How much do test scores really matter?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Prep and motivation both can make a very big difference. Also SES because prep costs $. My DC did not care at all about the PSAT and was not a National Merit semifinalist. But DC got motivated for the SAT, took multiple practice tests, and just barely missed a perfect score on the first try.

When it comes to the perfect scores, prep and repetitive testing make a difference. My child did no prep and was a semifinalist who ended up as a National Merit Scholar. He took the SAT one time and got a 1560, so no Presidential. It doesn't matter really, because he's at a top ten school now and very happy and doing well.

[Anonymous]

My two cents is that Presidential Scholar and NMSF are nice little honors, but in no way determinative in college admissions. Kids who get those honors did something right. Some are super bright, some go to great schools, some prep diligently. Good for them. But top scores are only part of the picture. I don't think colleges especially reward perfection. They want interesting kids with great grades and scores, but the stats don't have to be perfect. A highly involved, passionate kid with a couple Bs and a 2300 would generally be more prized than a straight A 2400 SAT kid who studied all the time. Colleges want students who contribute in meaningful ways to the school community. Kids who want to be successful ion college admissions should show that they've done that in high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My two cents is that Presidential Scholar and NMSF are nice little honors, but in no way determinative in college admissions. Kids who get those honors did something right. Some are super bright, some go to great schools, some prep diligently. Good for them. But top scores are only part of the picture. I don't think colleges especially reward perfection. They want interesting kids with great grades and scores, but the stats don't have to be perfect. A highly involved, passionate kid with a couple Bs and a 2300 would generally be more prized than a straight A 2400 SAT kid who studied all the time. Colleges want students who contribute in meaningful ways to the school community. Kids who want to be successful ion college admissions should show that they've done that in high school.

Sounds reasonable, but I agree with a PP: if you look at those Naviance scattergrams for top schools? The happy green dots seem to occur most frequently in the tippy top part of the far right corner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My two cents is that Presidential Scholar and NMSF are nice little honors, but in no way determinative in college admissions. Kids who get those honors did something right. Some are super bright, some go to great schools, some prep diligently. Good for them. But top scores are only part of the picture. I don't think colleges especially reward perfection. They want interesting kids with great grades and scores, but the stats don't have to be perfect. A highly involved, passionate kid with a couple Bs and a 2300 would generally be more prized than a straight A 2400 SAT kid who studied all the time. Colleges want students who contribute in meaningful ways to the school community. Kids who want to be successful ion college admissions should show that they've done that in high school.

Sounds reasonable, but I agree with a PP: if you look at those Naviance scattergrams for top schools? The happy green dots seem to occur most frequently in the tippy top part of the far right corner.

Agreed! Although I agree that top scores are only part of the picture, at the time of applying to various colleges, a high gpa student can do very very little to bring up their gpa, but by improving their testing score, can move the gauge on the testing axis much more easily, thereby increasing their academic index. An example of this calculator can be viewed at http://www.collegeconfidential.com/academic_index_calculator/ . You can plug in various scores to see how it affects the outcome.

[Anonymous]

Anybody else seeing HYPS legacy kids with top stats applying (SC)EA to comparable schools where they aren't legacies precisely because they want the sense that they got in on their own merit? Seen it a couple times now and results are consistent with Harvard's claim (for example) that their YP legacy admission rates/standards are about the same as their H legacy admission rates/standards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My two cents is that Presidential Scholar and NMSF are nice little honors, but in no way determinative in college admissions. Kids who get those honors did something right. Some are super bright, some go to great schools, some prep diligently. Good for them. But top scores are only part of the picture. I don't think colleges especially reward perfection. They want interesting kids with great grades and scores, but the stats don't have to be perfect. A highly involved, passionate kid with a couple Bs and a 2300 would generally be more prized than a straight A 2400 SAT kid who studied all the time. Colleges want students who contribute in meaningful ways to the school community. Kids who want to be successful ion college admissions should show that they've done that in high school.

Sounds reasonable, but I agree with a PP: if you look at those Naviance scattergrams for top schools? The happy green dots seem to occur most frequently in the tippy top part of the far right corner.

It's certainly not the only thing that matters, but YES, test scores matter! Colleges need the "happy green dots" in the far right corner to offset the lower scoring green dots (legacy, urm, athletes, others) along the spectrum, so that in the end, elite schools can still boast higher than average scores in the 25, 50, 75%s. In the case of Harvard (just for argument's sake), you cannot have a 75% score of 2350/2400 without accepting a high number of students with that score.

