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:
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.

The college board didn't dilute their product because they wanted it to be more preppable by the students that pay for it. They did so because their actual customers, college admissions offices were not happy with the results. The racial and gender disparity became more obvious at the higher scores.

A 1520 in early 90ss put you in the top 1000 nationwide. 1600s were so rare that it was in the single digits. These days there are about 1000 perfect scores every year.

A 1600 today translates to about a 1510+ in the early 90s. A 1550 is somewhere around a 1470. Still high scoring but there are 10,000 kids with better scores.

I posted earlier but my high school in the 90s had a pre-recentering case of a 1600 PSAT, 1600 SAT, and perfect 800 SAT IIs. All on his first try. I did not go to a school where most people prepped so I doubt he took a prep course. The test was harder back then and the only way to get the 1600 was to be perfect across the board (Recentering changed that, you could miss some).

This was basically considered a freak occurrence at the time, now this would not be a big deal at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I feel like this has always been the case. People with good soft skills are always going to have an advantage in life as well as people who are intelligent

I just listened to the podcast. At least that section.

It was interesting how they will overlook a blip or a bad grade for the likability factor and bring someone to committee. And how some of the perfect stats kids are fine, but not memorable and no one fights for them when push comes to shove.

It was also interesting that they said that they are OK having a kid with a C on a transcript if they are going to bring something absolutely spectacular to campus or classroom (they mentioned LOR) and make a professors life easier or make teaching a joy. They mentioned they don’t need every kid to graduate cum laude. They do need people to do certain things on campus and that is ultimately more valuable to them than perfect grades for everyone on a college campus.

Yes it is about building a class, not filling it with the highest IQ kids. The super bright, tests are easy, grasp information fast and do not have to work as hard as others in the same rigorous APs often still get in to ivies, but they do not just stack them up on estimated intellectual talent and accept that way. (After athletes and URM etc) they want diversity of talent so will take the amazing theater kid or artist with less rigor and top-3% smart but not a 99% over yet another top intellectual interested in Stem. The true intellectual outliers often get in to multiple T10/ivy whereas the highly intelligent notch below “just” 98-99% can easily be shut out of all T20: there are just too many in this group and tests and GPA as currently evaluated do not separate the group well. The “its a crapshoot” statements apply to this group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The college board didn't dilute their product because they wanted it to be more preppable by the students that pay for it. They did so because their actual customers, college admissions offices were not happy with the results. The racial and gender disparity became more obvious at the higher scores.

A 1520 in early 90ss put you in the top 1000 nationwide. 1600s were so rare that it was in the single digits. These days there are about 1000 perfect scores every year.

A 1600 today translates to about a 1510+ in the early 90s. A 1550 is somewhere around a 1470. Still high scoring but there are 10,000 kids with better scores.

I don’t think 10,000 can be correct. That is not even enough for all the ivies.

There are too many 1550 kids around. Something is off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I have a kid like that, he's my energizer bunny type kid. He has long days, and busy weekends.

I also had a kid who spent about 28-30 hours a week on ECs: 20 for performing arts and 8-10 on clubs, volunteering work. Took every hard class possible and loved the challenge, a wall of 5’s on the app, had done all the hard ones by the end of junior year. They were just more efficient and naturally intellectually quick so they spent very little time on homework compared to other students near the top of the class. They are at an ivy. Many of their peers are of the same mold, but it is definitely under half. They remain near the top in a competitive and difficult major. No one was their level in their high school. They needed a T10/ivy for fit to finally study among a large group of similar minds and not always be the smartest and fastest thinker in the room.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I feel like this has always been the case. People with good soft skills are always going to have an advantage in life as well as people who are intelligent

I just listened to the podcast. At least that section.

It was interesting how they will overlook a blip or a bad grade for the likability factor and bring someone to committee. And how some of the perfect stats kids are fine, but not memorable and no one fights for them when push comes to shove.

It was also interesting that they said that they are OK having a kid with a C on a transcript if they are going to bring something absolutely spectacular to campus or classroom (they mentioned LOR) and make a professors life easier or make teaching a joy. They mentioned they don’t need every kid to graduate cum laude. They do need people to do certain things on campus and that is ultimately more valuable to them than perfect grades for everyone on a college campus.

Yes it is about building a class, not filling it with the highest IQ kids. The super bright, tests are easy, grasp information fast and do not have to work as hard as others in the same rigorous APs often still get in to ivies, but they do not just stack them up on estimated intellectual talent and accept that way. (After athletes and URM etc) they want diversity of talent so will take the amazing theater kid or artist with less rigor and top-3% smart but not a 99% over yet another top intellectual interested in Stem. The true intellectual outliers often get in to multiple T10/ivy whereas the highly intelligent notch below “just” 98-99% can easily be shut out of all T20: there are just too many in this group and tests and GPA as currently evaluated do not separate the group well. The “its a crapshoot” statements apply to this group.

