How many times is too many to take the SAT?

[Anonymous]

I'm pretty sure that back when we went to college every attempt was represented on a score report: you could not pick and choose, and you had to decide before you took the test which schools to send the scores to (or not). Same thing with AP exams: there was no suppressing anything when you sent a grade report out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have any of you considered ever being satisfied with your kids’ actual abilities rather than constantly trying to game the system to effectively buy them the results for skills they don’t possess?

Just a thought.

Have you considered that the results of taking a standardized test once or twice might not actually reflect a kid’s actual abilities?

Just a thought.

You sanctimonious a$$.

+1. Not to mention, I love the implication that studying more and improving on something after that studying or tutoring is “Gaming the system.” Because what we really want to teach our kids is: If at first you don’t succeed, just give up because you clearly don’t possess the skills.

You fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of a test like the SAT.

Then please share with me the purpose. It’s not an IQ test, or you could give it to kids when they’re in elementary school. If it’s to see if they have a mastery of material THAT SOMEONE HAD TO TEACH THEM, then why is it gaming the system for someone to teach them in advance of the test.

I know you’re confused because of all the private tutoring and “teaching to the test” that has been the very foundation of your precious Larlo’s education, but the bolded is absolutely NOT accurate.

No, it’s not an IQ test. It is more of an evaluation of general knowledge and more importantly, critical thinking skills. You are lacking in the latter, so I will guess that you took the SAT many times and did GREAT

Actually, I took it once and did really well. I just didn't ascribe that to any mental superiority. I had friends who had to take it several times and I knew it wasn't because they were lacking intellectually. I knew these things because I have critical thinking skills. It's amusing, though, that you're ego seems more wrapped up in thinking that either you or your child is superior based on taking a test once instead of two or three times. I'm just curious, since you say that these are tests of general knowledge, where did you and your child come by this general knowledge? Were you just born knowing it? If so, I'll happily concede that you are special. Not many are born knowing algebra. But if you acquired this general knowledge because someone taught it to you, then your response was not the clever rebuttal you thought it was.

You want it both ways. Your argument boils down to: The score is *not* reflective of actual ability when your kid doesn’t do well, but the score *is* reflective of actual ability when your child DOES do well. Which is why you need Larlo to keep taking that test until they get their “real” score, i.e. the one that somehow demonstrates they’re Ivy material, right?

PP here. Not really, but I can see why you think that's what I'm saying. i haven't articulated it well enough. I think that performance on the test can reflect many different things: ability, preparation, test-taking instincts, confidence, comfort level, health on the day of the test, etc. I do not think it's an IQ or general aptitude test. If it were, you wouldn't need mastery of the subjects being tested at this level. I'm merely pointing out that kids take the test in high school, having been taught those subjects. This is not innate. So, I really don't understand why people who probably feel like it's fine for kids to have athletic coaches, skill camps, tutors, piano teachers, etc for their kids to raise their proficiency in something, feel like it's gaming the system to try to improve your skill at taking these tests. After all, the kids actually need to improve to have their scores go up, right? You don't get handed a high score just because it's attempt #3.

I'm just baffled by the people on here who are so zealous about "one and done," or who need to believe that their kids are superior because they scored well the first time. It's obnoxious and, in my opinion, unfounded. I think it smacks mostly of insecurity, either that their kid isn't superior, or that another kid is going to scoop up their kid's place at Harvard because they took the test more than once.

(Not that it's anyone's business, but this isn't about my kid, who scored very well the first time. That was nice, but I didn't feel that it was confirmation of superiority over other kids who took it multiple times.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DC does great in school but not on standardized tests. They also have pretty bad test anxiety. For instance, on the PSAT, they scored about 1400 on the practice exam, then 1220 on the real exam.

For the SAT, how many times should they take it to get a reasonable score? I feel like they’re capable of around 1500 if taken several times and superscored. Would the colleges care? Do scores improve a lot each time they take the test?

One of mine only took SAT once and called it a day, were near perfect and didn't want to waste time on perfect score or ACT. Others took one SAT and one ACT each and sent which ever score was better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have any of you considered ever being satisfied with your kids’ actual abilities rather than constantly trying to game the system to effectively buy them the results for skills they don’t possess?

Just a thought.

Have you considered that the results of taking a standardized test once or twice might not actually reflect a kid’s actual abilities?

Just a thought.

You sanctimonious a$$.