[Anonymous]

I've seen that too and have long thought that being an IVY legacy does provide some benefit at comparable schools. The kids that get in are certainly qualified but I think that background helps pick them out of thousands of applications.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My two cents is that Presidential Scholar and NMSF are nice little honors, but in no way determinative in college admissions. Kids who get those honors did something right. Some are super bright, some go to great schools, some prep diligently. Good for them. But top scores are only part of the picture. I don't think colleges especially reward perfection. They want interesting kids with great grades and scores, but the stats don't have to be perfect. A highly involved, passionate kid with a couple Bs and a 2300 would generally be more prized than a straight A 2400 SAT kid who studied all the time. Colleges want students who contribute in meaningful ways to the school community. Kids who want to be successful ion college admissions should show that they've done that in high school.

Sounds reasonable, but I agree with a PP: if you look at those Naviance scattergrams for top schools? The happy green dots seem to occur most frequently in the tippy top part of the far right corner.

It's certainly not the only thing that matters, but YES, test scores matter! Colleges need the "happy green dots" in the far right corner to offset the lower scoring green dots (legacy, urm, athletes, others) along the spectrum, so that in the end, elite schools can still boast higher than average scores in the 25, 50, 75%s. In the case of Harvard (just for argument's sake), you cannot have a 75% score of 2350/2400 without accepting a high number of students with that score.

What makes you think the hooked kids do not have upper right corner green dots. My child, an athlete, scored in the 99th percentile on those tests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My two cents is that Presidential Scholar and NMSF are nice little honors, but in no way determinative in college admissions. Kids who get those honors did something right. Some are super bright, some go to great schools, some prep diligently. Good for them. But top scores are only part of the picture. I don't think colleges especially reward perfection. They want interesting kids with great grades and scores, but the stats don't have to be perfect. A highly involved, passionate kid with a couple Bs and a 2300 would generally be more prized than a straight A 2400 SAT kid who studied all the time. Colleges want students who contribute in meaningful ways to the school community. Kids who want to be successful ion college admissions should show that they've done that in high school.

Sounds reasonable, but I agree with a PP: if you look at those Naviance scattergrams for top schools? The happy green dots seem to occur most frequently in the tippy top part of the far right corner.

It's certainly not the only thing that matters, but YES, test scores matter! Colleges need the "happy green dots" in the far right corner to offset the lower scoring green dots (legacy, urm, athletes, others) along the spectrum, so that in the end, elite schools can still boast higher than average scores in the 25, 50, 75%s. In the case of Harvard (just for argument's sake), you cannot have a 75% score of 2350/2400 without accepting a high number of students with that score.

What makes you think the hooked kids do not have upper right corner green dots. My child, an athlete, scored in the 99th percentile on those tests.

That's great! At no point did I say that only unhooked kids are in the upper right corner, but was referring to those hooked kids and others, along the spectrum. Congrats to your DC!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anybody else seeing HYPS legacy kids with top stats applying (SC)EA to comparable schools where they aren't legacies precisely because they want the sense that they got in on their own merit? Seen it a couple times now and results are consistent with Harvard's claim (for example) that their YP legacy admission rates/standards are about the same as their H legacy admission rates/standards.

If that is the sole reason a child would choose one school over another, it seems sort of tragic. Don't they have anyone in their lives telling them that they should not be deriving their self worth from Ivy acceptances or rejections? Such hubris too--if they get in, then they'll feel that they deserved their acceptances more than a child with a legacy (or other hook)? Are worried that the brag value will be diminished by the possibility of a legacy rejoinder? I'd be sort of embarrassed for the kid and family, unless the kid had a poor relationship with the legacy parent(s) and decided not to apply early to the school out of spite. That would unfortunate, but very understandable in my view.

[Anonymous]

I've seen kids pass on their legacy schools and apply to other top schools. Sometimes they get in, and some times they don't. The kids I know do it because they honestly like the other school better. There's no reason kids should be bound to go to the schools their parents attended. I think it's very sad that so many kids feel pressure to apply to their parents' school(s) to get a leg up in admissions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've seen kids pass on their legacy schools and apply to other top schools. Sometimes they get in, and some times they don't. The kids I know do it because they honestly like the other school better. There's no reason kids should be bound to go to the schools their parents attended. I think it's very sad that so many kids feel pressure to apply to their parents' school(s) to get a leg up in admissions.

I agree with this, but the PP seemed to be describing a situation where the kid's only reason for not applying to a school was fear that others would think he got in due to legacy status. That seems like a silly criterion to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anybody else seeing HYPS legacy kids with top stats applying (SC)EA to comparable schools where they aren't legacies precisely because they want the sense that they got in on their own merit? Seen it a couple times now and results are consistent with Harvard's claim (for example) that their YP legacy admission rates/standards are about the same as their H legacy admission rates/standards.

If that is the sole reason a child would choose one school over another, it seems sort of tragic. Don't they have anyone in their lives telling them that they should not be deriving their self worth from Ivy acceptances or rejections? Such hubris too--if they get in, then they'll feel that they deserved their acceptances more than a child with a legacy (or other hook)? Are worried that the brag value will be diminished by the possibility of a legacy rejoinder? I'd be sort of embarrassed for the kid and family, unless the kid had a poor relationship with the legacy parent(s) and decided not to apply early to the school out of spite. That would unfortunate, but very understandable in my view.

