If your student struggled academically in college…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. The piece about test score matching is so interesting to me.

I’ve always dismissed the idea that test scores were a legit predictor of college performance. I’ve viewed them more as an indicator of a kid’s ability to excel at standardized tests, plus their access/commitment to good test prep. (I say this as someone who had excellent test scores but struggled at my top-tier college (probably due to lack of preparation at my relatively easy HS) and then excelled in grad school (no doubt due to the rigor of my college experience.))

So … as DC builds their list of schools, maybe we should be paying closer attention to where their SAT scores fall in the distribution for each schoo? Not just to try to predict admissions, but also to consider fit and college experience. What do others think? DC will still apply to reaches, of course. But if they end up accepted somewhere where their SAT is at the lower end of the range, that may be an indicator of their fit/success at that school. (I’m thinking about college grades but also about other opportunities - their connections with classmates and professors, extracurriculars and internships etc.)

Thoughts? Others’ experiences with this?

No, I absolutely wouldn't give test scores that power. I used to work for ETS on the SAT.

You would be making a determination on college choice based on a few multiple choice questions your child answered differently than another child. Those questions were selected for inclusion because they were tricky enough to trip up the majority of lower-scoring test-takers and trip up fewer ultra-high scoring test-takers. But that's not the same as requiring advanced skills to answer the question. Think about an ambiguously constructed question on a passage of literature. There could be two answers that could be arguably reasonable, but if the "right" one is picked most of the time by the ultra high scorers and not by the other kids, that's a useful question for the test. Picking the "wrong" one doesn't mean you couldn't do college level work at the same level as another child.

One of the funniest things I ever read was an opinion piece by a poet whose poem got incorporated into a middle school level standardized test. She felt the "correct" answer was wrong.

I was a National Merit Finalist. When I look at how my kids make mistakes on reading passage interpretation, they often pick an answer that's less likely but still defensible. Huge amounts of reading helped me have more of an ear or probabalistic guess at the right answer. But it doesn't mean my kids are less intelligent or capable than me. They may have less insight due to background. But college courses are supposed to provide background and allow some leeway for well-argued differences of opinion.

So SATs aren't everything. I think, as a person who was weaker in math, the math score is more indicative of success potential (especially for quant majors).

I think school fit is very important. It's more emotionally satisfactory to master a subject than to struggle. My oldest was WL at an Ivy that is legacy in our family. I'm glad now, that he didn't get in. It wasn't his top choice and not the best fit or best value. He knew that and did not send a LOCI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. The piece about test score matching is so interesting to me.

I’ve always dismissed the idea that test scores were a legit predictor of college performance. I’ve viewed them more as an indicator of a kid’s ability to excel at standardized tests, plus their access/commitment to good test prep. (I say this as someone who had excellent test scores but struggled at my top-tier college (probably due to lack of preparation at my relatively easy HS) and then excelled in grad school (no doubt due to the rigor of my college experience.))

So … as DC builds their list of schools, maybe we should be paying closer attention to where their SAT scores fall in the distribution for each schoo? Not just to try to predict admissions, but also to consider fit and college experience. What do others think? DC will still apply to reaches, of course. But if they end up accepted somewhere where their SAT is at the lower end of the range, that may be an indicator of their fit/success at that school. (I’m thinking about college grades but also about other opportunities - their connections with classmates and professors, extracurriculars and internships etc.)

Thoughts? Others’ experiences with this?

No, I absolutely wouldn't give test scores that power. I used to work for ETS on the SAT.

You would be making a determination on college choice based on a few multiple choice questions your child answered differently than another child. Those questions were selected for inclusion because they were tricky enough to trip up the majority of lower-scoring test-takers and trip up fewer ultra-high scoring test-takers. But that's not the same as requiring advanced skills to answer the question. Think about an ambiguously constructed question on a passage of literature. There could be two answers that could be arguably reasonable, but if the "right" one is picked most of the time by the ultra high scorers and not by the other kids, that's a useful question for the test. Picking the "wrong" one doesn't mean you couldn't do college level work at the same level as another child.

One of the funniest things I ever read was an opinion piece by a poet whose poem got incorporated into a middle school level standardized test. She felt the "correct" answer was wrong.

