How much does SAT prep really help?

[Anonymous]

Prep definitely helped. On the diagnostic, my kid got 770 in math, but in the 600s on verbal. (Had I known the starting point, I might have tried to have kid self-study). On the test, my kid got an 800 in math and 750 in verbal with 6 weeks prep. DC probably could have done it by taking practices tests, but has ADHD and would never have taken more than 1 or 2 practice tests on his own. DC needed some structure and accountability. So I thought it was worth it.

[Anonymous]

IMO the SAT is really easy to game.

Need to practice pacing on reading. For math, good Algebra basis + certain throwball formulas you need to memorize (just search "hardest DSAT math questions" on YouTube and they'll have strats)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually think the SAT is designed to weed out kids with learning disabilities. My kid doesn’t have LDs and did well on the SAT but has pointed out how oddly the questions are worded. He tutored peers at his high school and now in college and he’s never come across wording and question structure similar to the SAT on any exam or test.

Colleges are pretty bad at supporting LDs. Kids with LDs are statistically more likely to fail or drop out. It’s awful but admissions will flag essays that talk about mental health or LDs. College board is simply providing a service to the Universities by designing a test that ferrets these kids out without exposing the university to a lawsuit.

It also helps the College Board stay relevant and supports the ecosystem around it. The prep courses focus on the oddity of the questions. If the questions weren’t structured this way, prep companies wouldn’t be able to promise higher scores. As prep is expensive, kids with more money score higher.

So now simply by structuring the questions in a particular way, college board has made it very likely that wealthy kids without LDs will score high and poor kids or kids with LDs will score very low following the pre established pattern of who does well in college. The test isn’t the predictor. The test was designed to mirror the already established pattern.

You made the point without even realizing it - if your kid cannot adapt and learn how to take these standardized tests, why should anyone believe that they CAN adapt and learn how to successfully complete all of the new, unfamiliar requirements that will be thrown at them as a college student?

How do I tell you I am an a$$ without telling you I am an a$$....

“Bad test taker” with the shots fired 😂

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:IMO the SAT is really easy to game.

Need to practice pacing on reading. For math, good Algebra basis + certain throwball formulas you need to memorize (just search "hardest DSAT math questions" on YouTube and they'll have strats)

And yet while grade inflation has resulted in a 65% increase in average GPA over the past 35 years, the average ACT or SAT test score remains essentially unchanged during that period.

Really easy to game, but average score is unchanged. Sure, makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I used to teach for Princeton Review. For all the money you spend, what you get is someone holding your kid accountable for doing practice tests, and someone who can explain mistakes.

You can’t get the reading section up much. Either your kid is a reader, and has learned to read critically. Or not.


You may be able to get English up. The issue is whether your kid has issues with the test format (which can take some getting used to) or the content, which is also hard to teach.

Math is much easier to get up/ make gains. But you can also get math up by having your kid review the relevant sections of Kahn Academy for the questions they miss.

If your kid is self disciplined enough, you can buy the books, take the tests, understand what you miss, either because a parent or Khan Academy explains it. And get SAT prep done for $100, and lie.y hit close to the score your kid would get with an actual tutor.

If you have a dynamic where you are arguing with your kid 24/7 about college stuff, it might be worth the cost for a third party.

Also, how much the kid can get their score up depends on why the score is lower Bs weak reader will remained a weak reader. A kid who struggles with the format and timing on the reading section can move their score a lot more. Similarly, a kid who has forgotten some two year old math or needs to pace themselves better can move the needle a lot more than a kid who never really “got” Algebra II.

The one section I think a tutor can be useful on is ACT science, if the initial score is low. Starting with, helping the kid understand it doesn’t test science knowledge, or even mny science skills. It’s about reading charts and graphs that have science words attached. If you kid has trouble with that skill, targeted tutoring could help.

But, having taught PR, I would never pay for it for my kids. Yes, I did know how to help them. But, most of the class is taking and retaking tests and explaining why kids missed what they did. And the tests are out there. And Khan Academy can explain the concepts.

This is all completely consistent with my DC's experience. He took the ACT with very little prep and got a 31. With about 12 hours of tutoring time (plus a few more hours per session of practice tests) he got his score up to a 34. BUT, it was exactly as you described. He already had a 35 on reading. He spent most of time on math and about 2 hours on science. He took his science score from something like a 30 (I think) to a 36. The tutor spent about one hour on grammar, which got his overall English score to a 36.

The test prep folks said my DC was a perfect candidate for prep, because his reading score was high and it was clear exactly what he needed to focus on.

My DC is a kid who doesn't need any supervision for homework, etc. Theoretically, he could have absolutely done the prep himself. Would he? Absolutely not. He definitely needed the accountability of having to prep for the scheduled appointments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Keep in mind the increases are often from a single sitting 10th grade practice test to a super scored one by start of senior year. It’s not surprising to see a 150 point increase with effort, time, and superscoring.

