How did your super high stats kid fare (1550 plus and 4.5 plus with max rigor)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot of our frustration as parents comes from our own outdated understanding of the landscape, which is radically different today. Most of the misunderstanding probably surrounds the idea of "high stats kids" because we are using the metrics and SAT scales from the 90s. It is pretty sobering to realize that an estimated 20,000 students will score at ~1530 or above every year in one sitting (top 1%). With superscoring, that number of students will be even higher. This varies by school type, but I have also seen estimates that nearly 50% of US students will graduate high school with overall averages in the A range.

This! 1530 is the new 1400. 4.0 is the new B. The scary thing is you can't differentiate further among the ones with 1530+ and 4.0 on numbers. It creates a delusion of "high stats kids."

Agree ... so many of these kids test and retest, super score, study and have tutors, specialized college counselors etc. to achieve these stats.

These are bright kids, but universities cannot tell the difference between these kids and the EXCEPTIONALLY bright kids who score in the 1500-1600 first try no prep, ace AP tests with little to no prep, don't have to work that hard for a 4.0+ with max rigor at a top/competitive HS. We have a super high stats kid that read War and Peace on their own as a freshman in HS "for fun"...meanwhile you have T20s offering what basically amounts to remedial literature courses.

Grade inflation is real. TO has really affected the academic quality of students at T20.

lol let me guess. Your kid scored high on their first try on the SAT and so they are "exeptionally" bright. Because we all know that kids that take it more than once aren't. Can't make some of this stuff up.

I mean, my kid can spell a word properly when copying it from two paragraphs up on the page and with the benefit of computerized autocorrect as a backstop....

And everyone's kid can write a compelling essay with AI today.

Which is why SAT and ACT scores are more valuable than ever.

Except the College Board has softened the tests and now there are tons of students with high scores. In olden times, anything above 1200 was solid. 1300 was brilliant. And a 1400 or above was a freak show.

Now you can't even be considered at highly selective universities without a 1500.

Everything has been dumbed down in recent years to accommodate political priorities. It makes it difficult for any gifted student to stand out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot of our frustration as parents comes from our own outdated understanding of the landscape, which is radically different today. Most of the misunderstanding probably surrounds the idea of "high stats kids" because we are using the metrics and SAT scales from the 90s. It is pretty sobering to realize that an estimated 20,000 students will score at ~1530 or above every year in one sitting (top 1%). With superscoring, that number of students will be even higher. This varies by school type, but I have also seen estimates that nearly 50% of US students will graduate high school with overall averages in the A range.

This! 1530 is the new 1400. 4.0 is the new B. The scary thing is you can't differentiate further among the ones with 1530+ and 4.0 on numbers. It creates a delusion of "high stats kids."

Agree ... so many of these kids test and retest, super score, study and have tutors, specialized college counselors etc. to achieve these stats.

These are bright kids, but universities cannot tell the difference between these kids and the EXCEPTIONALLY bright kids who score in the 1500-1600 first try no prep, ace AP tests with little to no prep, don't have to work that hard for a 4.0+ with max rigor at a top/competitive HS. We have a super high stats kid that read War and Peace on their own as a freshman in HS "for fun"...meanwhile you have T20s offering what basically amounts to remedial literature courses.

Grade inflation is real. TO has really affected the academic quality of students at T20.

lol let me guess. Your kid scored high on their first try on the SAT and so they are "exeptionally" bright. Because we all know that kids that take it more than once aren't. Can't make some of this stuff up.

DP. Surely you understand that there’s a significant difference between a kid who can score a 1600 with no prep and a kid who gets a 1600 after months of prep & multiple retakes and uses a superscore?

The former has demonstrated aptitude and the latter diligence and determination.

Neither is better than the other, but they certainly demonstrate different characteristics.

