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:

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.

If you were in Virginia and had experienced one child at UVA, another at (top5LAC) and another at (ivy in the T10) then you would not question it at all. Cousins have one at a "lower-3" ivy and one at UVA, good family friend has one at UVA and one at WashU. It is night and day between UVA and most T20 privates/very top LACs.

I suppose. For me it would just depend on the ranking of the major at that particular school compared to the others. I personally wouldn't get caught up in all the other stuff regardless of Ivy, ACC or BIG 10 or whatever.

In what way that would justify the cost difference if in-state? Just curious.

Everything is competitive and gate kept at UVA. Getting into a lab is a slog, clubs are more cutthroat than ivy/top privates, classes are huge for most of the first two years thus it is harder to get to know professors. Even going abroad is competitive. The privates have huge endowments and they spend them on undergrads: funding for research, summer programs, cheap or usually free on campus activities. There is less of a big party/big sports vibe on weekends. The law/med matriculation lists are more impressive at the privates and the grades are inflated over UVA which helps.


I definately get it. UVA is not a small school. It's good, but not a 5-7K school. My kid turned down our T50 instate flagship for a ~40 smaller school. (so a $60-70K/year difference). Why? Because our state flagship has 30K+ undergrads, you are not guaranteed your major (in with engineering, but no guarantee you will get the one you want) and you constantly fight for classes. Oh and CS as a minor or major is not an option unless you are direct admit to it (and you cannot apply to both CS and engineering, it's one or the other). So my kid focused on private schools with 5-8K undergrads where you get to know your profs and you can major in anything, provided you do well in the first 2-3 courses in sequence. Their professors know them, they have been TAing each semester since end of Sophomore year, and doing research since sophomore year. Meaningful research. So while it's difficult to find internships, they are doing research year round, getting paid in the summer and will have excellent meaningful recommendations for graduate school (should jobs not be avaialbe next spring, which is likely).

That is what you get from smaller schools and non-state U.

[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 futher among the ones with 1530+ and 4.0 on numbers. It creates a delusion of "high stats kids."

20, 30 years ago, there are rare, very rare. Nowadays it's not. So many posters in this thread responded with results of their "high stats kids" says they are not rare.

The posts in this thread would have been rare enough in the mid-90s before the SAT got recentered that they would not be anonymous.

Not only were the scores recentered, the test content itself was redesigned to make the score more responsive to studying, right? I do not remember so many repeat test takers in the 90s. There was only so much you could do to raise the verbal score because there were so many esoteric vocab words and logical analogies. People who nailed the verbal section usually benefitted the most from a lifetime of reading, not a year or two of cramming. In any case, it sure was a lot simpler to figure out a realistic college list when we were applying. Today, with so many high stats kids, the kids are frustrated because they see that Joe got into Harvard with the same SAT score as they did while they only got into their decent local safety school.

Yes, this is all true of the mid 90s SAT before recentering (I think it was recentered around 1998). It was less common to see retakes, and very rare to see more than one retake (I don't know anyone who took it more than twice) for the reasons you mentioned and because all scores were reported. I also never heard the term "superscoring" back then.

The very few people I know who got 1600s and 1590s back then tended to be, as you mentioned, lifetime readers who also could read extremely fast, and the types of people who were freakishly good at puzzles. It's no surprise that the kid I know who got a 1600 also got a 179 on the old, very difficult, LSAT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, based on our experience, be aware of the OOS Top Publics with single digit OOS acceptance rates with 60,000 and more applications. In addition to Ivies and other T20s, these are some of the most difficult gets. We found that out this last cycle.

I really fail to see why those are so attractive to people.

My kids applied to instate public schools but no out of state publics. I'm not paying private $ for public quality. Nope.

You fail to see why UCLA, Cal, Michigan, UNC and UVA would be attractive?

Georgia Tech says Hi in hexadecimal ascii.

Fixed it for you.

[Anonymous]

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.

Why would a college want a kid who, in your words, "doesn't work that hard"? Seems like a weird argument in favor of kids who are disengaged.

It's not that they "don't work that hard" -- it's that they don't *have* to work that hard to achieve the same results.
These kids are natural academic superstars. There is a difference between kids like that and the ones who have to spend hundreds to thousands of additional hours studying etc. to achieve the same/similar grades/scores. There just is. It's nothing that you can do as a parent. No special schooling, or ECs or tutoring or anything. They just are who they are.

[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.

We'll never know how the PP's kid would have scored on the vintage SAT, and it's very natural for every parent to think their kid is exceptionally bright. But it is a real problem when tens of thousands of kids are all told they have "high stats" and dream of Harvard based on 1990s or 2000s profiles. Then they and their parents are disappointed or even feel cheated when they don't get accepted to their dream school. This is what creates lot of disappointment and bitterness.

