Is it suddenly harder to get high score in SAT or were people always lying?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is why all students should start taking it in sophomore year. No downside. Take it 2 or 3 times soph, 2 or 3 times junior year, 2 times senior year.

Maximize your chances.

I disagree. I think kids should only be allowed to take it once, and heae to petition with a good reason to take it a second time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The iPhone/E generation is coming out strong…different from the 05 birth year when kids didn’t grow up with iPhones or iPads in their hands since K. My 05 dud t have a phone until almost 9th grade. He is/was a voracious reader…hence the perfect in vocab SAT; and act English & reading.

The math went down for younger Covid kids too. 05 was already through geometry before everything shutdown.

Def see a difference even in my own house. Younger one had to really prep to pull score up.

Younger siblings tend to have lower IQ than firstborns. It’s probably not about the SAT.

My kids are 4 years apart; one took paper one took digital, both scored the same.

That’s why I used the word “tend.” It’s a measurable statistical pattern, not an iron-clad law.

[Anonymous]

Side question and didn't want to start another SAT thread: Do you subconsciously have a higher expectation for a boy's SAT score versus a girl's? I ask because data show that at the high end (1520+), boys-to-girls ratio is roughly 2:1. Do AOs hold the same expectation? In other words, if a boy and a girl both achieve the same 1550, would you or AOs think of the girl's score as being more impressive?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The iPhone/E generation is coming out strong…different from the 05 birth year when kids didn’t grow up with iPhones or iPads in their hands since K. My 05 dud t have a phone until almost 9th grade. He is/was a voracious reader…hence the perfect in vocab SAT; and act English & reading.

The math went down for younger Covid kids too. 05 was already through geometry before everything shutdown.

Def see a difference even in my own house. Younger one had to really prep to pull score up.

Younger siblings tend to have lower IQ than firstborns. It’s probably not about the SAT.

My kids are 4 years apart; one took paper one took digital, both scored the same.

Same. Digital kid got 10 more points. And practice tests were all over the place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why all students should start taking it in sophomore year. No downside. Take it 2 or 3 times soph, 2 or 3 times junior year, 2 times senior year.

Maximize your chances.

I disagree. I think kids should only be allowed to take it once, and heae to petition with a good reason to take it a second time.

I’d say twice, but otherwise agree. 3 times+ is nuts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why all students should start taking it in sophomore year. No downside. Take it 2 or 3 times soph, 2 or 3 times junior year, 2 times senior year.

Maximize your chances.

I disagree. I think kids should only be allowed to take it once, and heae to petition with a good reason to take it a second time.

I think that’s fine too. Most kids who score high do pretty darn good their first time anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why all students should start taking it in sophomore year. No downside. Take it 2 or 3 times soph, 2 or 3 times junior year, 2 times senior year.

Maximize your chances.

I disagree. I think kids should only be allowed to take it once, and heae to petition with a good reason to take it a second time.

This will still benefit rich kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why all students should start taking it in sophomore year. No downside. Take it 2 or 3 times soph, 2 or 3 times junior year, 2 times senior year.

Maximize your chances.

I disagree. I think kids should only be allowed to take it once, and heae to petition with a good reason to take it a second time.

This will still benefit rich kids.

Sure, but less so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why all students should start taking it in sophomore year. No downside. Take it 2 or 3 times soph, 2 or 3 times junior year, 2 times senior year.

Maximize your chances.

I disagree. I think kids should only be allowed to take it once, and heae to petition with a good reason to take it a second time.

You and the PP you responded to are coming from opposite angles. From a college's perspective, you are suggesting what you think would be some sort of fair or equitable or otherwise appropriate way to consider scores. From an applicant's perspective, the PP is suggesting the way to reach one's highest potential score level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only about 8k kids a year get a 1560+ without superscoring. Pretty shocking.

There are, what, 4 million high school grads per year and just under 2 million SAT test takers?

And yet it feels like 7,999 of their parents post on DCUM.

And THEN they’ll say “our circle of friends and neighbors are brilliant with high IQs and it’s genetic”.

I don’t think too many people got tutoring or classes decades ago. One and done and you moved on.

I read an article on athletes and US leaders SAT or ACT scores. Athletes were in the average range of 900 to 1150. There genius is physical and mental not all in books.

Bush Jr got 1206, Bill Clinton 1032, John Kerry 1190. Families with Bush and Kerry were important. Clinton had other talents.


Unless your kid goes to a magnet school for science, math and technology it’s doubtful too many students got over 1500. Regular private school not so many.

Kids superscored back in the 80s. Maybe not quite as much as these days, but most likely of the high achievers from my HS took it at least twice.

That’s wasn’t a superscore. That was taking it twice. Your first score was your first score, your second was your second. You picked the highest to submit - didn’t get to pick and choose.