Oh my

[Anonymous]

First off good luck to you and your student-its tough, there just aren't enough spots and you have no way of knowing how many spots are really available (legacies+athletes+institutional priorities)

My son: Chem Major, 1540 SAT (1 take), 3.98/4.46 GPA, Max rigor 10 AP's (all 5's) and the rest honors/Advanced topic, StuCo all 4 years (inc ASB Pres), national awards for debate, volunteer math/science tutor for First Gen kids, theater (lead roles) and music (competition a cappella team) and research submitted for publication.

He didn't ED-really hated the idea of binding to a school and never knowing what his choices might have been.

Accepted: Cal, Columbia (he is attending), Rice, Williams, Amherst, UMich (EA), UVA (EA) Lehigh, UCSD
Waitlisted: Brown, UCLA, Tulane, CMU, UChicago
Denied: Harvard, Duke, Yale, Tufts

[Anonymous]

In my DC’s school, only 1600 is news worthy. Kids will all know the name of the kid who got 1600. 1550 is a dime a dozen. 1580 and above is good, fewer got it, but not newsworthy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot of our frustration as parents comes from our own outdated understanding of the landscape, which is radically different today. Most of the misunderstanding probably surrounds the idea of "high stats kids" because we are using the metrics and SAT scales from the 90s. It is pretty sobering to realize that an estimated 20,000 students will score at ~1530 or above every year in one sitting (top 1%). With superscoring, that number of students will be even higher. This varies by school type, but I have also seen estimates that nearly 50% of US students will graduate high school with overall averages in the A range.

This! 1530 is the new 1400. 4.0 is the new B. The scary thing is you can't differentiate further among the ones with 1530+ and 4.0 on numbers. It creates a delusion of "high stats kids."

Agree ... so many of these kids test and retest, super score, study and have tutors, specialized college counselors etc. to achieve these stats.

These are bright kids, but universities cannot tell the difference between these kids and the EXCEPTIONALLY bright kids who score in the 1500-1600 first try no prep, ace AP tests with little to no prep, don't have to work that hard for a 4.0+ with max rigor at a top/competitive HS. We have a super high stats kid that read War and Peace on their own as a freshman in HS "for fun"...meanwhile you have T20s offering what basically amounts to remedial literature courses.

Grade inflation is real. TO has really affected the academic quality of students at T20.

lol let me guess. Your kid scored high on their first try on the SAT and so they are "exeptionally" bright. Because we all know that kids that take it more than once aren't. Can't make some of this stuff up.

DP. Surely you understand that there’s a significant difference between a kid who can score a 1600 with no prep and a kid who gets a 1600 after months of prep & multiple retakes and uses a superscore?

The former has demonstrated aptitude and the latter diligence and determination.

Neither is better than the other, but they certainly demonstrate different characteristics.

The one shot 1600 kid started prepping earlier, and read literature that happens to match the style preferred by the test.

Apparently people are super attuned to the lifestyles and mind workings of these genius children whose claim to fame is their very existence being astronomically rare!

You missed “with no prep”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:First off good luck to you and your student-its tough, there just aren't enough spots and you have no way of knowing how many spots are really available (legacies+athletes+institutional priorities)

My son: Chem Major, 1540 SAT (1 take), 3.98/4.46 GPA, Max rigor 10 AP's (all 5's) and the rest honors/Advanced topic, StuCo all 4 years (inc ASB Pres), national awards for debate, volunteer math/science tutor for First Gen kids, theater (lead roles) and music (competition a cappella team) and research submitted for publication.

He didn't ED-really hated the idea of binding to a school and never knowing what his choices might have been.

Accepted: Cal, Columbia (he is attending), Rice, Williams, Amherst, UMich (EA), UVA (EA) Lehigh, UCSD
Waitlisted: Brown, UCLA, Tulane, CMU, UChicago
Denied: Harvard, Duke, Yale, Tufts

Congrats! The ECs are amazing!

[Anonymous]

Congrats! The ECs are amazing!