Discussion was about test scores and grades. Kids like this are off the charts academic super stars without much effort -- they can walk into these tests cold and get near perfect/perfect scores. That is not the same as a *regular* "high stats" kid.
There's at least a few of these kids at every highly competitive high school and chances are everyone knows who they are (standouts among the standouts). It's just completely a different thing for some kids at the tippy top.

[Anonymous]

I think that is one of the reasons colleges want strong extracurriculars, the primary reason being they want engaged students adding to campus life. Perfect grades and top SAT scores while spending 30+ hours a week doing other activities shows they can handle the rigor.
I don't think colleges really want students who will struggle academically, at least not many of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you were in Virginia and had experienced one child at UVA, another at (top5LAC) and another at (ivy in the T10) then you would not question it at all. Cousins have one at a "lower-3" ivy and one at UVA, good family friend has one at UVA and one at WashU. It is night and day between UVA and most T20 privates/very top LACs.

Not the experience of several families we know very well. Two illustrations: family with 3 kids. Oldest to UVA in-state, middle to Dartmouth, youngest just chose UVA (in-state) over Princeton and Duke. I'm not making this up.
Another family: oldest to UVA, middle to Georgetown, youngest just chose UVA (in-state) over Vanderbilt and Chicago.

My own kid chose UVA in-state over Columbia, Michigan, UNC and Berkeley for this fall.

I am not making any of this up. I was actually REALLY surprised about the UVA over Duke/Princeton and Vanderbilt kids. Happy (because it validated my kid's own decision) but quite surprised. Choosing UVA over Columbia was fairly easy for my son because he decided against an urban experience.

[Anonymous]

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 futher among the ones with 1530+ and 4.0 on numbers. It creates a delusion of "high stats kids."

About 20 years people decided they didn't like how testing was affecting college admissions so they fattened the tails to the point where anyone in the top 1% could break a 1500.

[Anonymous]

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 futher among the ones with 1530+ and 4.0 on numbers. It creates a delusion of "high stats kids."

20, 30 years ago, there are rare, very rare. Nowadays it's not. So many posters in this thread responded with results of their "high stats kids" says they are not rare.

The posts in this thread would have been rare enough in the mid-90s before the SAT got recentered that they would not be anonymous.

There was another one in 2005 when they went to the 2400 point system

[Anonymous]

EC is the king. Win or lose on your ECs!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I think that is one of the reasons colleges want strong extracurriculars, the primary reason being they want engaged students adding to campus life. Perfect grades and top SAT scores while spending 30+ hours a week doing other activities shows they can handle the rigor.
I don't think colleges really want students who will struggle academically, at least not many of them.

LOL. How does a student spend 30+ hours per week on EC's in addition to actual school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, based on our experience, be aware of the OOS Top Publics with single digit OOS acceptance rates with 60,000 and more applications. In addition to Ivies and other T20s, these are some of the most difficult gets. We found that out this last cycle.

I really fail to see why those are so attractive to people.

My kids applied to instate public schools but no out of state publics. I'm not paying private $ for public quality. Nope.

You fail to see why UCLA, Cal, Michigan, UNC and UVA would be attractive?

Georgia Tech says Hi in hexadecimal ascii.

Fixed it for you.

[Anonymous]

Seriously, lots of them do. Any student in a major role in strong theater is spending hours and hours 6 days per week in rehearsals for at least 2/3's of the semester for each performance. Kids on varsity sports teams are practicing hours per day, also working out and playing 1-2 games per week. Kids in Model UN are attending several hours of prep per week plus researching and writing their position papers and practicing for competitions. Not to mention their are kids working part time and helping out at home.

Its not for everyone but there are definitely kids doing it and it matters in college admissions.

[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.

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.

Back in the 90s my public high school had a student that achieved a perfect PSAT, perfect SAT, and three perfect SAT IIs. All on the first try.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think that is one of the reasons colleges want strong extracurriculars, the primary reason being they want engaged students adding to campus life. Perfect grades and top SAT scores while spending 30+ hours a week doing other activities shows they can handle the rigor.
I don't think colleges really want students who will struggle academically, at least not many of them.

LOL. How does a student spend 30+ hours per week on EC's in addition to actual school?

Doable. Example:

Kid is an ice skater/swimmer/etc. has morning practice from 4:30 am- 6:30 am 5x a week and weekend practice is from 7-9. Once a month does skating competitions. Plus travel= abt 20 hrs / week

+

Works at movie theater, 1 five hr shift a week = 5 hrs (Fri nite/or weekend afternoon) = 5 hrs/weej

+

Sga treasurer - mtgs 1x week after school on Wed + 2 hrs planning stuff at home on own time = 3 hrs/week

+

Church volunteer every Sunday 2 hrs in preschool

+

Piano lessons 3-4 (1 hr) on mondays

+

PResident of Spanish club, meets every other week for 45 min after sch (averages abt 25 min/week)