Obsession with “one and done”

[Anonymous]

There’s no point in taking it again unless you cram like crazy in between. There’s so much test prep material out there that you really don’t have to take it multiple times to get practice. One or two times should be enough. The pressure to enter the superscore lottery is real. Maybe the return of required testing will bring down the insanity. YWIW my DC could have increased the score slightly by super scoring, but we thought it “looked better” to submit just one sitting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serious question. A lot of people on here strongly advocate for a “one and done” approach to testing or say that kids should be limited to taking the SAT or ACT twice. I really don’t get that. Why does it matter? I understand the socioeconomic argument that kids who can afford coaching will have an advantage, but that doesn’t seem to be the motivation for most of the posters here who push for limits. This seems to be a mantra of parents who are taking issue with schools’ acceptance rates, individual decisions, etc.

I would genuinely like to understand the arguments. If a kid learns from mistakes or studies and improves between tests isn’t that a measure of success as a student? Of their ability to learn? What is the crucial significance in your opinion of getting your score in only one or two tries?

We chose one and done because both my kids hit over 1500 with no prep. At that point, there is no reason to keep retaking to edge that 1520 to a 1530 or whatever.

Saves on money and time.

If they were below 1490, they would have retaken it, perhaps several times.

But there is a point to edging a 1480 to 1500? Why?

Because many believe that 1500 is the number to cross for many T25 schools, so your kid makes the first cut and then rest of application is viewed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serious question. A lot of people on here strongly advocate for a “one and done” approach to testing or say that kids should be limited to taking the SAT or ACT twice. I really don’t get that. Why does it matter? I understand the socioeconomic argument that kids who can afford coaching will have an advantage, but that doesn’t seem to be the motivation for most of the posters here who push for limits. This seems to be a mantra of parents who are taking issue with schools’ acceptance rates, individual decisions, etc.

I would genuinely like to understand the arguments. If a kid learns from mistakes or studies and improves between tests isn’t that a measure of success as a student? Of their ability to learn? What is the crucial significance in your opinion of getting your score in only one or two tries?

We chose one and done because both my kids hit over 1500 with no prep. At that point, there is no reason to keep retaking to edge that 1520 to a 1530 or whatever.

Saves on money and time.

If they were below 1490, they would have retaken it, perhaps several times.

But there is a point to edging a 1480 to 1500? Why?

It's a better looking number with good associations and slightly harder to achieve. E.g. would you rather have graduated class of 1998 or 2000 if you were job hunting today?

Deep in the weeds of a college's website, I found a reference to merit aid beginning at 1450. My kid was one and done at 1430. Oopsie! Possibly worth $5K/year.

if one of your kid's target colleges awards scholarships/merit based on SAT (or combined SAT/GPA) then IMO it would be worth some tutoring and attempting to get it up 20 points. Heck it would be worth it to get it up 100 points if your kid hasn't done any prep yet.
But that is different--you have a concrete reason in mind---money for all 4 years of college. and that can be worth another 10-15 hours of preparation and retaking the SAT

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The argument in favor of limited testing is that unlimited testing contributes to inequities because kids with less means cannot pay for the second/third/fourth test and cannot pay for the the prep in between to bolster the second/third/fourth test scores. The argument against limited testing, paradoxically, can also be used to support equities, in that children who have been prepped beforehand or just have base knowledge that can help will get a leg up versus those who don't even know what they are getting into with the first exam. Doesn't occur so much in our rarefied DMV atmosphere because the schools have prep etc. But in other more rural or inner cities areas, it definitely has an effect.