+1. Not to mention, I love the implication that studying more and improving on something after that studying or tutoring is “Gaming the system.” Because what we really want to teach our kids is: If at first you don’t succeed, just give up because you clearly don’t possess the skills.

You fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of a test like the SAT.

Then please share with me the purpose. It’s not an IQ test, or you could give it to kids when they’re in elementary school. If it’s to see if they have a mastery of material THAT SOMEONE HAD TO TEACH THEM, then why is it gaming the system for someone to teach them in advance of the test.

I know you’re confused because of all the private tutoring and “teaching to the test” that has been the very foundation of your precious Larlo’s education, but the bolded is absolutely NOT accurate.

No, it’s not an IQ test. It is more of an evaluation of general knowledge and more importantly, critical thinking skills. You are lacking in the latter, so I will guess that you took the SAT many times and did GREAT

Actually, I took it once and did really well. I just didn't ascribe that to any mental superiority. I had friends who had to take it several times and I knew it wasn't because they were lacking intellectually. I knew these things because I have critical thinking skills. It's amusing, though, that you're ego seems more wrapped up in thinking that either you or your child is superior based on taking a test once instead of two or three times. I'm just curious, since you say that these are tests of general knowledge, where did you and your child come by this general knowledge? Were you just born knowing it? If so, I'll happily concede that you are special. Not many are born knowing algebra. But if you acquired this general knowledge because someone taught it to you, then your response was not the clever rebuttal you thought it was.

You want it both ways. Your argument boils down to: The score is *not* reflective of actual ability when your kid doesn’t do well, but the score *is* reflective of actual ability when your child DOES do well. Which is why you need Larlo to keep taking that test until they get their “real” score, i.e. the one that somehow demonstrates they’re Ivy material, right?

PP here. Not really, but I can see why you think that's what I'm saying. i haven't articulated it well enough. I think that performance on the test can reflect many different things: ability, preparation, test-taking instincts, confidence, comfort level, health on the day of the test, etc. I do not think it's an IQ or general aptitude test. If it were, you wouldn't need mastery of the subjects being tested at this level. I'm merely pointing out that kids take the test in high school, having been taught those subjects. This is not innate. So, I really don't understand why people who probably feel like it's fine for kids to have athletic coaches, skill camps, tutors, piano teachers, etc for their kids to raise their proficiency in something, feel like it's gaming the system to try to improve your skill at taking these tests. After all, the kids actually need to improve to have their scores go up, right? You don't get handed a high score just because it's attempt #3.

I'm just baffled by the people on here who are so zealous about "one and done," or who need to believe that their kids are superior because they scored well the first time. It's obnoxious and, in my opinion, unfounded. I think it smacks mostly of insecurity, either that their kid isn't superior, or that another kid is going to scoop up their kid's place at Harvard because they took the test more than once.

(Not that it's anyone's business, but this isn't about my kid, who scored very well the first time. That was nice, but I didn't feel that it was confirmation of superiority over other kids who took it multiple times.)

My argument is simply that a kid can take it as many times as they want, but the number of times the test was taken should be included with the scores submitted to colleges.

Your bolded paragraph indicates that you live in an affluent bubble. You don’t understand that these rich, privileged kids ARE taking spots at elite universities from more more deserving students. The average kid does not have the time, resources, or wherewithal to take a standardized test multiple times. The average kid takes it once, and the score is what it is.

So again, if your rich kid wants to take it six times to achieve their 1550, great. Just let the colleges know so they can *fairly* compare that score to the middle class kid who took it once and got a 1470.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have any of you considered ever being satisfied with your kids’ actual abilities rather than constantly trying to game the system to effectively buy them the results for skills they don’t possess?

Just a thought.

Have you considered that the results of taking a standardized test once or twice might not actually reflect a kid’s actual abilities?

Just a thought.

You sanctimonious a$$.

+1. Not to mention, I love the implication that studying more and improving on something after that studying or tutoring is “Gaming the system.” Because what we really want to teach our kids is: If at first you don’t succeed, just give up because you clearly don’t possess the skills.

You fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of a test like the SAT.

Then please share with me the purpose. It’s not an IQ test, or you could give it to kids when they’re in elementary school. If it’s to see if they have a mastery of material THAT SOMEONE HAD TO TEACH THEM, then why is it gaming the system for someone to teach them in advance of the test.

I know you’re confused because of all the private tutoring and “teaching to the test” that has been the very foundation of your precious Larlo’s education, but the bolded is absolutely NOT accurate.

