Where are your UNDER 1400 SAT kids going?

[Anonymous]

WL W&M and planning to do spring pathway. Applied TO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My daughter's sat's were just under 1200, gpa was i think 3.85 or so, extracurriculars were good, she applied and did second performance interviews for the department at most of these schools because she's a dance major. She got into almost all she applied to: American, JMU, George Mason, Radnor, VCU. A couple others I can't remember. She ended up choosing Towson and got 2 k in merit aid. She loves it there. She was swiftly rejected by Montclair State in nj in the dance department (though accepted to the school). They are one of the most competitive dance programs in part because all dance majors pay in state tuition even from other states. And it's just a well known program. I had hoped she would apply to small or medium liberal arts colleges on the east coast with better names and status. That's not where the best dance programs were. She knew that and did what she wanted. And it served her well, I'm proud she followed her own plan.

Congratulations.

Is she classical dance or commercial dance?

I'm not sure they make that distinction as a major (you also are not technically a dance major until sophomore year, a full year dancing with the department). Her classes include ballet, modern, etc. So I think more classically based, like her training before college? (Though she gave up Pointe, but they have that too) She does not want a performative career, she's on a teaching track and says the school has a solid record of placing grads in schools (private/ public). We shall see, her Dad and me try to plant seeds of her owning her own studio one day, but that's our dream not really hers. We want her to be able to financially have a decent job but those decisions are hers, just like her college choice was.

Towson is a really tough dance admit! Congrats.

My daughter is choosing between Dean and Radford for a dance major currently. We need Dean to show us more money, but it is her first choice. She is only planning a BA so that she can also take classes in exercise science (likely minor at Radford or an AA for a dual degree at Dean)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Better to have a low test score than a GPA lower than 3.75UW. They say our kids shouldn't stress about grades -- then they make it ALL about grades. You can't have a bad day or a bad year because your 1500 SAT won't make up for those Bs even if was in AP classes.

This is why TO should go away. Someone who has a UW3.6 but took high rigor classes and gets a 1560 on SAT belongs in a elite college, someone who has a UW4.0 but took easier classes , or has grade inflation, and gets a 1290 does not.

Says who? We see your bias, but it doesn't make it so.

I think what a lot of people who cling to test scores as the end-all be-all don't want to admit is that they are malleable too. The difference between the 1300 kid and the 1500 kid is often $10,000 in test prep or a fake diagnosis that gives the latter extra time. I'm not saying test scores don't matter or shouldn't be part of a holistic review but as a parent (with two kids that score pretty well on these things) I would hate for the highest scorers to get in...but not as much as I hate the bumps to legacies and athletes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: I had hoped she would apply to small or medium liberal arts colleges on the east coast with better names and status. That's not where the best dance programs were.

Hmm, I was thinking Shenandoah (ShenCo) but they wouldn't fit better name/status school - but a really good dance program on a liberal arts school campus. My daughter didn't wind up applying because she was too intimidated - she's not pre-pro or anything and hasn't been doing 20 hours/week of dance. She enjoys dance, but just isn't at the level so many other dancers applying to those programs are. She was so happy to get offered a spot ANYWHERE. She had several non-audition schools she was looking at, including Lindenwood in MO, Alma in MI, Meredith in NC and ODU in state for us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:St. Joe's. We all love it and he got lots of merit.

Did you get any merit at St Joe's? I like it for my kid!

Yes! They are quite generous.

My kid doesn't really have a "niche," but some very bright kids from his grade got even more money for STEM, the arts, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Better to have a low test score than a GPA lower than 3.75UW. They say our kids shouldn't stress about grades -- then they make it ALL about grades. You can't have a bad day or a bad year because your 1500 SAT won't make up for those Bs even if was in AP classes.

This is why TO should go away. Someone who has a UW3.6 but took high rigor classes and gets a 1560 on SAT belongs in a elite college, someone who has a UW4.0 but took easier classes , or has grade inflation, and gets a 1290 does not.

Says who? We see your bias, but it doesn't make it so.

