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Anonymous wrote:I think a lot of our frustration as parents comes from our own outdated understanding of the landscape, which is radically different today.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.

My sister got into MIT in 1995 with a 1520 She had robotics and academic decathlon as her ECs, and the highest rigor our school with a close to 4.0 (nothing was weighted back then). But no national awards and didn’t really overdo it in HS. She worked part time as a bagger at the grocery store.

[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.

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.

+1

[Anonymous]

got in ED to Cornell for environmental science!

[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.

\

They want all this other crap for the same reason banks used to hand out toasters, because there was a limit on how much you could pay out in interest on deposits so the banks gave you a toaster instead. There is a limit on how finely the SATs will select at the right end of the curve so they look to other indicators that you are in the 0.1%

[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.

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.

one hundred percent. When you teach a lot of high stats 1450-1500s kid in the top rigor track and you also have one of these off the charts super stars, you see the difference easily. Our 150-grad-class test-in private with median SAT scores of 1380 (92nd %ile) has about 1-2 a year, occasionally three, occasionally none. We have about 5 kids go to ivy+ unhooked every year and the 1-2 kids who are super starts often get into multiple T10 unless there is a personality issue or they have zero ECs.
My nephew is at one of "those" high achieving magnets with dozens of students in this realm. The SAT is easy for them, zero trouble >1530 first try. This school is hard to test into, and not surprising it gets a much higher percent of kids into ivy/+ than the school where I teach.
A family member is a professor and has taught at T75, T27-30ish, and tenure at T10. The concentration of these "99.9%ile" superstars is remarkably higher at the T10. They push the kids just below them to work hard: it elevates the classroom discussion, the pset groups, etc. Even Honors college at the T75 did not have classes that could be run at the pace the T10 kids can handle: honors there was closer to the T30ish.
In-state publics, even Berkeley the quintessential #1 public, cannot compete with the classroom atmosphere of a T10, due to size and due to student quality.

[Anonymous]

They want all this other crap for the same reason banks used to hand out toasters, because there was a limit on how much you could pay out in interest on deposits so the banks gave you a toaster instead. There is a limit on how finely the SATs will select at the right end of the curve so they look to other indicators that you are in the 0.1%

But that is the point- GPA and super high SAT score won't do it. They are required but not sufficient. I think people don't understand the daunting statistics. Yes, SAT in mid 1500 is top 1% but that is still ~20k kids and its 40k if you move the needle to 1500. Ignoring GPA because those are inflated and difficult to compare across thousands of high schools. Either way that is more "qualified" applicants than there are spots at the "Ivy +"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not following re UVA. I’m OOS for UVA (not in DC).

Are people saying it’s far below a school like WashU? How would you compare it to Wake Forest?

Yes, no question on WashU. Wake is similar but the smaller size is a much better fit for many, over UVA.

Many also prefer a large public over a small private.

I asked the question re WashU. Had no idea re perception. Fascinating

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

anonymous wrote:
They want all this other crap for the same reason banks used to hand out toasters, because there was a limit on how much you could pay out in interest on deposits so the banks gave you a toaster instead. There is a limit on how finely the SATs will select at the right end of the curve so they look to other indicators that you are in the 0.1%

But that is the point- GPA and super high SAT score won't do it. They are required but not sufficient. I think people don't understand the daunting statistics. Yes, SAT in mid 1500 is top 1% but that is still ~20k kids and its 40k if you move the needle to 1500. Ignoring GPA because those are inflated and difficult to compare across thousands of high schools. Either way that is more "qualified" applicants than there are spots at the "Ivy +"

It's because there is a limit. The limit might be their own doing but they have limited the one tool that would give them a finer filter because they didn't like who was getting filtered out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

one hundred percent. When you teach a lot of high stats 1450-1500s kid in the top rigor track and you also have one of these off the charts super stars, you see the difference easily. Our 150-grad-class test-in private with median SAT scores of 1380 (92nd %ile) has about 1-2 a year, occasionally three, occasionally none. We have about 5 kids go to ivy+ unhooked every year and the 1-2 kids who are super starts often get into multiple T10 unless there is a personality issue or they have zero ECs.
My nephew is at one of "those" high achieving magnets with dozens of students in this realm. The SAT is easy for them, zero trouble >1530 first try. This school is hard to test into, and not surprising it gets a much higher percent of kids into ivy/+ than the school where I teach.
A family member is a professor and has taught at T75, T27-30ish, and tenure at T10. The concentration of these "99.9%ile" superstars is remarkably higher at the T10. They push the kids just below them to work hard: it elevates the classroom discussion, the pset groups, etc. Even Honors college at the T75 did not have classes that could be run at the pace the T10 kids can handle: honors there was closer to the T30ish.
In-state publics, even Berkeley the quintessential #1 public, cannot compete with the classroom atmosphere of a T10, due to size and due to student quality.