No, it’s not an IQ test. It is more of an evaluation of general knowledge and more importantly, critical thinking skills. You are lacking in the latter, so I will guess that you took the SAT many times and did GREAT

Actually, I took it once and did really well. I just didn't ascribe that to any mental superiority. I had friends who had to take it several times and I knew it wasn't because they were lacking intellectually. I knew these things because I have critical thinking skills. It's amusing, though, that you're ego seems more wrapped up in thinking that either you or your child is superior based on taking a test once instead of two or three times. I'm just curious, since you say that these are tests of general knowledge, where did you and your child come by this general knowledge? Were you just born knowing it? If so, I'll happily concede that you are special. Not many are born knowing algebra. But if you acquired this general knowledge because someone taught it to you, then your response was not the clever rebuttal you thought it was.

You want it both ways. Your argument boils down to: The score is *not* reflective of actual ability when your kid doesn’t do well, but the score *is* reflective of actual ability when your child DOES do well. Which is why you need Larlo to keep taking that test until they get their “real” score, i.e. the one that somehow demonstrates they’re Ivy material, right?

Different PP. If you look at the SAT Suite of Assessments report, you see that whites and Asians do better than blacks, and in particular only 1% of black test-takers score in the 1400-1600 range (compared to 25% of Asian test-takers). In addition, male test takers do better at math at the high end (about twice as many men get over 700 math than do women).

So my question for you is: do these disparities in performance reflect actual ability? 25% of Asian test-takers are "Ivy material" but only 1% of black test-takers?

Yes. If it’s not reflective of differences in performance or aptitude, what’s the point of taking it at all?

It’s not an intelligence test, but if you don’t know how to answer the incredibly basic math questions (for example) by the time you’re 16, then regardless of your hurt feelings you are most likely not Ivy material (or MIT, or CalTech, etc.) when it comes to math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have any of you considered ever being satisfied with your kids’ actual abilities rather than constantly trying to game the system to effectively buy them the results for skills they don’t possess?

Just a thought.

Have you considered that the results of taking a standardized test once or twice might not actually reflect a kid’s actual abilities?

Just a thought.

You sanctimonious a$$.

+1. Not to mention, I love the implication that studying more and improving on something after that studying or tutoring is “Gaming the system.” Because what we really want to teach our kids is: If at first you don’t succeed, just give up because you clearly don’t possess the skills.

You fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of a test like the SAT.

Then please share with me the purpose. It’s not an IQ test, or you could give it to kids when they’re in elementary school. If it’s to see if they have a mastery of material THAT SOMEONE HAD TO TEACH THEM, then why is it gaming the system for someone to teach them in advance of the test.

I know you’re confused because of all the private tutoring and “teaching to the test” that has been the very foundation of your precious Larlo’s education, but the bolded is absolutely NOT accurate.

No, it’s not an IQ test. It is more of an evaluation of general knowledge and more importantly, critical thinking skills. You are lacking in the latter, so I will guess that you took the SAT many times and did GREAT

Actually, I took it once and did really well. I just didn't ascribe that to any mental superiority. I had friends who had to take it several times and I knew it wasn't because they were lacking intellectually. I knew these things because I have critical thinking skills. It's amusing, though, that you're ego seems more wrapped up in thinking that either you or your child is superior based on taking a test once instead of two or three times. I'm just curious, since you say that these are tests of general knowledge, where did you and your child come by this general knowledge? Were you just born knowing it? If so, I'll happily concede that you are special. Not many are born knowing algebra. But if you acquired this general knowledge because someone taught it to you, then your response was not the clever rebuttal you thought it was.

You want it both ways. Your argument boils down to: The score is *not* reflective of actual ability when your kid doesn’t do well, but the score *is* reflective of actual ability when your child DOES do well. Which is why you need Larlo to keep taking that test until they get their “real” score, i.e. the one that somehow demonstrates they’re Ivy material, right?

PP here. Not really, but I can see why you think that's what I'm saying. i haven't articulated it well enough. I think that performance on the test can reflect many different things: ability, preparation, test-taking instincts, confidence, comfort level, health on the day of the test, etc. I do not think it's an IQ or general aptitude test. If it were, you wouldn't need mastery of the subjects being tested at this level. I'm merely pointing out that kids take the test in high school, having been taught those subjects. This is not innate. So, I really don't understand why people who probably feel like it's fine for kids to have athletic coaches, skill camps, tutors, piano teachers, etc for their kids to raise their proficiency in something, feel like it's gaming the system to try to improve your skill at taking these tests. After all, the kids actually need to improve to have their scores go up, right? You don't get handed a high score just because it's attempt #3.