No, you used the highest for each section to superscore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only about 8k kids a year get a 1560+ without superscoring. Pretty shocking.

There are, what, 4 million high school grads per year and just under 2 million SAT test takers?

And yet it feels like 7,999 of their parents post on DCUM.

And THEN they’ll say “our circle of friends and neighbors are brilliant with high IQs and it’s genetic”.

I don’t think too many people got tutoring or classes decades ago. One and done and you moved on.

I read an article on athletes and US leaders SAT or ACT scores. Athletes were in the average range of 900 to 1150. There genius is physical and mental not all in books.

Bush Jr got 1206, Bill Clinton 1032, John Kerry 1190. Families with Bush and Kerry were important. Clinton had other talents.


Unless your kid goes to a magnet school for science, math and technology it’s doubtful too many students got over 1500. Regular private school not so many.

Kids superscored back in the 80s. Maybe not quite as much as these days, but most likely of the high achievers from my HS took it at least twice.

That’s wasn’t a superscore. That was taking it twice. Your first score was your first score, your second was your second. You picked the highest to submit - didn’t get to pick and choose.

No, you used the highest for each section to superscore.

DP. Not in my era (with the exception of a few schools).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Side question and didn't want to start another SAT thread: Do you subconsciously have a higher expectation for a boy's SAT score versus a girl's? I ask because data show that at the high end (1520+), boys-to-girls ratio is roughly 2:1. Do AOs hold the same expectation? In other words, if a boy and a girl both achieve the same 1550, would you or AOs think of the girl's score as being more impressive?

How do you know this? I’ve never seen recent statistics broken down this way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Side question and didn't want to start another SAT thread: Do you subconsciously have a higher expectation for a boy's SAT score versus a girl's? I ask because data show that at the high end (1520+), boys-to-girls ratio is roughly 2:1. Do AOs hold the same expectation? In other words, if a boy and a girl both achieve the same 1550, would you or AOs think of the girl's score as being more impressive?

How do you know this? I’ve never seen recent statistics broken down this way.

DP. I don't know if the data here is that specific (for score level) https://reports.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/2025-total-group-sat-suite-of-assessments-annual-report%20ADA-v0.2_0.pdf so I don't know what PP is referring to, but it has been true forever that boys have higher average math scores (emphasis on average as a group!) than girls (as a group).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only about 8k kids a year get a 1560+ without superscoring. Pretty shocking.

There are, what, 4 million high school grads per year and just under 2 million SAT test takers?

And yet it feels like 7,999 of their parents post on DCUM.

And THEN they’ll say “our circle of friends and neighbors are brilliant with high IQs and it’s genetic”.

I don’t think too many people got tutoring or classes decades ago. One and done and you moved on.

I read an article on athletes and US leaders SAT or ACT scores. Athletes were in the average range of 900 to 1150. There genius is physical and mental not all in books.

Bush Jr got 1206, Bill Clinton 1032, John Kerry 1190. Families with Bush and Kerry were important. Clinton had other talents.


Unless your kid goes to a magnet school for science, math and technology it’s doubtful too many students got over 1500. Regular private school not so many.

Kids superscored back in the 80s. Maybe not quite as much as these days, but most likely of the high achievers from my HS took it at least twice.

That’s wasn’t a superscore. That was taking it twice. Your first score was your first score, your second was your second. You picked the highest to submit - didn’t get to pick and choose.

No, you used the highest for each section to superscore.

DP. Not in my era (with the exception of a few schools).

That’s what all of the “high achievers” did at my HS in NJ in the late 80s. And at an academic summer program that I did.

Your SAT score didn’t refer to your highest single sitting, it was the highest combined.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Side question and didn't want to start another SAT thread: Do you subconsciously have a higher expectation for a boy's SAT score versus a girl's? I ask because data show that at the high end (1520+), boys-to-girls ratio is roughly 2:1. Do AOs hold the same expectation? In other words, if a boy and a girl both achieve the same 1550, would you or AOs think of the girl's score as being more impressive?

How do you know this? I’ve never seen recent statistics broken down this way.

Scroll down to "Boys Do Both Better And Worse On The SAT" in a 2025 article at https://aibm.org/research/boys-girls-and-grades-examining-gpa-and-sat-trends/#:~:text=trends%20remain%20clear.-,SAT%20and%20gender,the%20lowest%20(56%25)%20deciles.

Another slightly dated article (2018) reported similar observations: https://msmagazine.com/2018/02/15/highest-performing-women-still-scoring-lower-men-sat/

I have a son who made 1560 on first try and a daughter who superscored to 1530 after 3 attempts and still wants to another shot, to which I'm not sure if it's worth it given the data.