I don't think universities can tell the difference between the "highly intelligent" (non-outlier), and the bright kid who took the SAT 6 times to superscore a 1520. I think that's the issue-- the outliers they can spot, but everyone else is lumped in together and standardized tests do not do a good job of distinguishing those at the tippy top -- combine that with rampant grade inflation (and TO) and tens of thousands of kids end up looking "super high stats" on their application. Especially when looking at students coming from a wide range of high schools not just top, well known privates and magnet schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The college board didn't dilute their product because they wanted it to be more preppable by the students that pay for it. They did so because their actual customers, college admissions offices were not happy with the results. The racial and gender disparity became more obvious at the higher scores.

A 1520 in early 90ss put you in the top 1000 nationwide. 1600s were so rare that it was in the single digits. These days there are about 1000 perfect scores every year.

A 1600 today translates to about a 1510+ in the early 90s. A 1550 is somewhere around a 1470. Still high scoring but there are 10,000 kids with better scores.

I posted earlier but my high school in the 90s had a pre-recentering case of a 1600 PSAT, 1600 SAT, and perfect 800 SAT IIs. All on his first try. I did not go to a school where most people prepped so I doubt he took a prep course. The test was harder back then and the only way to get the 1600 was to be perfect across the board (Recentering changed that, you could miss some).

This was basically considered a freak occurrence at the time, now this would not be a big deal at all.

So you've taken the current version for comparison? I don't think I have the attention span any more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I feel like this has always been the case. People with good soft skills are always going to have an advantage in life as well as people who are intelligent

I just listened to the podcast. At least that section.

It was interesting how they will overlook a blip or a bad grade for the likability factor and bring someone to committee. And how some of the perfect stats kids are fine, but not memorable and no one fights for them when push comes to shove.

It was also interesting that they said that they are OK having a kid with a C on a transcript if they are going to bring something absolutely spectacular to campus or classroom (they mentioned LOR) and make a professors life easier or make teaching a joy. They mentioned they don’t need every kid to graduate cum laude. They do need people to do certain things on campus and that is ultimately more valuable to them than perfect grades for everyone on a college campus.

Yes it is about building a class, not filling it with the highest IQ kids. The super bright, tests are easy, grasp information fast and do not have to work as hard as others in the same rigorous APs often still get in to ivies, but they do not just stack them up on estimated intellectual talent and accept that way. (After athletes and URM etc) they want diversity of talent so will take the amazing theater kid or artist with less rigor and top-3% smart but not a 99% over yet another top intellectual interested in Stem. The true intellectual outliers often get in to multiple T10/ivy whereas the highly intelligent notch below “just” 98-99% can easily be shut out of all T20: there are just too many in this group and tests and GPA as currently evaluated do not separate the group well. The “its a crapshoot” statements apply to this group.

I don't think universities can tell the difference between the "highly intelligent" (non-outlier), and the bright kid who took the SAT 6 times to superscore a 1520. I think that's the issue-- the outliers they can spot, but everyone else is lumped in together and standardized tests do not do a good job of distinguishing those at the tippy top -- combine that with rampant grade inflation (and TO) and tens of thousands of kids end up looking "super high stats" on their application. Especially when looking at students coming from a wide range of high schools not just top, well known privates and magnet schools.

Other than MIT and cal tech, most selective schools don’t care about telling that difference. It’s not the important differentiator you think it is for purposes of selective college admissions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I have a kid like that, he's my energizer bunny type kid. He has long days, and busy weekends.

I also had a kid who spent about 28-30 hours a week on ECs: 20 for performing arts and 8-10 on clubs, volunteering work. Took every hard class possible and loved the challenge, a wall of 5’s on the app, had done all the hard ones by the end of junior year. They were just more efficient and naturally intellectually quick so they spent very little time on homework compared to other students near the top of the class. They are at an ivy. Many of their peers are of the same mold, but it is definitely under half. They remain near the top in a competitive and difficult major. No one was their level in their high school. They needed a T10/ivy for fit to finally study among a large group of similar minds and not always be the smartest and fastest thinker in the room.

Your kid did not need an ivy to not be the smartest thinker in the room. There are several universities (even far outside T20) where your kid would not have been the smartest in the room by a long shot. University of Alabama for example has a very large cohort of insanely smart ivy/ivy+ accepted/level kids, due to huge scholarship $ and very specialized top level programs.

Not every family can afford an ivy, no matter what type of academic rockstar their kid is -- that is to say, there are large concentrations of kids like this at many universities, not just ivies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I have a kid like that, he's my energizer bunny type kid. He has long days, and busy weekends.

