If your child was TO or below 1400 on the SAT, how are they doing in college?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SATs are the only way to really assess a student's ability. Sorry you can't cheat on the SAT like you could in classes and are upset. 🤷‍♀️

Only way? Stop being delulu. You can't cheat on the SAT but you can certainly retake it over and over until you get the score you want. Does that sound like a great assessment of a student's ability? At my kid's HS, the most you can retake a test (if they even allow it) is once.

Clearly you can't take it over and over until you get the score you want or every college would have a 1600-1600 SAT range. Do you losers ever tire of being illogical?

LOL—relax, Socrates. No one said everyone does get a 1600. I said you can retake the SAT multiple times, unlike most high school tests. That means wealth, time, and access to tutoring can play a huge role—so maybe chill with the “only true measure of ability” takes. Not everyone’s goal is a perfect score anyway—most students are just aiming for what gets them into their schools. And at the end of the day, if the school is test-optional, why would someone even bother jumping through those hoops unless it actually helps them?

All retakes get a kid is a result on the right side of the normal curve, with the mean being the student's actual ability. Schools understand this. The measurement error on the SAT is about 32, which means that on average, a retake will be 32 points above or below the original, assuming the original was the mean. Assuming normal distribution, this would mean that a student has a 1 in 20 chance of being 60 points higher. So, if I start at 1400, I have a good shot of 1430, and a long shot of 1460. It can also go lower.

Super scoring make it more interesting, but not much, as the 32 point error is across math and verbal. Say I take the test three times. The first time I get 700 / 700, the second time 690 / 720, and the third time 720 / 690. Now I can superscore to 1440, which only got me ten more points. Of course, I kind can get "luckly" and get results that deviate at higher than the average, which, with superscoring, might push you to 1450 or 1460--but that's pretty unlikely.

[Anonymous]

I think there are some TO that can do amazing in hard majors at top schools, but it’s not the norm. I never see TO proponents acknowledge that many of the perfect and near perfect are actually kids that didn’t prep. It’s always the money argument, and that’s the average to above average gunning for higher scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SATs are the only way to really assess a student's ability. Sorry you can't cheat on the SAT like you could in classes and are upset. 🤷‍♀️

Only way? Stop being delulu. You can't cheat on the SAT but you can certainly retake it over and over until you get the score you want. Does that sound like a great assessment of a student's ability? At my kid's HS, the most you can retake a test (if they even allow it) is once.

Clearly you can't take it over and over until you get the score you want or every college would have a 1600-1600 SAT range. Do you losers ever tire of being illogical?

LOL—relax, Socrates. No one said everyone does get a 1600. I said you can retake the SAT multiple times, unlike most high school tests. That means wealth, time, and access to tutoring can play a huge role—so maybe chill with the “only true measure of ability” takes. Not everyone’s goal is a perfect score anyway—most students are just aiming for what gets them into their schools. And at the end of the day, if the school is test-optional, why would someone even bother jumping through those hoops unless it actually helps them?

All retakes get a kid is a result on the right side of the normal curve, with the mean being the student's actual ability. Schools understand this. The measurement error on the SAT is about 32, which means that on average, a retake will be 32 points above or below the original, assuming the original was the mean. Assuming normal distribution, this would mean that a student has a 1 in 20 chance of being 60 points higher. So, if I start at 1400, I have a good shot of 1430, and a long shot of 1460. It can also go lower.

Super scoring make it more interesting, but not much, as the 32 point error is across math and verbal. Say I take the test three times. The first time I get 700 / 700, the second time 690 / 720, and the third time 720 / 690. Now I can superscore to 1440, which only got me ten more points. Of course, I kind can get "luckly" and get results that deviate at higher than the average, which, with superscoring, might push you to 1450 or 1460--but that's pretty unlikely.

Very accurate explanation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The unwashed masses of Ohio State with over 40,000 students and their freshman class test submitting rate is 20% for SAT and 60% for ACT. Yuck. Who knew absolute dunces were walking amongst us. /s

And any large state school that everyone touts. Even the Southern ones that have the least educated populations. They all must be dummies because of TO.

Sounds silly, right?

Not dummies necessarily, but almost certainly less academically qualified than students submitting test scores.

Submitting scores often just indicates your parents have the funds to spend on multiple tests and professional test prep.

Nope, tons of free resources. It’s work ethic and drive that’s the problem. That being said, oldest got perfect score no prep. Youngest got a top score with next to no prep and didn’t have the work ethic to put time into math to do even better. Oldest had rigor and perfect gps, youngest has less rigor and average gpa.

It’s not money, it’s innate ability and drive.

It can be about innate ability and drive, but when that’s not there, money steps up.

I took the SAT once, no prep. Was always really good at taking standardized tests (but my career’s a total flop, I hate to tell you all). My first kid will likely take the test at least three times and we’re paying a tutor $100/hr in between. I have zero doubt that she’ll excel in college. She is an avid reader and loves to write and think and analyze, but she needs coaching to get her math score up to a level where she can submit. She’ll likely never need to take an actual math course in college, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think there are some TO that can do amazing in hard majors at top schools, but it’s not the norm. I never see TO proponents acknowledge that many of the perfect and near perfect are actually kids that didn’t prep. It’s always the money argument, and that’s the average to above average gunning for higher scores.

