Is it suddenly harder to get high score in SAT or were people always lying?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:just remember when people tell you their score, they're reporting the superscore.

my kids never scored over a 1500 on the paper or digital tests. but all three would say their SAT scores were 1530-1560. people say the score they reported on the common app.

also, every cycle there are kids who take it 8 times and their parents can't believe they can't break 1500. every dang time. it's not as easy as reddit has you believe.

This is why it's more meaningful to report a single best score to colleges. A one-shot high score means more than a superscore. Both can be good, but they are different.

nope, disagree. you have to remember why colleges want scores: 1) to show their admissions team this kid can do the work. a very very single seating is impressive, but superscore or single seating works for this. 2) to report to public (and now govt) via CDS - superscore, they want the best number possible. 3) to show faculty via internal memos - superscore, they want the best number possible. 4) to show trustees - superscore, they want the best number possible.

I'm saying that if you have two kids who are tied to get off the waitlist with 1560s and one has that in a single sitting and another has a superscore that's somewhat disparate, the one sitting kid doesn't usually come out on top?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:just remember when people tell you their score, they're reporting the superscore.

my kids never scored over a 1500 on the paper or digital tests. but all three would say their SAT scores were 1530-1560. people say the score they reported on the common app.

also, every cycle there are kids who take it 8 times and their parents can't believe they can't break 1500. every dang time. it's not as easy as reddit has you believe.

This is why it's more meaningful to report a single best score to colleges. A one-shot high score means more than a superscore. Both can be good, but they are different.

nope, disagree. you have to remember why colleges want scores: 1) to show their admissions team this kid can do the work. a very very single seating is impressive, but superscore or single seating works for this. 2) to report to public (and now govt) via CDS - superscore, they want the best number possible. 3) to show faculty via internal memos - superscore, they want the best number possible. 4) to show trustees - superscore, they want the best number possible.

I am tenured faculty (and have admin responsiblities) and have never ever received an internal memo about SAT scores. I also don't believe our trustees are this granular: the information they receive is shockingly thin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:just remember when people tell you their score, they're reporting the superscore.

my kids never scored over a 1500 on the paper or digital tests. but all three would say their SAT scores were 1530-1560. people say the score they reported on the common app.

also, every cycle there are kids who take it 8 times and their parents can't believe they can't break 1500. every dang time. it's not as easy as reddit has you believe.

This is why it's more meaningful to report a single best score to colleges. A one-shot high score means more than a superscore. Both can be good, but they are different.

nope, disagree. you have to remember why colleges want scores: 1) to show their admissions team this kid can do the work. a very very single seating is impressive, but superscore or single seating works for this. 2) to report to public (and now govt) via CDS - superscore, they want the best number possible. 3) to show faculty via internal memos - superscore, they want the best number possible. 4) to show trustees - superscore, they want the best number possible.

I'm saying that if you have two kids who are tied to get off the waitlist with 1560s and one has that in a single sitting and another has a superscore that's somewhat disparate, the one sitting kid doesn't usually come out on top?

No, lol, the full-pay private-school kid comes out on top.

[Anonymous]

It’s about control and access. Expensive test prep/tutors aside, the SAT is one component over which kids have the most control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:just remember when people tell you their score, they're reporting the superscore.

my kids never scored over a 1500 on the paper or digital tests. but all three would say their SAT scores were 1530-1560. people say the score they reported on the common app.

also, every cycle there are kids who take it 8 times and their parents can't believe they can't break 1500. every dang time. it's not as easy as reddit has you believe.

This is why it's more meaningful to report a single best score to colleges. A one-shot high score means more than a superscore. Both can be good, but they are different.

nope, disagree. you have to remember why colleges want scores: 1) to show their admissions team this kid can do the work. a very very single seating is impressive, but superscore or single seating works for this. 2) to report to public (and now govt) via CDS - superscore, they want the best number possible. 3) to show faculty via internal memos - superscore, they want the best number possible. 4) to show trustees - superscore, they want the best number possible.

I am tenured faculty (and have admin responsiblities) and have never ever received an internal memo about SAT scores. I also don't believe our trustees are this granular: the information they receive is shockingly thin.

we receive one. I work at NYU. I used to think it was for bragging, now I think it's so ward off teachers from complaining about "these students today" or some such. trustees get a lot of data. trustees care more than anyone about low admissions rate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:just remember when people tell you their score, they're reporting the superscore.

my kids never scored over a 1500 on the paper or digital tests. but all three would say their SAT scores were 1530-1560. people say the score they reported on the common app.

also, every cycle there are kids who take it 8 times and their parents can't believe they can't break 1500. every dang time. it's not as easy as reddit has you believe.

This is why it's more meaningful to report a single best score to colleges. A one-shot high score means more than a superscore. Both can be good, but they are different.

nope, disagree. you have to remember why colleges want scores: 1) to show their admissions team this kid can do the work. a very very single seating is impressive, but superscore or single seating works for this. 2) to report to public (and now govt) via CDS - superscore, they want the best number possible. 3) to show faculty via internal memos - superscore, they want the best number possible. 4) to show trustees - superscore, they want the best number possible.

I'm saying that if you have two kids who are tied to get off the waitlist with 1560s and one has that in a single sitting and another has a superscore that's somewhat disparate, the one sitting kid doesn't usually come out on top?

Nope. Full pay would be the most important thing and if not full pay, they want the student who only requires 10k and not 30k support. If money was 100% equal, it's would come down to which one the regional AO just liked more - and that won't be because of scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:just remember when people tell you their score, they're reporting the superscore.

my kids never scored over a 1500 on the paper or digital tests. but all three would say their SAT scores were 1530-1560. people say the score they reported on the common app.