The test is free if you are FARMS, they can take it as many times as they like. Test prep is also free on kahn academy and is really the only prep needed to do well

Firstly, Khan is not the same as 1-1 test prep. What might take 20 hours with Khan can be done with 2-4 hours for 1-1 tutor after a simple baseline test.
2nd, many who qualify for FARMS may not have the TIME to invest in test prep. If you are working 20 hour/week job, going to HS and taking advanced courses and helping watch grandma or your younger siblings while your parent is at work (as in parent works 8pm to 4am and it's your job to put dinner on the table, clean up, make sure siblings do their HW and get ready for bed, and get everything ready for the morning for school for the household).
So it shows your privilege if you think Oh it's free for FARMS kids, they can just use Khan in their free time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The argument in favor of limited testing is that unlimited testing contributes to inequities because kids with less means cannot pay for the second/third/fourth test and cannot pay for the the prep in between to bolster the second/third/fourth test scores. The argument against limited testing, paradoxically, can also be used to support equities, in that children who have been prepped beforehand or just have base knowledge that can help will get a leg up versus those who don't even know what they are getting into with the first exam. Doesn't occur so much in our rarefied DMV atmosphere because the schools have prep etc. But in other more rural or inner cities areas, it definitely has an effect.

The test is free if you are FARMS, they can take it as many times as they like. Test prep is also free on kahn academy and is really the only prep needed to do well

Firstly, Khan is not the same as 1-1 test prep. What might take 20 hours with Khan can be done with 2-4 hours for 1-1 tutor after a simple baseline test.
2nd, many who qualify for FARMS may not have the TIME to invest in test prep. If you are working 20 hour/week job, going to HS and taking advanced courses and helping watch grandma or your younger siblings while your parent is at work (as in parent works 8pm to 4am and it's your job to put dinner on the table, clean up, make sure siblings do their HW and get ready for bed, and get everything ready for the morning for school for the household).
So it shows your privilege if you think Oh it's free for FARMS kids, they can just use Khan in their free time.

The response was to PP saying "because kids with less means cannot pay for the second/third/fourth test and cannot pay for the the prep in between to bolster the second/third/fourth test scores.". PAY is the key word. You are now trying to argue that some kids don't have TIME. Completely different argument which many kids across a variety of incomes face.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The argument in favor of limited testing is that unlimited testing contributes to inequities because kids with less means cannot pay for the second/third/fourth test and cannot pay for the the prep in between to bolster the second/third/fourth test scores. The argument against limited testing, paradoxically, can also be used to support equities, in that children who have been prepped beforehand or just have base knowledge that can help will get a leg up versus those who don't even know what they are getting into with the first exam. Doesn't occur so much in our rarefied DMV atmosphere because the schools have prep etc. But in other more rural or inner cities areas, it definitely has an effect.

The test is free if you are FARMS, they can take it as many times as they like. Test prep is also free on kahn academy and is really the only prep needed to do well

Firstly, Khan is not the same as 1-1 test prep. What might take 20 hours with Khan can be done with 2-4 hours for 1-1 tutor after a simple baseline test.
2nd, many who qualify for FARMS may not have the TIME to invest in test prep. If you are working 20 hour/week job, going to HS and taking advanced courses and helping watch grandma or your younger siblings while your parent is at work (as in parent works 8pm to 4am and it's your job to put dinner on the table, clean up, make sure siblings do their HW and get ready for bed, and get everything ready for the morning for school for the household).
So it shows your privilege if you think Oh it's free for FARMS kids, they can just use Khan in their free time.

The response was to PP saying "because kids with less means cannot pay for the second/third/fourth test and cannot pay for the the prep in between to bolster the second/third/fourth test scores.". PAY is the key word. You are now trying to argue that some kids don't have TIME. Completely different argument which many kids across a variety of incomes face.

But the TIME largely impacts the lower income kids the most. Their lives are typically very different than most with privilege can even imagine. Heck even the privilege of being able to take the test again on a Sat morning (when you typically work at your job on Saturdays--ask for too many days off and you wont' get your 20 hours a week or you will simply not have a job) is key. UMC/Rich kids simply do not have this issue. Their days are "busy" filled with optional ECs and socializing. Where the poor/LMC kids days are filled with non-optional activities like jobs (that contribute to the family not towards their spending money) and simply taking care of siblings or elderly family members.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serious question. A lot of people on here strongly advocate for a “one and done” approach to testing or say that kids should be limited to taking the SAT or ACT twice. I really don’t get that. Why does it matter? I understand the socioeconomic argument that kids who can afford coaching will have an advantage, but that doesn’t seem to be the motivation for most of the posters here who push for limits. This seems to be a mantra of parents who are taking issue with schools’ acceptance rates, individual decisions, etc.