Not always. In my DC's case, the change was from a real ACT sitting at the end of his Junior year to another in the late summer as a rising Senior. But also, based on how he eventually scored, the practice tests he did with the tutor were very predictive of his actual performance on the test.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why the SAT and ACT are such a joke. The more money and time you spend on test prep, the higher the score. Sure, free Khan Academy can help. But parents with money and ambition are doing classes, one-on-one coaching and prep, with 250/hour tutors. A farce to say this measures intelligence or college readiness.

Guess what else involves a commitment of time and money? College.

Maybe trade school placement is a more suitable option for individuals who cannot perform to certain levels on standardized tests, which ARE predictive of college preparedness and readiness.

My 1200 kid started there, did tons of 1-1 tutoring and got nowhere (think 6 months plus, back when scores were required). They have ADHD and no executive functioning so testing is challenging. Add in anxiety and it's a shitshow at times.

They went to a T80 university, with excellent merit, graduated with a 3.7+, started a job immediately with an excellent company (one that only 11% of applicants make it past the initial testing). SAT is not predictive of college preparedness and readiness. That kid has the people skills and drive to excel. Once someone meets them and works with them, they 1000% want my kid on their team. We always knew they just needed to get their degree and first job and then they will excel after that. We were accurate. Now no employer cares what their SAT was or even their college gpa (2 years+ out of college). They have stellar references and are performing well

Your son is an exception, not part of some vast population that constitute a rule. Read the U-T report on stark grade outcomes that led to their immediate resumption of a standardized testing requirement of each applicant during the admissions process.

Standardized testing isn't perfect, but it remains the single best predictor of performance in college. As I recall, UT found that test optional students scored .8 of a grade point average lower than students that submitted tests, and were substantially more likely to flunk out. The other schools that have returned to test required haven't publicized their data, as far as I know, but it must be similar to justify ditching test optional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I actually think the SAT is designed to weed out kids with learning disabilities. My kid doesn’t have LDs and did well on the SAT but has pointed out how oddly the questions are worded. He tutored peers at his high school and now in college and he’s never come across wording and question structure similar to the SAT on any exam or test.

Colleges are pretty bad at supporting LDs. Kids with LDs are statistically more likely to fail or drop out. It’s awful but admissions will flag essays that talk about mental health or LDs. College board is simply providing a service to the Universities by designing a test that ferrets these kids out without exposing the university to a lawsuit.

It also helps the College Board stay relevant and supports the ecosystem around it. The prep courses focus on the oddity of the questions. If the questions weren’t structured this way, prep companies wouldn’t be able to promise higher scores. As prep is expensive, kids with more money score higher.

So now simply by structuring the questions in a particular way, college board has made it very likely that wealthy kids without LDs will score high and poor kids or kids with LDs will score very low following the pre established pattern of who does well in college. The test isn’t the predictor. The test was designed to mirror the already established pattern.

I don't know about kids with LDs, but the schools that got rid of test optional said that one reason they did so is because it hurt less advantaged students. Wealthy kids have an advantage with regard to the entire college application process, but of all the elements of an application, the tests are the least susceptible to being skewed by that advantage.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/03/standarized-testing-requirements-act-sat/677667/#

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why the SAT and ACT are such a joke. The more money and time you spend on test prep, the higher the score. Sure, free Khan Academy can help. But parents with money and ambition are doing classes, one-on-one coaching and prep, with 250/hour tutors. A farce to say this measures intelligence or college readiness.

Guess what else involves a commitment of time and money? College.

Maybe trade school placement is a more suitable option for individuals who cannot perform to certain levels on standardized tests, which ARE predictive of college preparedness and readiness.

My 1200 kid started there, did tons of 1-1 tutoring and got nowhere (think 6 months plus, back when scores were required). They have ADHD and no executive functioning so testing is challenging. Add in anxiety and it's a shitshow at times.

They went to a T80 university, with excellent merit, graduated with a 3.7+, started a job immediately with an excellent company (one that only 11% of applicants make it past the initial testing). SAT is not predictive of college preparedness and readiness. That kid has the people skills and drive to excel. Once someone meets them and works with them, they 1000% want my kid on their team. We always knew they just needed to get their degree and first job and then they will excel after that. We were accurate. Now no employer cares what their SAT was or even their college gpa (2 years+ out of college). They have stellar references and are performing well

Your son is an exception, not part of some vast population that constitute a rule. Read the U-T report on stark grade outcomes that led to their immediate resumption of a standardized testing requirement of each applicant during the admissions process.

Standardized testing isn't perfect, but it remains the single best predictor of performance in college. As I recall, UT found that test optional students scored .8 of a grade point average lower than students that submitted tests, and were substantially more likely to flunk out. The other schools that have returned to test required haven't publicized their data, as far as I know, but it must be similar to justify ditching test optional.

