools are using scores to screen people. That is all. If their screen number is 33 then a 33 or a 36 is the same. Most never look again at scores. And your 33 can be superscored and they do not care. It is almost all school, grades, ECs, and essays. No one is comparing a 34 to a 36. Same score for most elites.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This Test Optional universe is so confusing for everyone. I really wish colleges would get it together and fricken' decide. Does the SAT/ACT matter or not? Choose, you sadistic idiots.

In the meantime, families are reading tea leaves. 1500 to Duke. What to do?

I would submit - definitely if you are URM. But also as white or Asian. It puts you in in the 95th percentile. Clearly the student is capable of handling the workload. The score though is not going to help, but it crosses the threshold. Not submitting - reading tea leaves here - would come with a bigger penalty. It's human nature to assume the applicant is rolling with a 1200 or whatever when they don't submit test scores. And 1500 is good enough. No one is going to be rejected for it

The California publics are going to do their thing. But I sense that generally T20 colleges want test scores to be mandatory. Since there's such a strong correlation with performance, they feel more confident handing out an admittance when they have scores above the baseline. Suspect in ten years it will be mandatory again

10 years? OK Nostradamus.

Both my kids would have graduated from college by then, much less apply to one - TO or not.

[Anonymous]

The college AOs already know, and most rank over one and done's over the applicants who need repeat administrations to Frankenstein their score.

Nah you don't get any brownie points for taking the SAT only once compared to someone who took it six times, sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:my kid did Khan too (and only Khan), got 1530 and was one and done. I dont know why preparing for a test and then doing well on a test is any different than preparing for your classes and doing well in your classes.

yes, like every other test you take, you can prep for it. but Khan has flattened the world of test taking - along with books available at every library - and not using any of these tools at all tells me more about a serious student than using them.

I don't want to upset you, but here's the truth. If instead of doing Khan and taking the test once, you had done what lots of umc+ parents do on here-- and spent more than 5k on private tutoring and coaching for 6 months or longer and took the test three or four times to superscore-- your kid would be closer to a 1600. That's the crazed arms race-- and the privilege-- that many parents on here are looking to preserve.

the kid who got the 1530 has that 6 months to do something else, something interesting ...and that will make them a more attractive applicant.

a 1530 is not different than a 1600. there are plenty of schools that either think that 1600 is going somewhere "better" or think that 1600 kid is a drone.

[Anonymous]

I went to Penn and just went to an alumni event where an admissions counselor said that almost one-third of current freshmen and sophomores didn't submit scores, that this percentage is growing every year at every Ivy League school, and the average SAT score is also climbing every year (presumably because applicants with below median scores aren't submitting them). The admissions person didn't seem concerned about these trends.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I went to Penn and just went to an alumni event where an admissions counselor said that almost one-third of current freshmen and sophomores didn't submit scores, that this percentage is growing every year at every Ivy League school, and the average SAT score is also climbing every year (presumably because applicants with below median scores aren't submitting them). The admissions person didn't seem concerned about these trends.

On Penn average SAT, it went up by 25 points (to 1535) since test optional started. Admissions person said expectation is that upward trend will continue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And the fact that scores are so susceptible to prep makes it more clear you should submit; if the school assumes you prepped and still couldn't get a decent score, that's not a good look.

I don't get you logic. You think it's a better idea to submit a significantly below average score to Duke because you'd worry that, if you don't submit a score, Duke will assume that the student got a significantly below average score. Doesn't make much sense.
And I assume Duke would prefer to not have to put this mediocre score into its average.

Yes. And with no hesitation. The schools average is based on self selecting applicants. All of whom are reaching for a top school. Many of whom have been snookered into not submitting great scores.

Nationally (and internationally) a 1500 is a fantastic score. With 1.5m in the proband you know your percentile really means something. No one gets to opt out of being counted nationally.

1500 is a very good score nationally. But it's NOT a good score for Duke. It's a score that is significantly below Duke's average of scores submitted by enrolled students. Back in the old days, that would have been OK, as everyone had to submit a score and 1500 isn't a horribly bad score. But today, Duke doesn't have to take kids with lower than average scores. This kid might still be admitted DESPITE the 1500, but there's no good argument that the score will help her.

We're in the last years of the SAT, that's for certain. And you'll help your child most by being logical in how you play this game. And for here, Duke doesn't want that 1500 in its mix, if it can avoid it.

It’s certain, y’all. We have someone with a crystal ball up in here!

Gonna be fascinating to see the looks on the faces of the “my kid just doesn’t test well” crowd when the UC system reinstates standardized testing and the rest of the country slowly awakens to how relevant testing is to the admissions process.

Not happening.

Standardized testing has become LESS relevant each admissions cycle. Definitely lower stakes.

Don't be naive.

It is the HUBRIS for me. Smart people who believe they are smarter than they actually are never get it. It takes an absolute catastrophe to open their eyes. And, in the meantime, they're out here giving "sage advice."