I went to stuyvesant in the 1980s and had a friend that is a tenured professor of math at an ivy and he was profoundly gifted that was the first time I didn't feel like the smartest kid in the room. There were geniuses in that building when I went there. Not geniuses in the statistical sense of being in the top X%ile. Geniuses in the sense that they understood stuff faster and saw angles we never saw but there is no way you could populate a whole school with that level of genius. Sometimes i felt like the rest of us were merely providing an enriched environment for them.

[Anonymous]

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."

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.

Where is your citation for this, and who are "people" and "they"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

anonymous wrote:
They want all this other crap for the same reason banks used to hand out toasters, because there was a limit on how much you could pay out in interest on deposits so the banks gave you a toaster instead. There is a limit on how finely the SATs will select at the right end of the curve so they look to other indicators that you are in the 0.1%

But that is the point- GPA and super high SAT score won't do it. They are required but not sufficient. I think people don't understand the daunting statistics. Yes, SAT in mid 1500 is top 1% but that is still ~20k kids and its 40k if you move the needle to 1500. Ignoring GPA because those are inflated and difficult to compare across thousands of high schools. Either way that is more "qualified" applicants than there are spots at the "Ivy +"

It's because there is a limit. The limit might be their own doing but they have limited the one tool that would give them a finer filter because they didn't like who was getting filtered out.

“They” meaning the colleges? The college board did the redesign and I’m not sure who was responsible. I am guessing that it is partly just business: the less onerous the test, the more “studyable” it is, the more people will pay to take it. Colleges are not really in the business of designing nationwide tests like SAT/ACT, but as a college prof in the sciences, I personally prefer the older, more logic based verbal section. The grade inflation seems to be a systemic high school problem. Some people are angry college admissions offices weight non-metric qualities so highly but they kind of have to because of the severe weakness of the standard metrics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not following re UVA. I’m OOS for UVA (not in DC).

Are people saying it’s far below a school like WashU? How would you compare it to Wake Forest?

Yes, no question on WashU. Wake is similar but the smaller size is a much better fit for many, over UVA.

Many also prefer a large public over a small private.

I asked the question re WashU. Had no idea re perception. Fascinating

Yes, It really is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Intense? Yikes My kid was that profile is at an Ivy. Not an intense kid but academically, motivated. Doesn’t like intense. He’s a kind, sweet kid. Didn’t ED or REA anywhere.

Nobody can tell you. My kid had the same grades and stats as other friends, but he was the only one in the group to get accepted to multiple T10/20 schools and I could not tell you why. Unhooked. Typical kid- job, sports, ecs. He usually has bad luck so it was a surprise.

It really becomes a lottery at the T10/20s. Every kid has those stats and similar activities.

He just applied where he thought he would like to go. He had no clear first choice so didn’t want to ED.

Humanities or social science major? That matters. Otherwise, probably just a likeable kid who wrote nice essays and had glowing recs. People tend to underestimate the value of plain old likability in the application process. Even elite colleges prefer to admit nice kids they think will be a positive presence on campus.

I think this is a bigger factor that people realize. These schools do actually care about building their community. A kid I know who got into Yale a couple of years ago was like this—strong academically, well-rounded, but also lovely, delightful, a ray of sunshine—and I’m guessing it was clear in his recommendations and essays.

Are podcasters reading this group thread?

Saw this on apple this morning.
“Hillary, I want to talk to you about something I've been thinking about a lot. I've been wanting to share this on the podcast, but I struggle with how to communicate this, and I just wanted to get your thoughts on it. So one of the things that I find in reading students' writing that really, I guess, just increases their desirability is if they come across very likable.

But yet when you say that, it sounds like a pop-up. Is this a popularity contest? But I really think have a stranger, somebody doesn't know you that well, read that and think, is this a likable person?

How often are you going to really fight for, advocate for, or get attached to someone who you don't find that likable? I doubt very often. I know I didn't when I was in admissions.

Like the whole idea of, and some of it's combined with other things, right? You're likable because you have personal qualities that are going to add. You're likable because you're interesting.”

From Your College Bound Kid | Admission Tips, Admission Trends & Admission Interviews: How Does Being Likeable Impact College Admissions Decisions, Aug 7, 2025

[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."

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.

Where is your citation for this, and who are "people" and "they"?

The college board, admissions offices, the anti-testing crowd, etc.

[Anonymous]

Illuminating thread. DC is a rising junior who’ll probably fit this profile. 4.0/4.5(w), 1580 SAT, 5 APs (all 5s) and a couple of dual enrollment classes so far. ECs are ok (varsity x-c, pianist for school musicals, Jazz/funk band) but nothing extraordinary. Perhaps the only national level EC is MOP qualification and USAMO bronze. Wondering how things will shake out.