It's often a reaction to the school community and being fed up with hearing from classmates that of course they'll get into coveted school because, as a legacy, they have a huge advantage. Or having watched other parents dismiss an upperclassman's admission to a great school by asserting that it must be because the family has a connection to the school/pulled strings, they don't want to think that the same comments will be made about them. So when it's time to make the EA decision, unless they're in love with the legacy school for another reason, they actively look for alternatives and submit an (SC)EA app to a peer institution where they don't have the unfair advantage. If they get in, they still have the option of RD applications to the legacy schools. Or, by that point, they've become invested in (and may clearly prefer) the non-legacy alternative. I don't think this is an optimal aproach to college selection, but I understand where it comes from and the results are hardly tragic when it means that a kid goes to Yale instead of Harvard or MIT instead of Stanford.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anybody else seeing HYPS legacy kids with top stats applying (SC)EA to comparable schools where they aren't legacies precisely because they want the sense that they got in on their own merit? Seen it a couple times now and results are consistent with Harvard's claim (for example) that their YP legacy admission rates/standards are about the same as their H legacy admission rates/standards.

If that is the sole reason a child would choose one school over another, it seems sort of tragic. Don't they have anyone in their lives telling them that they should not be deriving their self worth from Ivy acceptances or rejections? Such hubris too--if they get in, then they'll feel that they deserved their acceptances more than a child with a legacy (or other hook)? Are worried that the brag value will be diminished by the possibility of a legacy rejoinder? I'd be sort of embarrassed for the kid and family, unless the kid had a poor relationship with the legacy parent(s) and decided not to apply early to the school out of spite. That would unfortunate, but very understandable in my view.

It's often a reaction to the school community and being fed up with hearing from classmates that of course they'll get into coveted school because, as a legacy, they have a huge advantage. Or having watched other parents dismiss an upperclassman's admission to a great school by asserting that it must be because the family has a connection to the school/pulled strings, they don't want to think that the same comments will be made about them. So when it's time to make the EA decision, unless they're in love with the legacy school for another reason, they actively look for alternatives and submit an (SC)EA app to a peer institution where they don't have the unfair advantage. If they get in, they still have the option of RD applications to the legacy schools. Or, by that point, they've become invested in (and may clearly prefer) the non-legacy alternative. I don't think this is an optimal aproach to college selection, but I understand where it comes from and the results are hardly tragic when it means that a kid goes to Yale instead of Harvard or MIT instead of Stanford.

I wish my kid had that problem. The merit only basket is brutal. And the logic is flawed. Legacy kids do hold some advantage at peer institutions..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anybody else seeing HYPS legacy kids with top stats applying (SC)EA to comparable schools where they aren't legacies precisely because they want the sense that they got in on their own merit? Seen it a couple times now and results are consistent with Harvard's claim (for example) that their YP legacy admission rates/standards are about the same as their H legacy admission rates/standards.

If that is the sole reason a child would choose one school over another, it seems sort of tragic. Don't they have anyone in their lives telling them that they should not be deriving their self worth from Ivy acceptances or rejections? Such hubris too--if they get in, then they'll feel that they deserved their acceptances more than a child with a legacy (or other hook)? Are worried that the brag value will be diminished by the possibility of a legacy rejoinder? I'd be sort of embarrassed for the kid and family, unless the kid had a poor relationship with the legacy parent(s) and decided not to apply early to the school out of spite. That would unfortunate, but very understandable in my view.

It's often a reaction to the school community and being fed up with hearing from classmates that of course they'll get into coveted school because, as a legacy, they have a huge advantage. Or having watched other parents dismiss an upperclassman's admission to a great school by asserting that it must be because the family has a connection to the school/pulled strings, they don't want to think that the same comments will be made about them. So when it's time to make the EA decision, unless they're in love with the legacy school for another reason, they actively look for alternatives and submit an (SC)EA app to a peer institution where they don't have the unfair advantage. If they get in, they still have the option of RD applications to the legacy schools. Or, by that point, they've become invested in (and may clearly prefer) the non-legacy alternative. I don't think this is an optimal aproach to college selection, but I understand where it comes from and the results are hardly tragic when it means that a kid goes to Yale instead of Harvard or MIT instead of Stanford.

Thanks for the response. The school community you describe is so different from any I've been a part of. I hate to think of that sort of additional pressure piled on to all the miseries of the junior/senior year college preparatory journey that most families go through. But using legacy status as a negative factor certainly does seem more reasonable if the kids are basically sure things to get into multiple schools in the top five list. At that point, throwing the names of the schools up in the air and seeing which one hits the ground first also seems pretty reasonable.