I'm just baffled by the people on here who are so zealous about "one and done," or who need to believe that their kids are superior because they scored well the first time. It's obnoxious and, in my opinion, unfounded. I think it smacks mostly of insecurity, either that their kid isn't superior, or that another kid is going to scoop up their kid's place at Harvard because they took the test more than once.

(Not that it's anyone's business, but this isn't about my kid, who scored very well the first time. That was nice, but I didn't feel that it was confirmation of superiority over other kids who took it multiple times.)

My argument is simply that a kid can take it as many times as they want, but the number of times the test was taken should be included with the scores submitted to colleges.

Your bolded paragraph indicates that you live in an affluent bubble. You don’t understand that these rich, privileged kids ARE taking spots at elite universities from more more deserving students. The average kid does not have the time, resources, or wherewithal to take a standardized test multiple times. The average kid takes it once, and the score is what it is.

So again, if your rich kid wants to take it six times to achieve their 1550, great. Just let the colleges know so they can *fairly* compare that score to the middle class kid who took it once and got a 1470.

PP again. I have no problem with having the kids let colleges know how many times they took it. And I would love for less advantaged kids to be able to access any kind of prep or tutoring that might be helpful. Some of that assistance is actually free. As I stated, I just don't agree that taking the test more than once is gaming the system. And I don't think that there's something magical or superior about being one and done.

I always wonder how those parents would feel if kids were required to take the test two or three times and their kid's score went down after the first time. Would they think their kid was getting dumber or less prepared? Or would they admit that kids can perform differently on different days?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm having to PAY my kid to even take it a second time. And she's not prepping. How do you people convince your kid to take it five or six times? With threats?

You bribe your kid?

Guess what, it is their future and you definitely are doing something wrong if that is the only way to motivate them to care about their future prospects. (How do you see this continuing in college? The workplace?)

Talk about a flawed approach to parenting!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm pretty sure that back when we went to college every attempt was represented on a score report: you could not pick and choose, and you had to decide before you took the test which schools to send the scores to (or not). Same thing with AP exams: there was no suppressing anything when you sent a grade report out.

Surprisingly, things may have changed in 25+ years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm pretty sure that back when we went to college every attempt was represented on a score report: you could not pick and choose, and you had to decide before you took the test which schools to send the scores to (or not). Same thing with AP exams: there was no suppressing anything when you sent a grade report out.

Surprisingly, things may have changed in 25+ years.

And even more surprisingly, these changes aren’t improvements.

[Anonymous]

No magic number. Follow your kid's lead. If they have goals for competitive admissions that would be helped by getting the higher score, support them to achieve it. If not, support them to stop.

[Anonymous]

Also, a test score just gets you "not rejected" in the academic round. Super competitive schools need something else to get you accepted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have any of you considered ever being satisfied with your kids’ actual abilities rather than constantly trying to game the system to effectively buy them the results for skills they don’t possess?

Just a thought.

Have you considered that the results of taking a standardized test once or twice might not actually reflect a kid’s actual abilities?

Just a thought.

You sanctimonious a$$.

+1. Not to mention, I love the implication that studying more and improving on something after that studying or tutoring is “Gaming the system.” Because what we really want to teach our kids is: If at first you don’t succeed, just give up because you clearly don’t possess the skills.

You fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of a test like the SAT.

Then please share with me the purpose. It’s not an IQ test, or you could give it to kids when they’re in elementary school. If it’s to see if they have a mastery of material THAT SOMEONE HAD TO TEACH THEM, then why is it gaming the system for someone to teach them in advance of the test.

I know you’re confused because of all the private tutoring and “teaching to the test” that has been the very foundation of your precious Larlo’s education, but the bolded is absolutely NOT accurate.

