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: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.

So the probation physics dept doesn't care? The Harvard econ dept isn't splitting hairs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So the probation physics dept doesn't care? The Harvard econ dept isn't splitting hairs?

Probation= Princeton. Stupid autocorrect

[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.

There aren't a lot of very smart people who don't test well. These test are generally pretty good at measuring cognitive ability. High test scores are a better predictor of college performance, graduate school admissions, published research, patents, etc than pretty much anytime else we have. The admissions officers are largely twenty something LAC grads using a rubric with no better idea of how to gauge academic talent than the average high school teacher. Of course there are exceptions but as a general rule, they're mostly bright but young and often inexperienced recent grads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So the probation physics dept doesn't care? The Harvard econ dept isn't splitting hairs?

You clearly don’t understand what these schools are looking for.

I’d suggest you get educated by talking with former AO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Could posters please tell us the intended majors along with the stats? Thanks.

Top kid, 1570 single sitting, did have indepth impactful ECs in music and volunteering work, highest rigor including 3 classes post-BC calc taken at the high school, got into three top10s no hooks, engineering.

[Anonymous]

Georgia parent here. Many Georgia kids who have your kid’s profile are at GA Tech. Others have landed at Duke, MIT, Florida, UNC-Chapel Hill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid is just a regular smart boy (private school) with a 35 ACT and high gpa/rigor. I never even thought he might have a chance at a top 20 because he is a classic 1990s-style well rounded kid. Athlete, involved in school clubs, part-time job. Nothing national level. Are these type of kids actually applying to top 20s? He would like a school like Dartmouth, Vandy, Duke or Brown, but I told him he would never get in. Should he throw in a few super reach apps?

Yes, he should definitely throw in some high reaches. I reccomend you come up with a RD1, with lots of EAs, and an RD2 strategy in case RD1 doesn’t work out. My private school 3.73 (no weighting at his school) 36 ACT, DS got into a T10 for CS.

What are RD1 and RD2?

Sorry, I meant to say ED1 and ED2.

[Anonymous]

A kid like that can land anywhere. My kid also had similar stats with max rigor and exceeded high school offerings in 2 subjects. Like another PP, he took 3 courses beyond BC calculus.

I encouraged him to be realistic and told him that it is hard to predict admissions. High stats kids we know ended up at HYP, UVA, UMD, and Michigan. We tried not to push our kid to apply T10 if he didn’t really want it.

He applied and was accepted ED1 in engineering in a T40 school he loved and felt right to him.

I believe cream rises to the top. Your bright kid will be fine wherever he/she lands.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Georgia parent here. Many Georgia kids who have your kid’s profile are at GA Tech. Others have landed at Duke, MIT, Florida, UNC-Chapel Hill.

No, the instate students have noticeably lower scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could posters please tell us the intended majors along with the stats? Thanks.

Top kid, 1570 single sitting, did have indepth impactful ECs in music and volunteering work, highest rigor including 3 classes post-BC calc taken at the high school, got into three top10s no hooks, engineering.

Did your child have STEM related ECs?

[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.

This is a good point. I took the SAT in the 80s when the top possible score was a 1400.

No one got a 1400. The first time it happened, they put the kid on the cover of Time magazine .

No, I don't think the SAT ever had a 1400 as the best possible score. That was just what you were told to make you feel better about your 1060. (Sorry, couldn't resist)

[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 would argue the racial disparity is more obvious now vs then.

[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.

This is a good point. I took the SAT in the 80s when the top possible score was a 1400.

No one got a 1400. The first time it happened, they put the kid on the cover of Time magazine .

No, I don't think the SAT ever had a 1400 as the best possible score. That was just what you were told to make you feel better about your 1060. (Sorry, couldn't resist)

It was 1600.

[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 would argue the racial disparity is more obvious now vs then.

There are a lot more Asians around now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Georgia parent here. Many Georgia kids who have your kid’s profile are at GA Tech. Others have landed at Duke, MIT, Florida, UNC-Chapel Hill.

No, the instate students have noticeably lower scores.

How do you know? GA Tech is full of high scoring in-state students. Can’t assume they got in with lower scores just because they’re in-state.