I hate having to start this discussion, but I do think it needs to be said: The UT Study sucks. They didn't account for the backgrounds of the students in the study, just the data of students with different sat scores and their outcomes. UT serves a diverse population even for public schools because of the top 6% rule, stating that they have to accept the top 6% of any Texas high schools into the College of Liberal Arts.

To make it clear why this is an issue, imagine reading data from SAT 1500 students at Sidwell-Friends and then students with 1100 at an inner-city DC school, finding that that the Maret student has a 1.2 higher GPA after their first years even though both graduated as Valedictorians, and then concluding that the issue is the test scores. In reality, UT has an issue with first-generation, low income support and serves a massive population. The data does suggest however that FGLI who enter top colleges Test optional with low scores...end up fine, they graduate consistently at the same rate as everyone else, and the schools have more support for if you struggle in general.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why the SAT and ACT are such a joke. The more money and time you spend on test prep, the higher the score. Sure, free Khan Academy can help. But parents with money and ambition are doing classes, one-on-one coaching and prep, with 250/hour tutors. A farce to say this measures intelligence or college readiness.

Guess what else involves a commitment of time and money? College.

Maybe trade school placement is a more suitable option for individuals who cannot perform to certain levels on standardized tests, which ARE predictive of college preparedness and readiness.

My 1200 kid started there, did tons of 1-1 tutoring and got nowhere (think 6 months plus, back when scores were required). They have ADHD and no executive functioning so testing is challenging. Add in anxiety and it's a shitshow at times.

They went to a T80 university, with excellent merit, graduated with a 3.7+, started a job immediately with an excellent company (one that only 11% of applicants make it past the initial testing). SAT is not predictive of college preparedness and readiness. That kid has the people skills and drive to excel. Once someone meets them and works with them, they 1000% want my kid on their team. We always knew they just needed to get their degree and first job and then they will excel after that. We were accurate. Now no employer cares what their SAT was or even their college gpa (2 years+ out of college). They have stellar references and are performing well

Your son is an exception, not part of some vast population that constitute a rule. Read the U-T report on stark grade outcomes that led to their immediate resumption of a standardized testing requirement of each applicant during the admissions process.

Standardized testing isn't perfect, but it remains the single best predictor of performance in college. As I recall, UT found that test optional students scored .8 of a grade point average lower than students that submitted tests, and were substantially more likely to flunk out. The other schools that have returned to test required haven't publicized their data, as far as I know, but it must be similar to justify ditching test optional.

I hate having to start this discussion, but I do think it needs to be said: The UT Study sucks. They didn't account for the backgrounds of the students in the study, just the data of students with different sat scores and their outcomes. UT serves a diverse population even for public schools because of the top 6% rule, stating that they have to accept the top 6% of any Texas high schools into the College of Liberal Arts.

To make it clear why this is an issue, imagine reading data from SAT 1500 students at Sidwell-Friends and then students with 1100 at an inner-city DC school, finding that that the Maret student has a 1.2 higher GPA after their first years even though both graduated as Valedictorians, and then concluding that the issue is the test scores. In reality, UT has an issue with first-generation, low income support and serves a massive population. The data does suggest however that FGLI who enter top colleges Test optional with low scores...end up fine, they graduate consistently at the same rate as everyone else, and the schools have more support for if you struggle in general.

This follows with other studies that consistently state the most important metric for college success is GPA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why the SAT and ACT are such a joke. The more money and time you spend on test prep, the higher the score. Sure, free Khan Academy can help. But parents with money and ambition are doing classes, one-on-one coaching and prep, with 250/hour tutors. A farce to say this measures intelligence or college readiness.

Guess what else involves a commitment of time and money? College.

Maybe trade school placement is a more suitable option for individuals who cannot perform to certain levels on standardized tests, which ARE predictive of college preparedness and readiness.

My 1200 kid started there, did tons of 1-1 tutoring and got nowhere (think 6 months plus, back when scores were required). They have ADHD and no executive functioning so testing is challenging. Add in anxiety and it's a shitshow at times.

They went to a T80 university, with excellent merit, graduated with a 3.7+, started a job immediately with an excellent company (one that only 11% of applicants make it past the initial testing). SAT is not predictive of college preparedness and readiness. That kid has the people skills and drive to excel. Once someone meets them and works with them, they 1000% want my kid on their team. We always knew they just needed to get their degree and first job and then they will excel after that. We were accurate. Now no employer cares what their SAT was or even their college gpa (2 years+ out of college). They have stellar references and are performing well

Your son is an exception, not part of some vast population that constitute a rule. Read the U-T report on stark grade outcomes that led to their immediate resumption of a standardized testing requirement of each applicant during the admissions process.