I was a National Merit Finalist. When I look at how my kids make mistakes on reading passage interpretation, they often pick an answer that's less likely but still defensible. Huge amounts of reading helped me have more of an ear or probabalistic guess at the right answer. But it doesn't mean my kids are less intelligent or capable than me. They may have less insight due to background. But college courses are supposed to provide background and allow some leeway for well-argued differences of opinion.

So SATs aren't everything. I think, as a person who was weaker in math, the math score is more indicative of success potential (especially for quant majors).

I think school fit is very important. It's more emotionally satisfactory to master a subject than to struggle. My oldest was WL at an Ivy that is legacy in our family. I'm glad now, that he didn't get in. It wasn't his top choice and not the best fit or best value. He knew that and did not send a LOCI.

This is why so many boys prefer math/eng/CS majors over humanities major. The answer to a question is either right or wrong. It's not nebulous, like some of the q & a on English portion of standardized tests.

FWIW, my DS is an IBDP grad, 780 on English part of SAT, 800 on Math. He did not find IBDP all that difficult, but he prefers the certainty of math.

IDK.. maybe, as PP stated, part of it is maturity and being able to pick up on nuances, which boys tend to not be good at.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:dp.. I made my kids practice their piano when they were taking lessons in ES. I let them quit when they were like 10 because they begged me to; I knew that they would regret it one day. And I was right. They are older teens n ow, and they regret quitting. They will sit at the piano once in a while and play something. My one kid even took up the guitar and said how much they regretted not continuing piano. Sometimes, parents really do know what's best for their kids and a bit of tiger parenting is warranted. My DC told me I should've pushed them more (they are now 19).

+1

When I was young, my dad made me learn piano for twelve years and guitar for five years. I had to practice two hours every day, and I hated him. When I headed off to college, my piano and guitar skills provided me with an opportunity to make friends, and I even met my wife at a party where I showed my guitar skills. That was fifteen years ago. I am making sure my ten-year-old DS and nine-year-old DD learn music as soon as they are able to speak. If they can learn vocals, even better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:dp.. I made my kids practice their piano when they were taking lessons in ES. I let them quit when they were like 10 because they begged me to; I knew that they would regret it one day. And I was right. They are older teens n ow, and they regret quitting. They will sit at the piano once in a while and play something. My one kid even took up the guitar and said how much they regretted not continuing piano. Sometimes, parents really do know what's best for their kids and a bit of tiger parenting is warranted. My DC told me I should've pushed them more (they are now 19).

+1

When I was young, my dad made me learn piano for twelve years and guitar for five years. I had to practice two hours every day, and I hated him. When I headed off to college, my piano and guitar skills provided me with an opportunity to make friends, and I even met my wife at a party where I showed my guitar skills. That was fifteen years ago. I am making sure my ten-year-old DS and nine-year-old DD learn music as soon as they are able to speak. If they can learn vocals, even better.

Let's be honest...your guitar skills allowed you to make friends and attract your wife. So, you would have had the same results with 1/2 the time (i.e., no piano).

Surprised your 10 year old and 9 year old can't speak yet. Hope it happens soon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:dp.. I made my kids practice their piano when they were taking lessons in ES. I let them quit when they were like 10 because they begged me to; I knew that they would regret it one day. And I was right. They are older teens n ow, and they regret quitting. They will sit at the piano once in a while and play something. My one kid even took up the guitar and said how much they regretted not continuing piano. Sometimes, parents really do know what's best for their kids and a bit of tiger parenting is warranted. My DC told me I should've pushed them more (they are now 19).

+1

When I was young, my dad made me learn piano for twelve years and guitar for five years. I had to practice two hours every day, and I hated him. When I headed off to college, my piano and guitar skills provided me with an opportunity to make friends, and I even met my wife at a party where I showed my guitar skills. That was fifteen years ago. I am making sure my ten-year-old DS and nine-year-old DD learn music as soon as they are able to speak. If they can learn vocals, even better.

Let's be honest...your guitar skills allowed you to make friends and attract your wife. So, you would have had the same results with 1/2 the time (i.e., no piano).

Surprised your 10 year old and 9 year old can't speak yet. Hope it happens soon.

LOL... thank you for the corrections. I should have said "I made sure both my DS and DD learned music as soon as they were able to speak". Both started music at the age of four. They can quit after they turn eighteen.