Oh please. If your kid didn’t bomb standardized tests so miserably, you would be out here strutting around and arguing the exact polar opposite of your “forced hand” position now. It’s hilarious. You want to drown out everyone and insist that the practice of placing the entire bet on grade-inflated GPAs is a great idea, and certainly never going to backfire.

Dream on.

Hahaha.... MY kid scored 1540. I'm not not coming at it for his sake. He is doing just fine.

I'm coming at you because you're an arrogant as*.

<yawn> Sure, Jan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And the fact that scores are so susceptible to prep makes it more clear you should submit; if the school assumes you prepped and still couldn't get a decent score, that's not a good look.

I don't get you logic. You think it's a better idea to submit a significantly below average score to Duke because you'd worry that, if you don't submit a score, Duke will assume that the student got a significantly below average score. Doesn't make much sense.
And I assume Duke would prefer to not have to put this mediocre score into its average.

Yes. And with no hesitation. The schools average is based on self selecting applicants. All of whom are reaching for a top school. Many of whom have been snookered into not submitting great scores.

Nationally (and internationally) a 1500 is a fantastic score. With 1.5m in the proband you know your percentile really means something. No one gets to opt out of being counted nationally.

1500 is a very good score nationally. But it's NOT a good score for Duke. It's a score that is significantly below Duke's average of scores submitted by enrolled students. Back in the old days, that would have been OK, as everyone had to submit a score and 1500 isn't a horribly bad score. But today, Duke doesn't have to take kids with lower than average scores. This kid might still be admitted DESPITE the 1500, but there's no good argument that the score will help her.

We're in the last years of the SAT, that's for certain. And you'll help your child most by being logical in how you play this game. And for here, Duke doesn't want that 1500 in its mix, if it can avoid it.

It’s certain, y’all. We have someone with a crystal ball up in here!

Gonna be fascinating to see the looks on the faces of the “my kid just doesn’t test well” crowd when the UC system reinstates standardized testing and the rest of the country slowly awakens to how relevant testing is to the admissions process.

Not happening.

Standardized testing has become LESS relevant each admissions cycle. Definitely lower stakes.

Don't be naive.

It is the HUBRIS for me. Smart people who believe they are smarter than they actually are never get it. It takes an absolute catastrophe to open their eyes. And, in the meantime, they're out here giving "sage advice."

Oh please. If your kid didn’t bomb standardized tests so miserably, you would be out here strutting around and arguing the exact polar opposite of your “forced hand” position now. It’s hilarious. You want to drown out everyone and insist that the practice of placing the entire bet on grade-inflated GPAs is a great idea, and certainly never going to backfire.

Dream on.

Hahaha.... MY kid scored 1540. I'm not not coming at it for his sake. He is doing just fine.

I'm coming at you because you're an arrogant as*.

<yawn> Sure, Jan.

Not PP, but your line of arguing is oddb and kinda childish. You keep insisting that anyone who is advising OP to not submit the score has a child with a low SAT score. Especially odd, given that OP said their counselor told them not to.

[Anonymous]

NP - your advisor is correct. A 1500 for Duke is low. I wouldn’t submit. Ignore those that say otherwise. It makes them feel better about their own kids to claim otherwise

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:my kid did Khan too (and only Khan), got 1530 and was one and done. I dont know why preparing for a test and then doing well on a test is any different than preparing for your classes and doing well in your classes.

yes, like every other test you take, you can prep for it. but Khan has flattened the world of test taking - along with books available at every library - and not using any of these tools at all tells me more about a serious student than using them.

Anonymous wrote:
I don't want to upset you, but here's the truth. If instead of doing Khan and taking the test once, you had done what lots of umc+ parents do on here-- and spent more than 5k on private tutoring and coaching for 6 months or longer and took the test three or four times to superscore-- your kid would be closer to a 1600. That's the crazed arms race-- and the privilege-- that many parents on here are looking to preserve.

Anonymous wrote:

Less than 5,000 (out of 2.5M+) get a 1600 or 36 on the first and only attempt.

But nice try ... I'm sure somebody will fall for it.

Of course you won’t fall for it. Because you like reading comprehension. Read the bold text above. PP said super score. No one said anything about “first and only attempt” related to 1600.

And colleges see that, too! They know when it's one and done, in nearly all cases.

I think super scoring and/or multiple admins. are just as weak as pretending you have a legitimate reason for being against tests (other than the obvious fact that you kid can't perform).

I didn't overlook what was said - I speed bumped it because it doesn't matter. The college AOs already know, and most rank over one and done's over the applicants who need repeat administrations to Frankenstein their score.

Most elite schools are using scores to screen people. That is all. If their screen number is 33 then a 33 or a 36 is the same. Most never look again at scores. And your 33 can be superscored and they do not care. It is almost all school, grades, ECs, and essays. No one is comparing a 34 to a 36. Same score for most elites.

All false. Many institutions even link merit money to a 35 or 36. Schools want those scores to apply to usnwr and to brag about.