I would genuinely like to understand the arguments. If a kid learns from mistakes or studies and improves between tests isn’t that a measure of success as a student? Of their ability to learn? What is the crucial significance in your opinion of getting your score in only one or two tries?

We chose one and done because both my kids hit over 1500 with no prep. At that point, there is no reason to keep retaking to edge that 1520 to a 1530 or whatever.

Saves on money and time.

If they were below 1490, they would have retaken it, perhaps several times.

But there is a point to edging a 1480 to 1500? Why?

Because many believe that 1500 is the number to cross for many T25 schools, so your kid makes the first cut and then rest of application is viewed.

If 1500 is the cut off to get all of the top 25 schools to look at your application, the test is too easy. They should go back to the old scoring that was harder and the range was bigger and more obvious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serious question. A lot of people on here strongly advocate for a “one and done” approach to testing or say that kids should be limited to taking the SAT or ACT twice. I really don’t get that. Why does it matter? I understand the socioeconomic argument that kids who can afford coaching will have an advantage, but that doesn’t seem to be the motivation for most of the posters here who push for limits. This seems to be a mantra of parents who are taking issue with schools’ acceptance rates, individual decisions, etc.

I would genuinely like to understand the arguments. If a kid learns from mistakes or studies and improves between tests isn’t that a measure of success as a student? Of their ability to learn? What is the crucial significance in your opinion of getting your score in only one or two tries?

We chose one and done because both my kids hit over 1500 with no prep. At that point, there is no reason to keep retaking to edge that 1520 to a 1530 or whatever.

Saves on money and time.

If they were below 1490, they would have retaken it, perhaps several times.

But there is a point to edging a 1480 to 1500? Why?

Because many believe that 1500 is the number to cross for many T25 schools, so your kid makes the first cut and then rest of application is viewed.

If 1500 is the cut off to get all of the top 25 schools to look at your application, the test is too easy. They should go back to the old scoring that was harder and the range was bigger and more obvious.

It isn't the cut off anyway. It's 1400.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serious question. A lot of people on here strongly advocate for a “one and done” approach to testing or say that kids should be limited to taking the SAT or ACT twice. I really don’t get that. Why does it matter? I understand the socioeconomic argument that kids who can afford coaching will have an advantage, but that doesn’t seem to be the motivation for most of the posters here who push for limits. This seems to be a mantra of parents who are taking issue with schools’ acceptance rates, individual decisions, etc.

I would genuinely like to understand the arguments. If a kid learns from mistakes or studies and improves between tests isn’t that a measure of success as a student? Of their ability to learn? What is the crucial significance in your opinion of getting your score in only one or two tries?

We chose one and done because both my kids hit over 1500 with no prep. At that point, there is no reason to keep retaking to edge that 1520 to a 1530 or whatever.

Saves on money and time.

If they were below 1490, they would have retaken it, perhaps several times.

But there is a point to edging a 1480 to 1500? Why?

Because many believe that 1500 is the number to cross for many T25 schools, so your kid makes the first cut and then rest of application is viewed.

If 1500 is the cut off to get all of the top 25 schools to look at your application, the test is too easy. They should go back to the old scoring that was harder and the range was bigger and more obvious.

It isn't the cut off anyway. It's 1400.

I’m friends with an Ivy AO and faculty at a Tier 1 uni. Academically prepared at T30s is approximately 1400-1450, not 1500. The pandemic/TO increased the averages to 1500+ but what faculty considered prepared hasn’t changed.