I found that learning piano made learning other instruments such as guitar so much easier. After spending twelve years learning piano, it took me about three months to get good at the guitar. It took me five years to get "great" with guitar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:…do you think they would have done better at a different school? Anyone feel like their student overshot and should have attended a target rather than a reach?

Of course academic struggles could also be due to partying too much, mental health issues, athletic commitments, picking a bad-fit major, size of classes, etc.

Knowing what you know now, would you advise your student differently?

Can I post about myself? I struggled so hard I failed out. It was the only "away" college I could get into and desperately needed to get out of my parents house. It was crushing to have to go home after four months. I ultimately squeaked through community college and nearly killed myself doing it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. The piece about test score matching is so interesting to me.

I’ve always dismissed the idea that test scores were a legit predictor of college performance. I’ve viewed them more as an indicator of a kid’s ability to excel at standardized tests, plus their access/commitment to good test prep. (I say this as someone who had excellent test scores but struggled at my top-tier college (probably due to lack of preparation at my relatively easy HS) and then excelled in grad school (no doubt due to the rigor of my college experience.))

So … as DC builds their list of schools, maybe we should be paying closer attention to where their SAT scores fall in the distribution for each schoo? Not just to try to predict admissions, but also to consider fit and college experience. What do others think? DC will still apply to reaches, of course. But if they end up accepted somewhere where their SAT is at the lower end of the range, that may be an indicator of their fit/success at that school. (I’m thinking about college grades but also about other opportunities - their connections with classmates and professors, extracurriculars and internships etc.)

Thoughts? Others’ experiences with this?

No, I absolutely wouldn't give test scores that power. I used to work for ETS on the SAT.

You would be making a determination on college choice based on a few multiple choice questions your child answered differently than another child. Those questions were selected for inclusion because they were tricky enough to trip up the majority of lower-scoring test-takers and trip up fewer ultra-high scoring test-takers. But that's not the same as requiring advanced skills to answer the question. Think about an ambiguously constructed question on a passage of literature. There could be two answers that could be arguably reasonable, but if the "right" one is picked most of the time by the ultra high scorers and not by the other kids, that's a useful question for the test. Picking the "wrong" one doesn't mean you couldn't do college level work at the same level as another child.

One of the funniest things I ever read was an opinion piece by a poet whose poem got incorporated into a middle school level standardized test. She felt the "correct" answer was wrong.

I was a National Merit Finalist. When I look at how my kids make mistakes on reading passage interpretation, they often pick an answer that's less likely but still defensible. Huge amounts of reading helped me have more of an ear or probabalistic guess at the right answer. But it doesn't mean my kids are less intelligent or capable than me. They may have less insight due to background. But college courses are supposed to provide background and allow some leeway for well-argued differences of opinion.

So SATs aren't everything. I think, as a person who was weaker in math, the math score is more indicative of success potential (especially for quant majors).

I think school fit is very important. It's more emotionally satisfactory to master a subject than to struggle. My oldest was WL at an Ivy that is legacy in our family. I'm glad now, that he didn't get in. It wasn't his top choice and not the best fit or best value. He knew that and did not send a LOCI.

This is why so many boys prefer math/eng/CS majors over humanities major. The answer to a question is either right or wrong. It's not nebulous, like some of the q & a on English portion of standardized tests.

FWIW, my DS is an IBDP grad, 780 on English part of SAT, 800 on Math. He did not find IBDP all that difficult, but he prefers the certainty of math.

IDK.. maybe, as PP stated, part of it is maturity and being able to pick up on nuances, which boys tend to not be good at.

Boys are plenty good at nuance if it’s something they care about. Ask them about the nuances of their favorite video game or sports team and they can talk for hours. Ask them about the nuances of some poem or literary passage… nah they are probably just not interested. That’s like asking a woman to discuss the nuances of different pistol calibers.

[Anonymous]

I believe you can buy points if you have sufficient starting intelligence and are intensively tutored.

You’re not really buying points if the kid is already smart. The kid would do fine without tutoring but with consistent disciplined practice.

When people talk about buying points they really mean “dumb rich kid whose parents paid to have him tutored up from an 1100 to a 1500” - and it’s doubtful that happens often if at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I believe you can buy points if you have sufficient starting intelligence and are intensively tutored.