I think what a lot of people who cling to test scores as the end-all be-all don't want to admit is that they are malleable too. The difference between the 1300 kid and the 1500 kid is often $10,000 in test prep or a fake diagnosis that gives the latter extra time. I'm not saying test scores don't matter or shouldn't be part of a holistic review but as a parent (with two kids that score pretty well on these things) I would hate for the highest scorers to get in...but not as much as I hate the bumps to legacies and athletes.

no way. No test prep would bring a score of 1300 to 1500. It might bring a 1300 to 1400, maybe, but not 1500.

I have two kids -- one scored 1580 with no prepping other than at home. The other one will probably score <1400 even with test prep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Better to have a low test score than a GPA lower than 3.75UW. They say our kids shouldn't stress about grades -- then they make it ALL about grades. You can't have a bad day or a bad year because your 1500 SAT won't make up for those Bs even if was in AP classes.

This is why TO should go away. Someone who has a UW3.6 but took high rigor classes and gets a 1560 on SAT belongs in a elite college, someone who has a UW4.0 but took easier classes , or has grade inflation, and gets a 1290 does not.

Says who? We see your bias, but it doesn't make it so.

I think what a lot of people who cling to test scores as the end-all be-all don't want to admit is that they are malleable too. The difference between the 1300 kid and the 1500 kid is often $10,000 in test prep or a fake diagnosis that gives the latter extra time. I'm not saying test scores don't matter or shouldn't be part of a holistic review but as a parent (with two kids that score pretty well on these things) I would hate for the highest scorers to get in...but not as much as I hate the bumps to legacies and athletes.

no way. No test prep would bring a score of 1300 to 1500. It might bring a 1300 to 1400, maybe, but not 1500.

I have two kids -- one scored 1580 with no prepping other than at home. The other one will probably score <1400 even with test prep.

So you have 2 kids and think you know how ALL kids would do with extra test prep? I taught high school. Some of my best students—best writers, asked most thoughtful questions in class, made insightful comments, etc (I taught history), did all their work, went above and beyond my expectations, challenged me w their questions/curiosity/desire to learn and were clearly very bright, straight As across all their subjects…guess what? Some of them did very poorly on SAT/ACT because they weren’t good test takers. Nothing to do w their intelligence, intellectual abilities. Nothing to do with how hard they worked in school or what a great addition they would be to any college campus. It’s just a test. It’s a test that a lot of smart kids don’t do well on. It’s a test that a lot of excellent students don’t do well on.

Those kids absolutely benefited from test prep. Many brought their scores up considerably after taking test prep courses or getting SAT tutoring.

Your sample size of 2 is not indicative of all kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Better to have a low test score than a GPA lower than 3.75UW. They say our kids shouldn't stress about grades -- then they make it ALL about grades. You can't have a bad day or a bad year because your 1500 SAT won't make up for those Bs even if was in AP classes.

This is why TO should go away. Someone who has a UW3.6 but took high rigor classes and gets a 1560 on SAT belongs in a elite college, someone who has a UW4.0 but took easier classes , or has grade inflation, and gets a 1290 does not.

Says who? We see your bias, but it doesn't make it so.

I think what a lot of people who cling to test scores as the end-all be-all don't want to admit is that they are malleable too. The difference between the 1300 kid and the 1500 kid is often $10,000 in test prep or a fake diagnosis that gives the latter extra time. I'm not saying test scores don't matter or shouldn't be part of a holistic review but as a parent (with two kids that score pretty well on these things) I would hate for the highest scorers to get in...but not as much as I hate the bumps to legacies and athletes.

no way. No test prep would bring a score of 1300 to 1500. It might bring a 1300 to 1400, maybe, but not 1500.

I have two kids -- one scored 1580 with no prepping other than at home. The other one will probably score <1400 even with test prep.