This is the answer to OP’s question. People aren’t lying, but they are reporting superscores, and if you don’t understand that, you will be surprised by how hard it is to get a high single-sitting score.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The iPhone/E generation is coming out strong…different from the 05 birth year when kids didn’t grow up with iPhones or iPads in their hands since K. My 05 dud t have a phone until almost 9th grade. He is/was a voracious reader…hence the perfect in vocab SAT; and act English & reading.

The math went down for younger Covid kids too. 05 was already through geometry before everything shutdown.

Def see a difference even in my own house. Younger one had to really prep to pull score up.

Younger siblings tend to have lower IQ than firstborns. It’s probably not about the SAT.

Measurable but meaningless.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1506451112


"The observed effect of ∼1.5 IQ points (i.e., 10% of a SD) for each increase in birth-order position is in line with previous findings (3–6). "

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:just remember when people tell you their score, they're reporting the superscore.

my kids never scored over a 1500 on the paper or digital tests. but all three would say their SAT scores were 1530-1560. people say the score they reported on the common app.

This is the answer to OP’s question. People aren’t lying, but they are reporting superscores, and if you don’t understand that, you will be surprised by how hard it is to get a high single-sitting score.

Yes - and also how often kids don't even try for that. My first kid just took two tests, august/sept of junior year. Studied the math before one, and then English before the next. Had a great superscore before junior year really took off. My next two did the same thing. It's not unusual to tackle one side at a time. Why not. Take a third if you want to improve somewhere

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The parenting fail is expecting your kid to be in the top 1%.

Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:just remember when people tell you their score, they're reporting the superscore.

my kids never scored over a 1500 on the paper or digital tests. but all three would say their SAT scores were 1530-1560. people say the score they reported on the common app.

also, every cycle there are kids who take it 8 times and their parents can't believe they can't break 1500. every dang time. it's not as easy as reddit has you believe.

This is why it's more meaningful to report a single best score to colleges. A one-shot high score means more than a superscore. Both can be good, but they are different.

nope, disagree. you have to remember why colleges want scores: 1) to show their admissions team this kid can do the work. a very very single seating is impressive, but superscore or single seating works for this. 2) to report to public (and now govt) via CDS - superscore, they want the best number possible. 3) to show faculty via internal memos - superscore, they want the best number possible. 4) to show trustees - superscore, they want the best number possible.

I'm saying that if you have two kids who are tied to get off the waitlist with 1560s and one has that in a single sitting and another has a superscore that's somewhat disparate, the one sitting kid doesn't usually come out on top?

I truly don’t think it matters. They have no incentive to care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:just remember when people tell you their score, they're reporting the superscore.

my kids never scored over a 1500 on the paper or digital tests. but all three would say their SAT scores were 1530-1560. people say the score they reported on the common app.

also, every cycle there are kids who take it 8 times and their parents can't believe they can't break 1500. every dang time. it's not as easy as reddit has you believe.

This is why it's more meaningful to report a single best score to colleges. A one-shot high score means more than a superscore. Both can be good, but they are different.

nope, disagree. you have to remember why colleges want scores: 1) to show their admissions team this kid can do the work. a very very single seating is impressive, but superscore or single seating works for this. 2) to report to public (and now govt) via CDS - superscore, they want the best number possible. 3) to show faculty via internal memos - superscore, they want the best number possible. 4) to show trustees - superscore, they want the best number possible.

I'm saying that if you have two kids who are tied to get off the waitlist with 1560s and one has that in a single sitting and another has a superscore that's somewhat disparate, the one sitting kid doesn't usually come out on top?

No, and I say that with a 1560 kid who did come off a waitlist - most likely helped by being full pay.

They aren't making judgment calls about single sitting vs superscore. Everything is automated. Algorithms make a lot of decisions, or at least aspects of decisions. Schools that superscore use superscores to make decisions, period.

[Anonymous]

^(*1560 single sitting)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:just remember when people tell you their score, they're reporting the superscore.

my kids never scored over a 1500 on the paper or digital tests. but all three would say their SAT scores were 1530-1560. people say the score they reported on the common app.

also, every cycle there are kids who take it 8 times and their parents can't believe they can't break 1500. every dang time. it's not as easy as reddit has you believe.

This is why it's more meaningful to report a single best score to colleges. A one-shot high score means more than a superscore. Both can be good, but they are different.

nope, disagree. you have to remember why colleges want scores: 1) to show their admissions team this kid can do the work. a very very single seating is impressive, but superscore or single seating works for this. 2) to report to public (and now govt) via CDS - superscore, they want the best number possible. 3) to show faculty via internal memos - superscore, they want the best number possible. 4) to show trustees - superscore, they want the best number possible.

I'm saying that if you have two kids who are tied to get off the waitlist with 1560s and one has that in a single sitting and another has a superscore that's somewhat disparate, the one sitting kid doesn't usually come out on top?

AOs have told me that they don't evaluate kids "head to head" like that and use GPA or SAT as some kind of tie-breaker ever. Once it gets to the stage that student A and student B are both deemed qualified and good fits, but they need to "shape" the class further since they don't have enough spots, they'll make the final call on qualitative or holistic measure, never numbers at that last stage.

Nobody will look at SAT scores at the final shaping stage and take the 1520 over the 1500 (and single sitting versus superscore is not relevant probably at any stage). Both will be deemed equally qualified to thrive at the college, and they may instead go for the kid who the committee is more excited about for their qualitative factors (ECs, personal statement, etc.).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread demonstrates the fact that even “so-called” intelligent Americans don’t understand basic statistics.

Standardization and equating are complex processes. There is plenty of room for error in test design.

Percentiles reported by College Board are backed-into, predetermined. They are not what one thinks of as normal percentiles as you might find on a curve. The percentiles are set for the coming year's future tests in September.