Does 1580+ help T20 admissions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys are focused on the wrong thing.

Nobody knows. It changes every year.
If colleges suddenly realize that high sat scores are a scarce commodity, they will start to select for that.
If international level oboe players are a scarce commodity, they will select for that.
I remember when all the schools started women's hockey teams but there weren't a lot of female hockey players and they were selecting for female hockey players.

It's not crazy to think there will be a run on high SAT scores with the return to test required.

It is ludicrous to think that. Any school with a 15% or less acceptance rate is already getting a plethora of high scores every admissions cycle and they are choosing the students that they want based on their entire application, not their test scores. There is no reason for this to change.

You missed the point. In previous cycles they have the luxury of letting in 30%-40% of the incoming class test optional. When these three schools reinstate test required, their class shaping has to adjust accordingly if they want to maintain the same or similar score distribution. And they do maintain the distribution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys are focused on the wrong thing.

Nobody knows. It changes every year.
If colleges suddenly realize that high sat scores are a scarce commodity, they will start to select for that.
If international level oboe players are a scarce commodity, they will select for that.
I remember when all the schools started women's hockey teams but there weren't a lot of female hockey players and they were selecting for female hockey players.

It's not crazy to think there will be a run on high SAT scores with the return to test required.

It is ludicrous to think that. Any school with a 15% or less acceptance rate is already getting a plethora of high scores every admissions cycle and they are choosing the students that they want based on their entire application, not their test scores. There is no reason for this to change.

You missed the point. In previous cycles they have the luxury of letting in 30%-40% of the incoming class test optional. When these three schools reinstate test required, their class shaping has to adjust accordingly if they want to maintain the same or similar score distribution. And they do maintain the distribution.

Yes but the 36 doesn't always beat the 34 (or even 33). I saw that happen with my own kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys are focused on the wrong thing.

Nobody knows. It changes every year.
If colleges suddenly realize that high sat scores are a scarce commodity, they will start to select for that.
If international level oboe players are a scarce commodity, they will select for that.
I remember when all the schools started women's hockey teams but there weren't a lot of female hockey players and they were selecting for female hockey players.

It's not crazy to think there will be a run on high SAT scores with the return to test required.

It is ludicrous to think that. Any school with a 15% or less acceptance rate is already getting a plethora of high scores every admissions cycle and they are choosing the students that they want based on their entire application, not their test scores. There is no reason for this to change.

You missed the point. In previous cycles they have the luxury of letting in 30%-40% of the incoming class test optional. When these three schools reinstate test required, their class shaping has to adjust accordingly if they want to maintain the same or similar score distribution. And they do maintain the distribution.

Yes but the 36 doesn't always beat the 34 (or even 33). I saw that happen with my own kids.

With that word in there I'd agree with you 100%.
It's more about the shift in class shaping, less about individual cases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys are focused on the wrong thing.

Nobody knows. It changes every year.
If colleges suddenly realize that high sat scores are a scarce commodity, they will start to select for that.
If international level oboe players are a scarce commodity, they will select for that.
I remember when all the schools started women's hockey teams but there weren't a lot of female hockey players and they were selecting for female hockey players.

It's not crazy to think there will be a run on high SAT scores with the return to test required.

It is ludicrous to think that. Any school with a 15% or less acceptance rate is already getting a plethora of high scores every admissions cycle and they are choosing the students that they want based on their entire application, not their test scores. There is no reason for this to change.

You missed the point. In previous cycles they have the luxury of letting in 30%-40% of the incoming class test optional. When these three schools reinstate test required, their class shaping has to adjust accordingly if they want to maintain the same or similar score distribution. And they do maintain the distribution.

This is an incorrect assumption. If a larger move towards test required happens schools will just be returning to the pre-Covid standard that they know well and rankings pre-Covid/post-Covid didn't significantly change.

Schools MIGHT want to maintain their relative ranking among their peers but they aren't going to give up the students that they want over a small move in SAT averages. They are in the same boat and rankings aren't driven by SAT scores, they are mostly driven by endowments. This is easy to see in the rankings. If the drive for the highest SAT scores was a driver you would not hear the annual "wailing" of high stats kids who got denied at top schools because the rest of their profile didn't measure up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys are focused on the wrong thing.

Nobody knows. It changes every year.
If colleges suddenly realize that high sat scores are a scarce commodity, they will start to select for that.
If international level oboe players are a scarce commodity, they will select for that.
I remember when all the schools started women's hockey teams but there weren't a lot of female hockey players and they were selecting for female hockey players.

It's not crazy to think there will be a run on high SAT scores with the return to test required.

It is ludicrous to think that. Any school with a 15% or less acceptance rate is already getting a plethora of high scores every admissions cycle and they are choosing the students that they want based on their entire application, not their test scores. There is no reason for this to change.

You missed the point. In previous cycles they have the luxury of letting in 30%-40% of the incoming class test optional. When these three schools reinstate test required, their class shaping has to adjust accordingly if they want to maintain the same or similar score distribution. And they do maintain the distribution.

This is an incorrect assumption. If a larger move towards test required happens schools will just be returning to the pre-Covid standard that they know well and rankings pre-Covid/post-Covid didn't significantly change.