You’re not really buying points if the kid is already smart. The kid would do fine without tutoring but with consistent disciplined practice.

When people talk about buying points they really mean “dumb rich kid whose parents paid to have him tutored up from an 1100 to a 1500” - and it’s doubtful that happens often if at all.

I don't disagree with you...but I also don't doubt that with enough disciplined practice and/or tutoring that a kid can go from say a 1350 to a 1500...and then if they took the test two weeks later, they would be right back to a 1350.

They cram in the test knowledge and test tactics for the test...and then they promptly forget most of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I believe you can buy points if you have sufficient starting intelligence and are intensively tutored.

You’re not really buying points if the kid is already smart. The kid would do fine without tutoring but with consistent disciplined practice.

When people talk about buying points they really mean “dumb rich kid whose parents paid to have him tutored up from an 1100 to a 1500” - and it’s doubtful that happens often if at all.

PP. You buy points when a natively intelligent child receives personally tailored guidance that enables them to succeed. Adults are better at devising tailored strategies than children are. It's like athletic performance coaching.

However, this gets muddled in practice because a lot of SAT prep is only somewhat tailored.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I believe you can buy points if you have sufficient starting intelligence and are intensively tutored.

You’re not really buying points if the kid is already smart. The kid would do fine without tutoring but with consistent disciplined practice.

When people talk about buying points they really mean “dumb rich kid whose parents paid to have him tutored up from an 1100 to a 1500” - and it’s doubtful that happens often if at all.

PP. You buy points when a natively intelligent child receives personally tailored guidance that enables them to succeed. Adults are better at devising tailored strategies than children are. It's like athletic performance coaching.

However, this gets muddled in practice because a lot of SAT prep is only somewhat tailored.

PP continuing. A lot of the difference in math scores relates to formal knowledge + hacks + accuracy. If a kid has forgotten specific formulas, etc. a good coach can realize this faster than a student.

I'm completely unsurprised that people on here report 100-200 points of improvement with training. Because kids from affluent families and with accelerated math training at good schools probably just forgot (as opposed to never mastered) certain math.

Agree that 400 points is not likely. That's what led to Varsity Blues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The difference between a high 1300s and 1500s SAT likely shows up in sophistication of writing and speed of absorbing quantitative concepts. That would put one at a disadvantage for taking tests and writing papers in many types of classes.

I've also noticed that people at the 700+ SAT level don't understand why it's hard for people to to score that high. They don't really get how people didn't internalize algebra, etc. So there's not always sympathy to be found among peers.

Nailed it.
TO has to go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:dp.. I made my kids practice their piano when they were taking lessons in ES. I let them quit when they were like 10 because they begged me to; I knew that they would regret it one day. And I was right. They are older teens n ow, and they regret quitting. They will sit at the piano once in a while and play something. My one kid even took up the guitar and said how much they regretted not continuing piano. Sometimes, parents really do know what's best for their kids and a bit of tiger parenting is warranted. My DC told me I should've pushed them more (they are now 19).

+1

When I was young, my dad made me learn piano for twelve years and guitar for five years. I had to practice two hours every day, and I hated him. When I headed off to college, my piano and guitar skills provided me with an opportunity to make friends, and I even met my wife at a party where I showed my guitar skills. That was fifteen years ago. I am making sure my ten-year-old DS and nine-year-old DD learn music as soon as they are able to speak. If they can learn vocals, even better.

Let's be honest...your guitar skills allowed you to make friends and attract your wife. So, you would have had the same results with 1/2 the time (i.e., no piano).

Surprised your 10 year old and 9 year old can't speak yet. Hope it happens soon.

LOL... thank you for the corrections. I should have said "I made sure both my DS and DD learned music as soon as they were able to speak". Both started music at the age of four. They can quit after they turn eighteen.

I found that learning piano made learning other instruments such as guitar so much easier. After spending twelve years learning piano, it took me about three months to get good at the guitar. It took me five years to get "great" with guitar.

I'm the PP with the guitar/piano playing kids. This is true. I play both (self taught). I told my DC that learning to play the guitar is easier if you know how to play the piano, or at least read the notes. I play piano using guitar notes; I am not able to quickly site read piano notes, but I can play any song on the piano if I have the guitar chords.