I also had a kid who spent about 28-30 hours a week on ECs: 20 for performing arts and 8-10 on clubs, volunteering work. Took every hard class possible and loved the challenge, a wall of 5’s on the app, had done all the hard ones by the end of junior year. They were just more efficient and naturally intellectually quick so they spent very little time on homework compared to other students near the top of the class. They are at an ivy. Many of their peers are of the same mold, but it is definitely under half. They remain near the top in a competitive and difficult major. No one was their level in their high school. They needed a T10/ivy for fit to finally study among a large group of similar minds and not always be the smartest and fastest thinker in the room.

Your kid did not need an ivy to not be the smartest thinker in the room. There are several universities (even far outside T20) where your kid would not have been the smartest in the room by a long shot. University of Alabama for example has a very large cohort of insanely smart ivy/ivy+ accepted/level kids, due to huge scholarship $ and very specialized top level programs.

Not every family can afford an ivy, no matter what type of academic rockstar their kid is -- that is to say, there are large concentrations of kids like this at many universities, not just ivies.

There are also creative, intellectually quick people who don't test well, and even struggle getting through high school. I went to junior high with several of them in the 1970s, and I see no reason to believe that anything has changed. High GPAs with rigor and top of the chart SAT scores can identify them, but they also identify privileged conformists. AOs probably recognize this, and struggle to sort one from the other, as well as find others with these traits with lesser stats within the confines of institutional needs, which is why the admissions process is so challenging.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I have a kid like that, he's my energizer bunny type kid. He has long days, and busy weekends.

I also had a kid who spent about 28-30 hours a week on ECs: 20 for performing arts and 8-10 on clubs, volunteering work. Took every hard class possible and loved the challenge, a wall of 5’s on the app, had done all the hard ones by the end of junior year. They were just more efficient and naturally intellectually quick so they spent very little time on homework compared to other students near the top of the class. They are at an ivy. Many of their peers are of the same mold, but it is definitely under half. They remain near the top in a competitive and difficult major. No one was their level in their high school. They needed a T10/ivy for fit to finally study among a large group of similar minds and not always be the smartest and fastest thinker in the room.

Your kid did not need an ivy to not be the smartest thinker in the room. There are several universities (even far outside T20) where your kid would not have been the smartest in the room by a long shot. University of Alabama for example has a very large cohort of insanely smart ivy/ivy+ accepted/level kids, due to huge scholarship $ and very specialized top level programs.

Not every family can afford an ivy, no matter what type of academic rockstar their kid is -- that is to say, there are large concentrations of kids like this at many universities, not just ivies.

There are also creative, intellectually quick people who don't test well, and even struggle getting through high school. I went to junior high with several of them in the 1970s, and I see no reason to believe that anything has changed. High GPAs with rigor and top of the chart SAT scores can identify them, but they also identify privileged conformists. AOs probably recognize this, and struggle to sort one from the other, as well as find others with these traits with lesser stats within the confines of institutional needs, which is why the admissions process is so challenging.

Yes, there are. But those TO admits coming in about 50% of the admits, are not. You are trying hard to conflate the two. Nice try!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The college board didn't dilute their product because they wanted it to be more preppable by the students that pay for it. They did so because their actual customers, college admissions offices were not happy with the results. The racial and gender disparity became more obvious at the higher scores.

A 1520 in early 90ss put you in the top 1000 nationwide. 1600s were so rare that it was in the single digits. These days there are about 1000 perfect scores every year.

A 1600 today translates to about a 1510+ in the early 90s. A 1550 is somewhere around a 1470. Still high scoring but there are 10,000 kids with better scores.

The parents pay for the tests and the colleges pay for the data, but just like "parents" aren't some monolithic entity, neither are colleges. I agree, though, that the overall attitude definitely swung away from favoring aptitude to favoring grit and hard work for SAT prep, although both the former and new versions of the SAT obviously measure a bit of both, and both are valuable traits to have in college students. If the goal was racial parity, it really didn't work. If anything, it looks like both tweaks boosted the scores of the previously highest scoring group and did nothing to boost underrepresented groups.

As an academic, I have always believed it was better to try and measure aptitude with the test and measure grit/work ethic with other aspects of the application. When you try to measure grit with the test, then kids spend too much time focused on test prep. Both factors are great to see in students, as well as other hard to measure factors like creativity, collaboration, curiosity, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I have a kid like that, he's my energizer bunny type kid. He has long days, and busy weekends.