No, it’s not an IQ test. It is more of an evaluation of general knowledge and more importantly, critical thinking skills. You are lacking in the latter, so I will guess that you took the SAT many times and did GREAT

Actually, I took it once and did really well. I just didn't ascribe that to any mental superiority. I had friends who had to take it several times and I knew it wasn't because they were lacking intellectually. I knew these things because I have critical thinking skills. It's amusing, though, that you're ego seems more wrapped up in thinking that either you or your child is superior based on taking a test once instead of two or three times. I'm just curious, since you say that these are tests of general knowledge, where did you and your child come by this general knowledge? Were you just born knowing it? If so, I'll happily concede that you are special. Not many are born knowing algebra. But if you acquired this general knowledge because someone taught it to you, then your response was not the clever rebuttal you thought it was.

You want it both ways. Your argument boils down to: The score is *not* reflective of actual ability when your kid doesn’t do well, but the score *is* reflective of actual ability when your child DOES do well. Which is why you need Larlo to keep taking that test until they get their “real” score, i.e. the one that somehow demonstrates they’re Ivy material, right?

PP here. Not really, but I can see why you think that's what I'm saying. i haven't articulated it well enough. I think that performance on the test can reflect many different things: ability, preparation, test-taking instincts, confidence, comfort level, health on the day of the test, etc. I do not think it's an IQ or general aptitude test. If it were, you wouldn't need mastery of the subjects being tested at this level. I'm merely pointing out that kids take the test in high school, having been taught those subjects. This is not innate. So, I really don't understand why people who probably feel like it's fine for kids to have athletic coaches, skill camps, tutors, piano teachers, etc for their kids to raise their proficiency in something, feel like it's gaming the system to try to improve your skill at taking these tests. After all, the kids actually need to improve to have their scores go up, right? You don't get handed a high score just because it's attempt #3.

I'm just baffled by the people on here who are so zealous about "one and done," or who need to believe that their kids are superior because they scored well the first time. It's obnoxious and, in my opinion, unfounded. I think it smacks mostly of insecurity, either that their kid isn't superior, or that another kid is going to scoop up their kid's place at Harvard because they took the test more than once.

(Not that it's anyone's business, but this isn't about my kid, who scored very well the first time. That was nice, but I didn't feel that it was confirmation of superiority over other kids who took it multiple times.)

My argument is simply that a kid can take it as many times as they want, but the number of times the test was taken should be included with the scores submitted to colleges.

Your bolded paragraph indicates that you live in an affluent bubble. You don’t understand that these rich, privileged kids ARE taking spots at elite universities from more more deserving students. The average kid does not have the time, resources, or wherewithal to take a standardized test multiple times. The average kid takes it once, and the score is what it is.

So again, if your rich kid wants to take it six times to achieve their 1550, great. Just let the colleges know so they can *fairly* compare that score to the middle class kid who took it once and got a 1470.

PP again. I have no problem with having the kids let colleges know how many times they took it. And I would love for less advantaged kids to be able to access any kind of prep or tutoring that might be helpful. Some of that assistance is actually free. As I stated, I just don't agree that taking the test more than once is gaming the system. And I don't think that there's something magical or superior about being one and done.

I always wonder how those parents would feel if kids were required to take the test two or three times and their kid's score went down after the first time. Would they think their kid was getting dumber or less prepared? Or would they admit that kids can perform differently on different days?

I guarantee the kid who scores well the first time without all the private tutoring and prep work will score consistently well (some variation is expected but nothing drastic) no matter how many times they take it, versus the kid who is learning *how to take the SAT* but doesn’t understand the actual subject matter. Particularly if you gave kids a surprise retest they’re not expecting on a random day. Which is actually a good idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm having to PAY my kid to even take it a second time. And she's not prepping. How do you people convince your kid to take it five or six times? With threats?

You bribe your kid?

Guess what, it is their future and you definitely are doing something wrong if that is the only way to motivate them to care about their future prospects. (How do you see this continuing in college? The workplace?)

Talk about a flawed approach to parenting!

MY DC who took it several times did it since they knew the minimum scores needed for the program they want to get into, which is competitive at a state school. So self-motivated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DC does great in school but not on standardized tests. They also have pretty bad test anxiety. For instance, on the PSAT, they scored about 1400 on the practice exam, then 1220 on the real exam.

For the SAT, how many times should they take it to get a reasonable score? I feel like they’re capable of around 1500 if taken several times and superscored. Would the colleges care? Do scores improve a lot each time they take the test?

If the kid really needs merit aid, the sky’s the limit.

If the kids is just a prestige worshipper, twice, and the kid should apply to places based on the lower score. It’s a lot more fun to go to a school and be too smart than to go and be an underachiever.

[Anonymous]

no more than 3.

1-2 is ideal.