And yea, I told my DS that girls go gaga over guys who can play the guitar.

I'm a mom btw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. The piece about test score matching is so interesting to me.

I’ve always dismissed the idea that test scores were a legit predictor of college performance. I’ve viewed them more as an indicator of a kid’s ability to excel at standardized tests, plus their access/commitment to good test prep. (I say this as someone who had excellent test scores but struggled at my top-tier college (probably due to lack of preparation at my relatively easy HS) and then excelled in grad school (no doubt due to the rigor of my college experience.))

So … as DC builds their list of schools, maybe we should be paying closer attention to where their SAT scores fall in the distribution for each schoo? Not just to try to predict admissions, but also to consider fit and college experience. What do others think? DC will still apply to reaches, of course. But if they end up accepted somewhere where their SAT is at the lower end of the range, that may be an indicator of their fit/success at that school. (I’m thinking about college grades but also about other opportunities - their connections with classmates and professors, extracurriculars and internships etc.)

Thoughts? Others’ experiences with this?

No, I absolutely wouldn't give test scores that power. I used to work for ETS on the SAT.

You would be making a determination on college choice based on a few multiple choice questions your child answered differently than another child. Those questions were selected for inclusion because they were tricky enough to trip up the majority of lower-scoring test-takers and trip up fewer ultra-high scoring test-takers. But that's not the same as requiring advanced skills to answer the question. Think about an ambiguously constructed question on a passage of literature. There could be two answers that could be arguably reasonable, but if the "right" one is picked most of the time by the ultra high scorers and not by the other kids, that's a useful question for the test. Picking the "wrong" one doesn't mean you couldn't do college level work at the same level as another child.

One of the funniest things I ever read was an opinion piece by a poet whose poem got incorporated into a middle school level standardized test. She felt the "correct" answer was wrong.

I was a National Merit Finalist. When I look at how my kids make mistakes on reading passage interpretation, they often pick an answer that's less likely but still defensible. Huge amounts of reading helped me have more of an ear or probabalistic guess at the right answer. But it doesn't mean my kids are less intelligent or capable than me. They may have less insight due to background. But college courses are supposed to provide background and allow some leeway for well-argued differences of opinion.

So SATs aren't everything. I think, as a person who was weaker in math, the math score is more indicative of success potential (especially for quant majors).

I think school fit is very important. It's more emotionally satisfactory to master a subject than to struggle. My oldest was WL at an Ivy that is legacy in our family. I'm glad now, that he didn't get in. It wasn't his top choice and not the best fit or best value. He knew that and did not send a LOCI.

This is why so many boys prefer math/eng/CS majors over humanities major. The answer to a question is either right or wrong. It's not nebulous, like some of the q & a on English portion of standardized tests.

FWIW, my DS is an IBDP grad, 780 on English part of SAT, 800 on Math. He did not find IBDP all that difficult, but he prefers the certainty of math.

IDK.. maybe, as PP stated, part of it is maturity and being able to pick up on nuances, which boys tend to not be good at.

Boys are plenty good at nuance if it’s something they care about. Ask them about the nuances of their favorite video game or sports team and they can talk for hours. Ask them about the nuances of some poem or literary passage… nah they are probably just not interested. That’s like asking a woman to discuss the nuances of different pistol calibers.

They don't need to read anything and try to figure out what the author was feeling or thinking when explaining a video game.

DS hates stuff like that, even though they did manage to get a 780 on the SAT English section. At that age, boys aren't great at "explain what that person was thinking or feeling". I'm not sure they ever get good at that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The difference between a high 1300s and 1500s SAT likely shows up in sophistication of writing and speed of absorbing quantitative concepts. That would put one at a disadvantage for taking tests and writing papers in many types of classes.

I've also noticed that people at the 700+ SAT level don't understand why it's hard for people to to score that high. They don't really get how people didn't internalize algebra, etc. So there's not always sympathy to be found among peers.

This is my DC#1 (1580 SAT perfect GPA), and they say this to me behind DC#2's back (above average GPA, and 1200 PSAT).

DC#1 just doesn't understand why people think something academic is so hard. They keep saying, "it's not that hard".