I didn't say that test prep would always be the difference...I said it would often be the difference. Just like extra time could often be the difference. And I know several kids that had score increases like this with several months of private test prep (including a nephew who went from 1280 to 1510). For a lot of kids, there are simply holes in knowledge that a lot of prep can help with...plus all the test-taking "tricks". Do I think all kids can get to a 1500? Probably not. But kids who are at 1300-ish baseline are bright kids, despite what DCUM would have you think and sometimes it really is just a matter of $$....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You just have to take everything you read here with a grain of salt. That thread about where your kid is going has like 6 kids going to Stanford. Doubt it. We have a lot of teenagers here and a lot of people who just like to troll.

It's just weird all the kids seem to have SAT scores above 1500. It'd be nice to see where kids who are good students but not top go.

I think that’s because schools like George Mason, UMBC or local Jesuit colleges suit the needs of most kids with SATs in the 1100 to 1400 range very well and have plenty of capacity. As long as those kids are happy with the normal options and can pay for the options, they don’t have to think about this a lot.

The kids with scores under 1400 who have college application stress are probably fairly unusual kids who have test scores that fail to reflect their abilities, have an unusually high level of ambition, have Tiger parents, need a lot of merit aid or need something the regular college options don’t offer.

Meanwhile, for kids with scores over 1400 in places like Maryland and Virginia, most of the normal college options are now highly selective schools with capacity problems and complicated, unpredictable admissions processes. They need a lot more advice than the kids aiming for the less selective schools need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Better to have a low test score than a GPA lower than 3.75UW. They say our kids shouldn't stress about grades -- then they make it ALL about grades. You can't have a bad day or a bad year because your 1500 SAT won't make up for those Bs even if was in AP classes.

This is why TO should go away. Someone who has a UW3.6 but took high rigor classes and gets a 1560 on SAT belongs in a elite college, someone who has a UW4.0 but took easier classes , or has grade inflation, and gets a 1290 does not.

Says who? We see your bias, but it doesn't make it so.

I think what a lot of people who cling to test scores as the end-all be-all don't want to admit is that they are malleable too. The difference between the 1300 kid and the 1500 kid is often $10,000 in test prep or a fake diagnosis that gives the latter extra time. I'm not saying test scores don't matter or shouldn't be part of a holistic review but as a parent (with two kids that score pretty well on these things) I would hate for the highest scorers to get in...but not as much as I hate the bumps to legacies and athletes.

no way. No test prep would bring a score of 1300 to 1500. It might bring a 1300 to 1400, maybe, but not 1500.

I have two kids -- one scored 1580 with no prepping other than at home. The other one will probably score <1400 even with test prep.

So you have 2 kids and think you know how ALL kids would do with extra test prep? I taught high school. Some of my best students—best writers, asked most thoughtful questions in class, made insightful comments, etc (I taught history), did all their work, went above and beyond my expectations, challenged me w their questions/curiosity/desire to learn and were clearly very bright, straight As across all their subjects…guess what? Some of them did very poorly on SAT/ACT because they weren’t good test takers. Nothing to do w their intelligence, intellectual abilities. Nothing to do with how hard they worked in school or what a great addition they would be to any college campus. It’s just a test. It’s a test that a lot of smart kids don’t do well on. It’s a test that a lot of excellent students don’t do well on.

Those kids absolutely benefited from test prep. Many brought their scores up considerably after taking test prep courses or getting SAT tutoring.

Your sample size of 2 is not indicative of all kids.

? That wasn't my point. A PP stated that tutoring could raise the SAT score by 200. That is what I was addressing. Tutoring won't change a score from 1300 to 1500.

I'm also learning that GPAs don't mean much due to either grade inflation or a bad teacher. There are some teachers whom you cannot understand, and they typically are STEM teachers. DC bumped up their math trajectory to avoid certain math teachers whom everyone stated were difficult to understand.

And before you accuse me of being racist, I'm Asian American, and I don't understand some people with strong foreign accents. I come across it at work all the time, and it can be frustrating. But, I'm an adult, and we can always try to communicate via email/chat, and/or I ask them to repeat. Students cannot due that so easily.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Better to have a low test score than a GPA lower than 3.75UW. They say our kids shouldn't stress about grades -- then they make it ALL about grades. You can't have a bad day or a bad year because your 1500 SAT won't make up for those Bs even if was in AP classes.

