Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually find it hard to believe that the people making the admissions decisions do not differentiate between single sitting, when it was taken, etc., when making admissions decisions UNLESS, the SAT/ACT is not a big differentiator at all but merely a threshold to get beyond to compare the rest of the application. It is, in fact, more impressive to get a high score with one sitting.

If that is true, however, it is not that surprising that students with great but not amazing scores get in over kids with near perfect scores that don't have a unique voice in their essays and recommendations. If it took some 4 tries and superscoring to get a 1560, why is that more impressive than a single sitting 1490?

With superscores allowed, it really doesn't matter. One sitting or not.

But what does that mean, "doesn't matter"? These decisions are being made by humans, who have data in front of them. Is it that the only thing being reviewed is the superstore and the reviewers are not told it is a superscore or how many tests it took to get that score? Do they keep the decision makers in the dark so they are unaware that superscoring exists? My question is, how can they "unknow" this information and not account for it when making decisions about kids that are hard to distinguish between. PSAT scores are all one sitting, so I would think NMSF and possibly commended students would get a bit of an edge but I know some with those distinctions that are rejected so I realize it is not necessary decisional either.

Anonymous wrote:I actually find it hard to believe that the people making the admissions decisions do not differentiate between single sitting, when it was taken, etc., when making admissions decisions UNLESS, the SAT/ACT is not a big differentiator at all but merely a threshold to get beyond to compare the rest of the application. It is, in fact, more impressive to get a high score with one sitting.

If that is true, however, it is not that surprising that students with great but not amazing scores get in over kids with near perfect scores that don't have a unique voice in their essays and recommendations. If it took some 4 tries and superscoring to get a 1560, why is that more impressive than a single sitting 1490?

ding, ding, ding!
and we have a winner!

That is exactly how it is with standardized testing. It is just an initial hurdle to clear. Those who do have high scores move on in mass, the slate is then wiped clean and the admissions folks move on to evaluate based on the next hurdle.
Those who think their kids' test scores are going to "seal the deal" are wrong and could be doing their kids a disservice

Anonymous wrote:I actually find it hard to believe that the people making the admissions decisions do not differentiate between single sitting, when it was taken, etc., when making admissions decisions UNLESS, the SAT/ACT is not a big differentiator at all but merely a threshold to get beyond to compare the rest of the application. It is, in fact, more impressive to get a high score with one sitting.

If that is true, however, it is not that surprising that students with great but not amazing scores get in over kids with near perfect scores that don't have a unique voice in their essays and recommendations. If it took some 4 tries and superscoring to get a 1560, why is that more impressive than a single sitting 1490?

Because fundamentally, it doesn't matter. These schools aren't looking for the most genius of the geniuses. That's not their admissions algorithm and never has been.

Anonymous wrote:I actually find it hard to believe that the people making the admissions decisions do not differentiate between single sitting, when it was taken, etc., when making admissions decisions UNLESS, the SAT/ACT is not a big differentiator at all but merely a threshold to get beyond to compare the rest of the application. It is, in fact, more impressive to get a high score with one sitting.

If that is true, however, it is not that surprising that students with great but not amazing scores get in over kids with near perfect scores that don't have a unique voice in their essays and recommendations. If it took some 4 tries and superscoring to get a 1560, why is that more impressive than a single sitting 1490?

With superscores allowed, it really doesn't matter. One sitting or not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have always operated with the understanding that optional pretty much means required.

I could be wrong, but my understanding is that applications from white/Asian UMC kids in the DMV without a test score can raise a red flag (i.e., why wouldn't they submit a score unless it was weak)? And a 32 ACT may not be stellar, but I think it's still the 97th percentile so why not submit to clear up any doubts?

what is the basis for that understanding? please don't say DCUM.

Logic

that's a shorthand way of saying "pulled it out of my ass"

Stanford's common data set for 2021-22 shows that for first year students who enrolled in 2021, 12.6% submitted SAT scores and 8.7% submitted ACT scores. Are you saying that the 80% that did not are all non-white/Asian UMC kids?

Standford is a sports school. It's not MIT. Unlike Standford, MIT can't allow TO for long without affecting the quality of its program.

MIT also recruits sports. As a result, my DC turned down the offer and went to an ivy instead. MY DC lost respect for MIT after seeing her less prepared peer across DMV got in with sports. SO PEOPLE, SPORTS IS YOUR KEY!

Ivies also recruit for sports. Heavily.

Athletes also have to be qualified. My DD reached out to MIT to watch her play and coach wrote back that while she wasn't in his pool of top recruits, she should check back because not all will have the test scores to qualify. SO PEOPLE, FOR SOME SCHOOLS, YOU HAVE TO BE BOTH SMART AND EXCEL AT YOUR SPORT!

athletes have to minimally qualified.

Not true at all. Especially when you are talking about being recruited for a sport at the high level schools this thread is mentioning.
MIT is notorious for showing interest in an athlete but waiting for the kid to get accepted on their own merits before giving them a sport roster spot.
Most T50 DIII schools are the same.
Being a recruited athlete and gaining admission acceptance at a top school are completely separate and different processes.
Once again those who generalize on this board are wrong.

MIT is the extreme exception to the rule in that case. Based on my kid’s experiences in sports in high school, I would be absolutely shocked if all of the top students just so happened to also be the top athletes. For d1 schools like Rice, Stanford, the Ivies, etc I don’t buy for a second that the athletes were also top students.

I actually find it hard to believe that the people making the admissions decisions do not differentiate between single sitting, when it was taken, etc., when making admissions decisions UNLESS, the SAT/ACT is not a big differentiator at all but merely a threshold to get beyond to compare the rest of the application. It is, in fact, more impressive to get a high score with one sitting.