Now you're injecting "hard" majors.

Goalposts.

Give it up.

[Anonymous]

The biggest BS is 'my kid is not good at taking tests (while academically great)'.

WTF how the F the kid handles all the tests, exams, midterms, finals, etc. in a college

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SATs are the only way to really assess a student's ability. Sorry you can't cheat on the SAT like you could in classes and are upset. 🤷‍♀️

Only way? Stop being delulu. You can't cheat on the SAT but you can certainly retake it over and over until you get the score you want. Does that sound like a great assessment of a student's ability? At my kid's HS, the most you can retake a test (if they even allow it) is once.

Clearly you can't take it over and over until you get the score you want or every college would have a 1600-1600 SAT range. Do you losers ever tire of being illogical?

LOL—relax, Socrates. No one said everyone does get a 1600. I said you can retake the SAT multiple times, unlike most high school tests. That means wealth, time, and access to tutoring can play a huge role—so maybe chill with the “only true measure of ability” takes. Not everyone’s goal is a perfect score anyway—most students are just aiming for what gets them into their schools. And at the end of the day, if the school is test-optional, why would someone even bother jumping through those hoops unless it actually helps them?

All retakes get a kid is a result on the right side of the normal curve, with the mean being the student's actual ability. Schools understand this. The measurement error on the SAT is about 32, which means that on average, a retake will be 32 points above or below the original, assuming the original was the mean. Assuming normal distribution, this would mean that a student has a 1 in 20 chance of being 60 points higher. So, if I start at 1400, I have a good shot of 1430, and a long shot of 1460. It can also go lower.

Super scoring make it more interesting, but not much, as the 32 point error is across math and verbal. Say I take the test three times. The first time I get 700 / 700, the second time 690 / 720, and the third time 720 / 690. Now I can superscore to 1440, which only got me ten more points. Of course, I kind can get "luckly" and get results that deviate at higher than the average, which, with superscoring, might push you to 1450 or 1460--but that's pretty unlikely.

The first SAT score is not some divine revelation of a student’s “true ability.” In reality, it’s a snapshot—often taken under pressure, with varying levels of prep, resources, and confidence. For some students, that first score reflects nerves or lack of access, not their actual ability or potential.
And ability isn’t fixed. Students improve with practice, tutoring, better strategies—even just knowing what to expect. And again, if a school is test-optional, students have every right to focus on showing their strengths elsewhere. Not everyone feels the need to play the SAT game to prove they’re college material.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The biggest BS is 'my kid is not good at taking tests (while academically great)'.

WTF how the F the kid handles all the tests, exams, midterms, finals, etc. in a college

I don’t get this either. Am I the only one that can admit when my kid isn’t the smartest and can be lazy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The biggest BS is 'my kid is not good at taking tests (while academically great)'.

WTF how the F the kid handles all the tests, exams, midterms, finals, etc. in a college

I don’t get this either. Am I the only one that can admit when my kid isn’t the smartest and can be lazy?

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The biggest BS is 'my kid is not good at taking tests (while academically great)'.

WTF how the F the kid handles all the tests, exams, midterms, finals, etc. in a college

I didn’t realize all the exams in college were timed multiple choice tests on subjects they learned three years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The biggest BS is 'my kid is not good at taking tests (while academically great)'.

WTF how the F the kid handles all the tests, exams, midterms, finals, etc. in a college

I didn’t realize all the exams in college were timed multiple choice tests on subjects they learned three years ago.

Exams in colleges are timed for the most part. Your kid is only capable of short term memory? and you expect your kid to do well on short answers or essay questions while can't even handle multiple choices?
Get the F outta here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The biggest BS is 'my kid is not good at taking tests (while academically great)'.

WTF how the F the kid handles all the tests, exams, midterms, finals, etc. in a college

I didn’t realize all the exams in college were timed multiple choice tests on subjects they learned three years ago.

Exams in colleges are timed for the most part. Your kid is only capable of short term memory? and you expect your kid to do well on short answers or essay questions while can't even handle multiple choices?
Get the F outta here.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The biggest BS is 'my kid is not good at taking tests (while academically great)'.

WTF how the F the kid handles all the tests, exams, midterms, finals, etc. in a college

I didn’t realize all the exams in college were timed multiple choice tests on subjects they learned three years ago.

Exams in colleges are timed for the most part. Your kid is only capable of short term memory? and you expect your kid to do well on short answers or essay questions while can't even handle multiple choices?
Get the F outta here.

My kid is at an Ivy and they were telling all semester that orgo was a race against the clock. He won, as he could visualize and was able to skip steps. Many others were down to the wire or couldn’t finish. Absolutely a race against the clock in many classes.

[Anonymous]

Mine went TO to William and Mary.His best friend entered with a 1540 SAT. His friend has been struggling and mine is is doing well with a Business Analytics major and a time consuming arts minor. There is a lot more to it than scores.

[Anonymous]

^ some of it very well may be by design too, to separate those that truly get it versus just memorize steps. Translate that thought process to whatever class.