For some reason, folks think the colleges are more impressed by one sitting of a decent score then a million scores that are superscored since maybe it means you focused on one section at a time instead of being able to do a good job in one sitting?

My pre-covid DS took the ACT like 6 times(his choice, not mine). He could have gotten a superscore of 35 if he submitted like 5 tests to do it. Instead he submitted a 34 one sitting. He got into all of his targets and 2 reaches, but not the other reaches. Not sure if it was the right strategy but it was the one he wanted and believed would work.

I have an adhd kid for whom testing is always a gamble. When 1st attempt resulted in high score, we said one and done. Chances for improvement in a subsequent sitting were slim -- general gamble of testing plus little room to improve. Took time she would have spent prepping for a 2nd round and invested in volunteer opps and ECs.

It doesn’t matter. Awful DCUM people like to pretend it means their kid is smarter because the kid supposedly did that.

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?

Life is a mystery op. I honestly don't care if you are "genuine" or not with your question. It isn't any of your business. I would spend less time worrying about other people's choices that have nothing to do with you and just live your life.

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.

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?

Not necessarily. It could just be a function of learning test-taking tricks. That doesn't mean they're a successful student.
Or, in the case of a student I know well who suffered from test anxiety, they needed to take it a few times before they stopped panicking about it. That's when their score improved.

Of all of my issues with the college admissions process, the number of times that other people take the SAT is really, really far down the list.

Anonymous wrote:I encouraged my son to be "one and done" because I didn't think his test score was all that important in the grand scheme of things. The time he could spend on additional test prep could be better used studying for class, socializing, volunteering, working out, sleeping, etc. (He ended up taking it multiple times to get his verbal up, but that was his choice. He didn't really prep for the second and third sittings.)

I could not care less if other people are one and done. Whatever works for them.

Yes, basically trying to get it out of the way and can focus on different things that may be more important or useful.

Hm, not sure what you are going for OP.

DC chose to take the test twice. I didn’t force him to take it a third time to go for that perfect score because I didn’t want to be Nightmare Parent and he didn’t want to take it again. He wanted to focus on other productive things.

That had consequences but he’s happy with his choices so that’s what matters.

Anonymous wrote:I have used that phrase, but I wasn't advocating for it. It's what my kid did. He felt his first score was good enough and so did his college counselor. I couldn't have paid him to take it again. He was "one and done."

OP here. That’s different from what I mean. I’m asking about all the people who applaud the return of mandatory scores or who are complaining that their child didn’t get in to a certain school. I’ve just seen what feels like a LOT of people saying that testing should be limited, not that kids might be happy enough with their first score.

it's hard for kids. even for good test takers, there's always an outstanding question of doing it again for another 20 points. and for the majority, they want a lot more. plus it costs money

I encouraged my son to be "one and done" because I didn't think his test score was all that important in the grand scheme of things. The time he could spend on additional test prep could be better used studying for class, socializing, volunteering, working out, sleeping, etc. (He ended up taking it multiple times to get his verbal up, but that was his choice. He didn't really prep for the second and third sittings.)

I could not care less if other people are one and done. Whatever works for them.

I have used that phrase, but I wasn't advocating for it. It's what my kid did. He felt his first score was good enough and so did his college counselor. I couldn't have paid him to take it again. He was "one and done."

We stopped at 3. Helped superscore but composited remained the same. I had read 3 should be limit but I know some who took 4 and are doing fine. (And improved their composite)

At colleges, you only get one shot for midterms and finals.

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?