If that is true, however, it is not that surprising that students with great but not amazing scores get in over kids with near perfect scores that don't have a unique voice in their essays and recommendations. If it took some 4 tries and superscoring to get a 1560, why is that more impressive than a single sitting 1490?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DC was accepted to both UVA and VA Tech EA (4.6w FCPS, 1580 single sitting, 12 AP exams all 5s, NMF). Declined both acceptances this week, so hopefully someone from the waitlist can get in.

Why do you keep posting that his SAT was “single sitting?” It seriously does not matter. Schools don’t care.

It’s all a way to say my kid is better than yours. Single sitting, no prep, took it sophomore year, took it blindfolded. All a sad attempt to make their kid’s score mean more.

+100 so special

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DC was accepted to both UVA and VA Tech EA (4.6w FCPS, 1580 single sitting, 12 AP exams all 5s, NMF). Declined both acceptances this week, so hopefully someone from the waitlist can get in.

Why do you keep posting that his SAT was “single sitting?” It seriously does not matter. Schools don’t care.

It’s all a way to say my kid is better than yours. Single sitting, no prep, took it sophomore year, took it blindfolded. All a sad attempt to make their kid’s score mean more.

Anonymous wrote:

DC was accepted to both UVA and VA Tech EA (4.6w FCPS, 1580 single sitting, 12 AP exams all 5s, NMF). Declined both acceptances this week, so hopefully someone from the waitlist can get in.

Why do you keep posting that his SAT was “single sitting?” It seriously does not matter. Schools don’t care.

It’s all a way to say my kid is better than yours. Single sitting, no prep, took it sophomore year, took it blindfolded. All a sad attempt to make their kid’s score mean more.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have always operated with the understanding that optional pretty much means required.

I could be wrong, but my understanding is that applications from white/Asian UMC kids in the DMV without a test score can raise a red flag (i.e., why wouldn't they submit a score unless it was weak)? And a 32 ACT may not be stellar, but I think it's still the 97th percentile so why not submit to clear up any doubts?

what is the basis for that understanding? please don't say DCUM.

Logic

that's a shorthand way of saying "pulled it out of my ass"

Stanford's common data set for 2021-22 shows that for first year students who enrolled in 2021, 12.6% submitted SAT scores and 8.7% submitted ACT scores. Are you saying that the 80% that did not are all non-white/Asian UMC kids?

This is false. More than 20 percent submitted to Stanford.

Look up the CDS yourself. It’s on the Stanford website.

I did. It’s not there. It didn’t disclose.

NP: I easily found the 2021-22 Stanford CDS: https://ucomm.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2022/04/stanford_cds_2021_2022.pdf

The data is on page 13 of the pdf/ page 11 of the document

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My VA VERY high stat kid was also waitlisted from VT- a very safe safety per the data. I reached out to admissions who said that they find students with my child's profile do not enroll if offered admission and that they only take such high stat kids in state if they ED. So there you have it- you can either commit to VT before you get your chance with any tier 1 schools or you are not getting in if you are high stat. However, all your medium stat kids friends will be accepted and then will make comments about how you were rejected to their school. So that is awesome.

This is true for UVA too. Our very high stats DC didn’t apply ED, classmates with lower stats did and were admitted. DC applied ED and was waitlisted. Luckily DC got a ton of merit aid at other reaches but if UVA is your #1 choice ED of you want a chance.

This is untrue. My very high stats kid got in for UVA as RD.

Anonymous wrote:

DC was accepted to both UVA and VA Tech EA (4.6w FCPS, 1580 single sitting, 12 AP exams all 5s, NMF). Declined both acceptances this week, so hopefully someone from the waitlist can get in.

Why do you keep posting that his SAT was “single sitting?” It seriously does not matter. Schools don’t care.

I don’t “keep posting”. Run the search, and you’ll see multiple people posting 1540 single sitting, 1550, 34 and 36 ACT single sitting. It wasn’t me

Anonymous wrote:

DC was accepted to both UVA and VA Tech EA (4.6w FCPS, 1580 single sitting, 12 AP exams all 5s, NMF). Declined both acceptances this week, so hopefully someone from the waitlist can get in.

Why do you keep posting that his SAT was “single sitting?” It seriously does not matter. Schools don’t care.

And no one here cares either. There’s no special badge for taking the SAT just once.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have always operated with the understanding that optional pretty much means required.

I could be wrong, but my understanding is that applications from white/Asian UMC kids in the DMV without a test score can raise a red flag (i.e., why wouldn't they submit a score unless it was weak)? And a 32 ACT may not be stellar, but I think it's still the 97th percentile so why not submit to clear up any doubts?

what is the basis for that understanding? please don't say DCUM.

Logic

that's a shorthand way of saying "pulled it out of my ass"

Stanford's common data set for 2021-22 shows that for first year students who enrolled in 2021, 12.6% submitted SAT scores and 8.7% submitted ACT scores. Are you saying that the 80% that did not are all non-white/Asian UMC kids?

This is false. More than 20 percent submitted to Stanford.

Look up the CDS yourself. It’s on the Stanford website.

I did. It’s not there. It didn’t disclose.

DC was accepted to both UVA and VA Tech EA (4.6w FCPS, 1580 single sitting, 12 AP exams all 5s, NMF). Declined both acceptances this week, so hopefully someone from the waitlist can get in.

Why do you keep posting that his SAT was “single sitting?” It seriously does not matter. Schools don’t care.