Schools MIGHT want to maintain their relative ranking among their peers but they aren't going to give up the students that they want over a small move in SAT averages. They are in the same boat and rankings aren't driven by SAT scores, they are mostly driven by endowments. This is easy to see in the rankings. If the drive for the highest SAT scores was a driver you would not hear the annual "wailing" of high stats kids who got denied at top schools because the rest of their profile didn't measure up.

There is no need to speculate on this point. Brown, Dartmouth, Harvard, etc. will provide the test required CDS very soon. Let's wait until the data becomes available. My bet is they basically maintain the distribution with a small dip.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys are focused on the wrong thing.

Nobody knows. It changes every year.
If colleges suddenly realize that high sat scores are a scarce commodity, they will start to select for that.
If international level oboe players are a scarce commodity, they will select for that.
I remember when all the schools started women's hockey teams but there weren't a lot of female hockey players and they were selecting for female hockey players.

It's not crazy to think there will be a run on high SAT scores with the return to test required.

It is ludicrous to think that. Any school with a 15% or less acceptance rate is already getting a plethora of high scores every admissions cycle and they are choosing the students that they want based on their entire application, not their test scores. There is no reason for this to change.

You missed the point. In previous cycles they have the luxury of letting in 30%-40% of the incoming class test optional. When these three schools reinstate test required, their class shaping has to adjust accordingly if they want to maintain the same or similar score distribution. And they do maintain the distribution.

This is an incorrect assumption. If a larger move towards test required happens schools will just be returning to the pre-Covid standard that they know well and rankings pre-Covid/post-Covid didn't significantly change.

Schools MIGHT want to maintain their relative ranking among their peers but they aren't going to give up the students that they want over a small move in SAT averages. They are in the same boat and rankings aren't driven by SAT scores, they are mostly driven by endowments. This is easy to see in the rankings. If the drive for the highest SAT scores was a driver you would not hear the annual "wailing" of high stats kids who got denied at top schools because the rest of their profile didn't measure up.

There is no need to speculate on this point. Brown, Dartmouth, Harvard, etc. will provide the test required CDS very soon. Let's wait until the data becomes available. My bet is they basically maintain the distribution with a small dip.

Brown and Dartmouth already went test required last cycle (2024-2025). I think Penn and Stanford are newly test required.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys are focused on the wrong thing.

Nobody knows. It changes every year.
If colleges suddenly realize that high sat scores are a scarce commodity, they will start to select for that.
If international level oboe players are a scarce commodity, they will select for that.
I remember when all the schools started women's hockey teams but there weren't a lot of female hockey players and they were selecting for female hockey players.

It's not crazy to think there will be a run on high SAT scores with the return to test required.

It is ludicrous to think that. Any school with a 15% or less acceptance rate is already getting a plethora of high scores every admissions cycle and they are choosing the students that they want based on their entire application, not their test scores. There is no reason for this to change.

You missed the point. In previous cycles they have the luxury of letting in 30%-40% of the incoming class test optional. When these three schools reinstate test required, their class shaping has to adjust accordingly if they want to maintain the same or similar score distribution. And they do maintain the distribution.

This is an incorrect assumption. If a larger move towards test required happens schools will just be returning to the pre-Covid standard that they know well and rankings pre-Covid/post-Covid didn't significantly change.

Schools MIGHT want to maintain their relative ranking among their peers but they aren't going to give up the students that they want over a small move in SAT averages. They are in the same boat and rankings aren't driven by SAT scores, they are mostly driven by endowments. This is easy to see in the rankings. If the drive for the highest SAT scores was a driver you would not hear the annual "wailing" of high stats kids who got denied at top schools because the rest of their profile didn't measure up.

There is no need to speculate on this point. Brown, Dartmouth, Harvard, etc. will provide the test required CDS very soon. Let's wait until the data becomes available. My bet is they basically maintain the distribution with a small dip.

Brown and Dartmouth already went test required last cycle (2024-2025). I think Penn and Stanford are newly test required.

Yes, they are. But their CDS for the test required cycle has not been published yet. We don't have the updated distribution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's hard to know because some parents and kids lie about their SAT. I have heard so many parents at our school claim their kids got "1570/1580/1590 first try" but when you look at Naviance and our school's official senior class profile, the math just doesn't add up.

Who goes around saying what their kid's SAT score is? How does that even come up in conversation? My kid is one of these, but nobody knows that except for my husband and kid and the school college counselor.

People know for the reason you added "my kid is one of these" instead of just asking the questions.

[Anonymous]

The number of applicants ED Penn experienced a sharp decline from 9500 to 7800 this year when Penn reinstated test required. Expect the same in RD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think anything above a 1500 is fine for top schools and even 1450+ if good grades/rigor/extracurriculars. MIT and CalTech may be exceptions that want to see 800s in math. A 1580 is certainly not going to be a negative but is not determinative in and of itself.

What’s good grades? How many Bs and what’s good extra curricular? I think there are roughly 10 very average ECs - math and science Olympiad, FTc, FRc, sports, DECA, music, what’s considered a good extra curricular.