Thanks- all him. Frankly, I kept hoping he'd get a B or two and take some pressure off himself, they pressure each other and social media is constant and unrealistic.
We stayed out of it except for supporting his decision not to ED despite pressure from school college counseling and his choice to apply to more reaches than she recommended. Turns out he was right, he had better outcomes in what the school deemed "far reaches" than the ones they had as targets (Tufts, Tulane, CMU)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Congrats! The ECs are amazing!

Thanks- all him. Frankly, I kept hoping he'd get a B or two and take some pressure off himself, they pressure each other and social media is constant and unrealistic.
We stayed out of it except for supporting his decision not to ED despite pressure from school college counseling and his choice to apply to more reaches than she recommended. Turns out he was right, he had better outcomes in what the school deemed "far reaches" than the ones they had as targets (Tufts, Tulane, CMU)

In-state for UVA?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Congrats! The ECs are amazing!

Thanks- all him. Frankly, I kept hoping he'd get a B or two and take some pressure off himself, they pressure each other and social media is constant and unrealistic.
We stayed out of it except for supporting his decision not to ED despite pressure from school college counseling and his choice to apply to more reaches than she recommended. Turns out he was right, he had better outcomes in what the school deemed "far reaches" than the ones they had as targets (Tufts, Tulane, CMU)

In-state for UVA?

In state UVA would be hard to pass up

[Anonymous]

Among roughly a dozen or so of my son's friends who have high scores, good GPA (top 10% of an ultra-competitive HS), and with strong EC's along with national type awards, everyone ended up at T20.

Each had at least had admission to one of UT Austin, U Mich, UCLA or UVA.

Although individually there were surprises, as a group it was very consistent. No big surprises, other than some ridiculous bungling by UT Austin in multiple cases. Student got a denial via portal and then got a personal letter from dean of college or some such faculty trying to entice them to join the honors program. It turns out they incorrectly sent out a rejection.

[Anonymous]

To clarify: Each of them had admission to one or more of T20 and at least one of UT Austin, U Mich, UCLA or UVA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Among roughly a dozen or so of my son's friends who have high scores, good GPA (top 10% of an ultra-competitive HS), and with strong EC's along with national type awards, everyone ended up at T20.

Each had at least had admission to one of UT Austin, U Mich, UCLA or UVA.

Although individually there were surprises, as a group it was very consistent. No big surprises, other than some ridiculous bungling by UT Austin in multiple cases. Student got a denial via portal and then got a personal letter from dean of college or some such faculty trying to entice them to join the honors program. It turns out they incorrectly sent out a rejection.

public or private HS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Congrats! The ECs are amazing!

Thanks- all him. Frankly, I kept hoping he'd get a B or two and take some pressure off himself, they pressure each other and social media is constant and unrealistic.
We stayed out of it except for supporting his decision not to ED despite pressure from school college counseling and his choice to apply to more reaches than she recommended. Turns out he was right, he had better outcomes in what the school deemed "far reaches" than the ones they had as targets (Tufts, Tulane, CMU)

In-state for UVA?

In state UVA would be hard to pass up

Not really. It’s passed up all the time for Ivies, T10s and top SLACs. UVA is a big public. It’s not the same. A good value, yes.

[Anonymous]

No, OOS for UVA. The large class sizes at all of the publics were negative to him, Cal in particular has an amazing Chem Department.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Congrats! The ECs are amazing!

Thanks- all him. Frankly, I kept hoping he'd get a B or two and take some pressure off himself, they pressure each other and social media is constant and unrealistic.
We stayed out of it except for supporting his decision not to ED despite pressure from school college counseling and his choice to apply to more reaches than she recommended. Turns out he was right, he had better outcomes in what the school deemed "far reaches" than the ones they had as targets (Tufts, Tulane, CMU)

In-state for UVA?

In state UVA would be hard to pass up

Not really. It’s passed up all the time for Ivies, T10s and top SLACs. UVA is a big public. It’s not the same. A good value, yes.

For Harvard, Princeton or Yale...Yes. Not the others for me. I'm not from Virginia and no dog in the game, but I couldn't justify the cost difference. That's just me.