Standardized testing isn't perfect, but it remains the single best predictor of performance in college. As I recall, UT found that test optional students scored .8 of a grade point average lower than students that submitted tests, and were substantially more likely to flunk out. The other schools that have returned to test required haven't publicized their data, as far as I know, but it must be similar to justify ditching test optional.

I hate having to start this discussion, but I do think it needs to be said: The UT Study sucks. They didn't account for the backgrounds of the students in the study, just the data of students with different sat scores and their outcomes. UT serves a diverse population even for public schools because of the top 6% rule, stating that they have to accept the top 6% of any Texas high schools into the College of Liberal Arts.

To make it clear why this is an issue, imagine reading data from SAT 1500 students at Sidwell-Friends and then students with 1100 at an inner-city DC school, finding that that the Maret student has a 1.2 higher GPA after their first years even though both graduated as Valedictorians, and then concluding that the issue is the test scores. In reality, UT has an issue with first-generation, low income support and serves a massive population. The data does suggest however that FGLI who enter top colleges Test optional with low scores...end up fine, they graduate consistently at the same rate as everyone else, and the schools have more support for if you struggle in general.

Sounds like the UT study is an obtuse way of describing school inequality. I also wonder why the state flagship of Texas would choose a very strange bar (top 6% of the class) to auto-admit students when its presumably a rigorous institution.

[Anonymous]

The desperation to fend off the return of tests is breathtaking!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why the SAT and ACT are such a joke. The more money and time you spend on test prep, the higher the score. Sure, free Khan Academy can help. But parents with money and ambition are doing classes, one-on-one coaching and prep, with 250/hour tutors. A farce to say this measures intelligence or college readiness.

Guess what else involves a commitment of time and money? College.

Maybe trade school placement is a more suitable option for individuals who cannot perform to certain levels on standardized tests, which ARE predictive of college preparedness and readiness.

My 1200 kid started there, did tons of 1-1 tutoring and got nowhere (think 6 months plus, back when scores were required). They have ADHD and no executive functioning so testing is challenging. Add in anxiety and it's a shitshow at times.

They went to a T80 university, with excellent merit, graduated with a 3.7+, started a job immediately with an excellent company (one that only 11% of applicants make it past the initial testing). SAT is not predictive of college preparedness and readiness. That kid has the people skills and drive to excel. Once someone meets them and works with them, they 1000% want my kid on their team. We always knew they just needed to get their degree and first job and then they will excel after that. We were accurate. Now no employer cares what their SAT was or even their college gpa (2 years+ out of college). They have stellar references and are performing well

Your son is an exception, not part of some vast population that constitute a rule. Read the U-T report on stark grade outcomes that led to their immediate resumption of a standardized testing requirement of each applicant during the admissions process.

Standardized testing isn't perfect, but it remains the single best predictor of performance in college. As I recall, UT found that test optional students scored .8 of a grade point average lower than students that submitted tests, and were substantially more likely to flunk out. The other schools that have returned to test required haven't publicized their data, as far as I know, but it must be similar to justify ditching test optional.

I hate having to start this discussion, but I do think it needs to be said: The UT Study sucks. They didn't account for the backgrounds of the students in the study, just the data of students with different sat scores and their outcomes. UT serves a diverse population even for public schools because of the top 6% rule, stating that they have to accept the top 6% of any Texas high schools into the College of Liberal Arts.

To make it clear why this is an issue, imagine reading data from SAT 1500 students at Sidwell-Friends and then students with 1100 at an inner-city DC school, finding that that the Maret student has a 1.2 higher GPA after their first years even though both graduated as Valedictorians, and then concluding that the issue is the test scores. In reality, UT has an issue with first-generation, low income support and serves a massive population. The data does suggest however that FGLI who enter top colleges Test optional with low scores...end up fine, they graduate consistently at the same rate as everyone else, and the schools have more support for if you struggle in general.

Sounds like the UT study is an obtuse way of describing school inequality. I also wonder why the state flagship of Texas would choose a very strange bar (top 6% of the class) to auto-admit students when its presumably a rigorous institution.

State law. It was originally 10% but UT Austin lobbied to get it down to 6%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The desperation to fend off the return of tests is breathtaking!

I really don't see desperation. People raise a good argument towards the UT study. I could use any amount of metrics to prove that they "produce statistically significant differences between test optional and test submission students" if I just compare people from royally different academic contexts and delete any control outside of being top 6%. Ultimately, GPA is the best determiner of college success.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:IMO the SAT is really easy to game.

Need to practice pacing on reading. For math, good Algebra basis + certain throwball formulas you need to memorize (just search "hardest DSAT math questions" on YouTube and they'll have strats)

Yes. You can ace the SAT but only if you have complete mastery of the content. If you have knowledge gaps then you will not do well in SAT. However, if you have mastery of the content and you have speed and accuracy, then with SAT practice you can ace the exam.