I also had a kid who spent about 28-30 hours a week on ECs: 20 for performing arts and 8-10 on clubs, volunteering work. Took every hard class possible and loved the challenge, a wall of 5’s on the app, had done all the hard ones by the end of junior year. They were just more efficient and naturally intellectually quick so they spent very little time on homework compared to other students near the top of the class. They are at an ivy. Many of their peers are of the same mold, but it is definitely under half. They remain near the top in a competitive and difficult major. No one was their level in their high school. They needed a T10/ivy for fit to finally study among a large group of similar minds and not always be the smartest and fastest thinker in the room.

Your kid did not need an ivy to not be the smartest thinker in the room. There are several universities (even far outside T20) where your kid would not have been the smartest in the room by a long shot. University of Alabama for example has a very large cohort of insanely smart ivy/ivy+ accepted/level kids, due to huge scholarship $ and very specialized top level programs.

Not every family can afford an ivy, no matter what type of academic rockstar their kid is -- that is to say, there are large concentrations of kids like this at many universities, not just ivies.

There are also creative, intellectually quick people who don't test well, and even struggle getting through high school. I went to junior high with several of them in the 1970s, and I see no reason to believe that anything has changed. High GPAs with rigor and top of the chart SAT scores can identify them, but they also identify privileged conformists. AOs probably recognize this, and struggle to sort one from the other, as well as find others with these traits with lesser stats within the confines of institutional needs, which is why the admissions process is so challenging.

Some of those geniuses might also fail out of college, though. They might better realize their abilities outside of the traditional course. Colleges can recognize this, but still want to enroll kids who would thrive in the traditional college setting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The college board didn't dilute their product because they wanted it to be more preppable by the students that pay for it. They did so because their actual customers, college admissions offices were not happy with the results. The racial and gender disparity became more obvious at the higher scores.

A 1520 in early 90ss put you in the top 1000 nationwide. 1600s were so rare that it was in the single digits. These days there are about 1000 perfect scores every year.

A 1600 today translates to about a 1510+ in the early 90s. A 1550 is somewhere around a 1470. Still high scoring but there are 10,000 kids with better scores.

I posted earlier but my high school in the 90s had a pre-recentering case of a 1600 PSAT, 1600 SAT, and perfect 800 SAT IIs. All on his first try. I did not go to a school where most people prepped so I doubt he took a prep course. The test was harder back then and the only way to get the 1600 was to be perfect across the board (Recentering changed that, you could miss some).

This was basically considered a freak occurrence at the time, now this would not be a big deal at all.

So you've taken the current version for comparison? I don't think I have the attention span any more.

The college board themselves tell you that the tests are easier. When scores jump 150 points in one year, you know the tests are easier. A 1400 in the 80s put you in the running for MIT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The college board didn't dilute their product because they wanted it to be more preppable by the students that pay for it. They did so because their actual customers, college admissions offices were not happy with the results. The racial and gender disparity became more obvious at the higher scores.

A 1520 in early 90ss put you in the top 1000 nationwide. 1600s were so rare that it was in the single digits. These days there are about 1000 perfect scores every year.

A 1600 today translates to about a 1510+ in the early 90s. A 1550 is somewhere around a 1470. Still high scoring but there are 10,000 kids with better scores.

The parents pay for the tests and the colleges pay for the data, but just like "parents" aren't some monolithic entity, neither are colleges. I agree, though, that the overall attitude definitely swung away from favoring aptitude to favoring grit and hard work for SAT prep, although both the former and new versions of the SAT obviously measure a bit of both, and both are valuable traits to have in college students. If the goal was racial parity, it really didn't work. If anything, it looks like both tweaks boosted the scores of the previously highest scoring group and did nothing to boost underrepresented groups.

As an academic, I have always believed it was better to try and measure aptitude with the test and measure grit/work ethic with other aspects of the application. When you try to measure grit with the test, then kids spend too much time focused on test prep. Both factors are great to see in students, as well as other hard to measure factors like creativity, collaboration, curiosity, etc.

When you make tests easier they’re more amenable to prep. So groups that prep a lot will see higher scores. If you make the tests much harder, aptitude will be a bigger factor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The college board didn't dilute their product because they wanted it to be more preppable by the students that pay for it. They did so because their actual customers, college admissions offices were not happy with the results. The racial and gender disparity became more obvious at the higher scores.

A 1520 in early 90ss put you in the top 1000 nationwide. 1600s were so rare that it was in the single digits. These days there are about 1000 perfect scores every year.

A 1600 today translates to about a 1510+ in the early 90s. A 1550 is somewhere around a 1470. Still high scoring but there are 10,000 kids with better scores.

I don’t think 10,000 can be correct. That is not even enough for all the ivies.

There are too many 1550 kids around. Something is off.

I should have said at least 10,000. But it's not 20,000. There are maybe 35k scores 1500+