This is why TO should go away. Someone who has a UW3.6 but took high rigor classes and gets a 1560 on SAT belongs in a elite college, someone who has a UW4.0 but took easier classes , or has grade inflation, and gets a 1290 does not.

Says who? We see your bias, but it doesn't make it so.

I think what a lot of people who cling to test scores as the end-all be-all don't want to admit is that they are malleable too. The difference between the 1300 kid and the 1500 kid is often $10,000 in test prep or a fake diagnosis that gives the latter extra time. I'm not saying test scores don't matter or shouldn't be part of a holistic review but as a parent (with two kids that score pretty well on these things) I would hate for the highest scorers to get in...but not as much as I hate the bumps to legacies and athletes.

no way. No test prep would bring a score of 1300 to 1500. It might bring a 1300 to 1400, maybe, but not 1500.

I have two kids -- one scored 1580 with no prepping other than at home. The other one will probably score <1400 even with test prep.

I didn't say that test prep would always be the difference...I said it would often be the difference. Just like extra time could often be the difference. And I know several kids that had score increases like this with several months of private test prep (including a nephew who went from 1280 to 1510). For a lot of kids, there are simply holes in knowledge that a lot of prep can help with...plus all the test-taking "tricks". Do I think all kids can get to a 1500? Probably not. But kids who are at 1300-ish baseline are bright kids, despite what DCUM would have you think and sometimes it really is just a matter of $$....

Never stated 1300-ish kids aren't bright. My one DC is such a kid. I always tell this kid that they are bright, but they also have anxiety. There's no accommodations for anxiety.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Better to have a low test score than a GPA lower than 3.75UW. They say our kids shouldn't stress about grades -- then they make it ALL about grades. You can't have a bad day or a bad year because your 1500 SAT won't make up for those Bs even if was in AP classes.

This is why TO should go away. Someone who has a UW3.6 but took high rigor classes and gets a 1560 on SAT belongs in a elite college, someone who has a UW4.0 but took easier classes , or has grade inflation, and gets a 1290 does not.

Says who? We see your bias, but it doesn't make it so.

I think what a lot of people who cling to test scores as the end-all be-all don't want to admit is that they are malleable too. The difference between the 1300 kid and the 1500 kid is often $10,000 in test prep or a fake diagnosis that gives the latter extra time. I'm not saying test scores don't matter or shouldn't be part of a holistic review but as a parent (with two kids that score pretty well on these things) I would hate for the highest scorers to get in...but not as much as I hate the bumps to legacies and athletes.

Nah you can't test prep a 1300 into a 1500.

[Anonymous]

Are the SATs the same as they were in the 90s? I can’t believe I got into an Ivy League school with less than a 1400 back in the day… (forgive the dumb question, my kids aren’t yet seniors so I haven’t gone through the insanity yet.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Better to have a low test score than a GPA lower than 3.75UW. They say our kids shouldn't stress about grades -- then they make it ALL about grades. You can't have a bad day or a bad year because your 1500 SAT won't make up for those Bs even if was in AP classes.

This is why TO should go away. Someone who has a UW3.6 but took high rigor classes and gets a 1560 on SAT belongs in a elite college, someone who has a UW4.0 but took easier classes , or has grade inflation, and gets a 1290 does not.

Says who? We see your bias, but it doesn't make it so.

I think what a lot of people who cling to test scores as the end-all be-all don't want to admit is that they are malleable too. The difference between the 1300 kid and the 1500 kid is often $10,000 in test prep or a fake diagnosis that gives the latter extra time. I'm not saying test scores don't matter or shouldn't be part of a holistic review but as a parent (with two kids that score pretty well on these things) I would hate for the highest scorers to get in...but not as much as I hate the bumps to legacies and athletes.

Nah you can't test prep a 1300 into a 1500.

Sure you can, especially if the 1300 was early and truly cold.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are they happy? Where did they apply and get in/not get in? Merit anywhere?

In at UVA, UCSD, UCSB - offered significant merit at two 'Likely' schools.

My ds is considering all of these. Any merit at them? What were grades and score?

There are no scores considered at UC schools