Reply to How did your super high stats kid fare (1550 plus and 4.5 plus with max rigor)

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "How did your super high stats kid fare (1550 plus and 4.5 plus with max rigor)"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I think a lot of our frustration as parents comes from our own outdated understanding of the landscape, which is radically different today. Most of the misunderstanding probably surrounds the idea of "high stats kids" because we are using the metrics and SAT scales from the 90s. It is pretty sobering to realize that an estimated 20,000 students will score at ~1530 or above every year in one sitting (top 1%). With superscoring, that number of students will be even higher. This varies by school type, but I have also seen estimates that nearly 50% of US students will graduate high school with overall averages in the A range. [/quote]

This!  1530 is the new 1400.  4.0 is the new B.  The scary thing is you can't differentiate futher among the ones with 1530+ and 4.0 on numbers.  It creates a delusion of "high stats kids."[/quote]

20, 30 years ago, there are rare, very rare.  Nowadays it's not.  So many posters in this thread responded with results of their "high stats kids" says they are not rare.[/quote]

The posts in this thread would have been rare enough in the mid-90s before the SAT got recentered that they would not be anonymous.[/quote]

Not only were the scores recentered, the test content itself was redesigned to make the score more responsive to studying, right? I do not remember so many repeat test takers in the 90s. There was only so much you could do to raise the verbal score because there were so many esoteric vocab words and logical analogies. People who nailed the verbal section usually benefitted the most from a lifetime of reading, not a year or two of cramming. In any case, it sure was a lot simpler to figure out a realistic college list when we were applying. Today, with so many high stats kids, the kids are frustrated because they see that Joe got into Harvard with the same SAT score as they did while they only got into their decent local safety school.  [/quote]

Yes, this is all true of the mid 90s SAT before recentering (I think it was recentered around 1998). It was less common to see retakes, and very rare to see more than one retake (I don't know anyone who took it more than twice) for the reasons you mentioned and because all scores were reported. I also never heard the term "superscoring" back then.

The very few people I know who got 1600s and 1590s back then tended to be, as you mentioned, lifetime readers who also could read extremely fast, and the types of people who were freakishly good at puzzles. It's no surprise that the kid I know who got a 1600 also got a 179 on the old, very difficult, LSAT.

[/quote]

I wonder how TJ students did in the 90s.  Currently the average SAT score at TJ is 1520, which means a good half of the large class of TJ is among the top percentile.  
Sure, TJ is a magnet school so the students there are smarter than your neighborhood school.  The question remains, is it possible that so many students in one high school are top students according to SAT scores?  It would be good to compare their 90s' results.[/quote]

There are multiple Bay area public high schools which look remakrably like TJ. Test scores aren't quite the same but close enough that they are more impressive when you consider that they take anyone who lives in the neighborhood.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics