It's insane. I started this thread, but the responses are all really interesting and enlightening. Thanks, everyone. Plenty of time for his score to go up. I will say I think AP scores help justify classroom grades. If you have a kid getting As and not submitting AP exams, that's a grade inflation flag. But if you have As and 5s, clearly there's mastery.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some kids who are great students but have terrible test anxiety and TO is a good option. I still don't think it helps much for the top schools though, unless you are submitting APs. Best advice is to put the time into prepping for SATs and APs. Don't rely on TO.

Unfortunately that argument is a hard sell on this board. I happen to agree with you. I know plenty of smart, accomplished kids who don't do well on the standardized tests. I also remember having really smart friends back when I was in high school who had this issue. They went on to do really well in T20 schools and little Ivies. But many on this board assume that those kids are frauds who have skated by on grade inflation and undemanding schools and declare that "not doing well on tests" is just an excuse. It's irritating.

If they did poorly on the test, they weren’t getting into a top 20, two or three decades ago.

PP here. They would be surprised to find out that they didn't go to Princeton and Amherst, for example. I'm not talking about making a terrible score (and usually on this board we're not talking terrible scores.) I've seen people disparage kids who are making scores in the 90th percentile because they're not in the 98th percentile. People talk about kids who score 1400 or 31 as if they're frauds and it gets really old.

Same even with a 33….

+1 people need perspective! The following was posted on another thread. Keep in mind this is the average, so there are plenty of low 30s and low 1400s in the 25-50th percentile.

Pre-covid, when scores were mandatory, this was the ranking of every college's average SAT:

1. Cal Tech 1544
2. MIT 1507
3. Olin College of Engineering 1506
4. UChicago 1506
5. Yale 1498
5. Vanderbilt 1498
7. Harvard 1497
8. Princeton 1490
9. Harvey Mudd 1484
10. Rice 1482
11. Stanford 1479
12. Columbia 1473
13. Wash Univ 1469
14. Northwestern 1460
15. Penn 1457
15. Brown 1457
17. Notre Dame 1455
18. Johns Hopkins 1453
19. Amherst 1451
20. Duke 1450
21. Carnegie Mellon 1448
22. Williams 1442
23. Webb Iinstitute 1442
24. Dartmouth 1437
25. Pomona 1435
25. Northeastern 1435

Perspective for what though? Most would tell you not to submit a 33 to T20?!?

That's my point. TO has created a belief that anyone with a score below 34 is not T20 material, i.e., doesn't belong there and can't survive. The pre-covid evidence says otherwise.

I don’t agree that is the perception. Even the top schools want to see the 33 and 1450s. And crazy test optional fanatics are advising not to submit.

We are talking about separate things. Many of the top schools do want 33 and 1450s, but there are schools that are actively trying to push their average score above 1500+. Other schools have benefited from the fact that many students didn't submit scores below the 50th % and, in many instances, only submitted above the 75th % because they were advised by college counselors, parents, and some AOs.

I'm talking about parents' and students' perceptions of what a good score is, and that has shifted post-COVID/TO era. Other parents telling people not to submit a 33 diminishes the value of the score. Also, there are several threads with people arguing that only 1500+/34+ should be admitted to T20 schools. They are arguing that someone with 1450 will slow down the class, struggle, etc. My point is that pre-TO that wasn't the case. I recognize that the game has changed for admissions, but who is an academically qualified student from the perspective of the faculty hasn't. The issue is students with sub-1400s getting in TO, which Dartmouth explained with their TO study.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some kids who are great students but have terrible test anxiety and TO is a good option. I still don't think it helps much for the top schools though, unless you are submitting APs. Best advice is to put the time into prepping for SATs and APs. Don't rely on TO.

How does the "test anxiety" brigade manage to do well on AP exams but not the SAT?

Because AP exams are held in your school, during the regular school day, possibly in your actual class you've been in the whole year, with your friends all around you and possibly your teacher as the proctor. Calms you down if you have anxiety. SAT is on a Saturday, sometimes at your school but in the cafeteria or other lecture hall, sometimes at a different school or testing center, with strangers sitting around you, a proctor you just met, room could be too cold, too hot, sun in your eyes, proctor refuses to draw down shades, etc... etc.... amps up the anxiety and hence the propensity to make silly mistakes, run out of time etc... My DS who notices every small thing around them came out of a sitting talking about how frustrating and distracting it was for testers in the room to be audibly cursing regularly during the sitting.

I hate to break it to you, but college exams are often in a different place and at a different time than class. So perhaps the SAT score is more predictive of future success than the AP exam score.

And I hate to break it to you, but AP tests are subject specific and kids can do really well on one type of AP and not another. For example, kids can get 4s and 5s on English, History, Language, etc and then score a 2 on Calculus. (I was one of those kids. And for a further news flash, you can be successful in college and avoid the subjects you hate or don't do well in.) Whereas standardized testing measures two areas, counts them equally, and combines the score. Totally different objective and type of test.

My kid isn't going into STEM, but scores equally as well--5s on all AP exams and straight As. I think now that schools are tired of the grade inflation--everyone has A averages--they are looking at a bigger score/gpa profile. My kid has a 35 ACT (one sitting, not composite) and reported all the exams he took (mixture of STEM/Eng/Hist) through end of Jr year--5s on all. And his uw4.0-and unhooked he's getting in everyhere this cycle which shocked us because our counselor was trying to get him to apply to much lower profile schools and thought he had too many 'reaches'.

That's insane. He sounds like a freaking genius lol. What is wrong w this world? My son is super smart (4.8, 31/33, 4's and 5's) seeing this I am realizing how competitive it all is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some kids who are great students but have terrible test anxiety and TO is a good option. I still don't think it helps much for the top schools though, unless you are submitting APs. Best advice is to put the time into prepping for SATs and APs. Don't rely on TO.

How does the "test anxiety" brigade manage to do well on AP exams but not the SAT?

Because AP exams are held in your school, during the regular school day, possibly in your actual class you've been in the whole year, with your friends all around you and possibly your teacher as the proctor. Calms you down if you have anxiety. SAT is on a Saturday, sometimes at your school but in the cafeteria or other lecture hall, sometimes at a different school or testing center, with strangers sitting around you, a proctor you just met, room could be too cold, too hot, sun in your eyes, proctor refuses to draw down shades, etc... etc.... amps up the anxiety and hence the propensity to make silly mistakes, run out of time etc... My DS who notices every small thing around them came out of a sitting talking about how frustrating and distracting it was for testers in the room to be audibly cursing regularly during the sitting.

I hate to break it to you, but college exams are often in a different place and at a different time than class. So perhaps the SAT score is more predictive of future success than the AP exam score.

And I hate to break it to you, but AP tests are subject specific and kids can do really well on one type of AP and not another. For example, kids can get 4s and 5s on English, History, Language, etc and then score a 2 on Calculus. (I was one of those kids. And for a further news flash, you can be successful in college and avoid the subjects you hate or don't do well in.) Whereas standardized testing measures two areas, counts them equally, and combines the score. Totally different objective and type of test.

This is so true. Some people are very pointy in their strengths. I was one of them. Nearly perfect score on any verbal standardized test but math was never my strength. I did well on SATs but exceptional on AP exams (no math) and then went on to do extremely well in college (non-math major) and the LSATS. I always wondered why more weight is not given to your intended major when looking at SAT scores. Yes, many kids change majors but not many go from non-stem path to stem path and viceversa.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am very skeptical about this whole optional thing. What happens if two similar kids apply one with TO and the other with good/decent test score. Which one of them are the schools going to pick?

But the rest of the application is not the same.
If one kid is at public and the other kid, is it a private it will make a difference.
If one kid is pointy, and the other kid is not, it will make a difference.
If one kid is stem, and the other is humanities, it will make a difference.

+1

Exactly.

People are too myopically focused on test scores.

College admissions are holistic.

If two UNHOOKed kids with same gpa and similar ecs apply from same school and only one submitted test scores, the kid with the test scores is more likely to be admitted. Every college counselor would admit this. A student has to either be hooked or done better with gpa or extracurriculars to win out in the comparison.

This. Especially as top schools are announcing they are returning to required testing.

No they're not. 1 school. 1 school did. The least impressive Ivy. Big whoop!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am very skeptical about this whole optional thing. What happens if two similar kids apply one with TO and the other with good/decent test score. Which one of them are the schools going to pick?

But the rest of the application is not the same.
If one kid is at public and the other kid, is it a private it will make a difference.
If one kid is pointy, and the other kid is not, it will make a difference.
If one kid is stem, and the other is humanities, it will make a difference.

+1

Exactly.

People are too myopically focused on test scores.

College admissions are holistic.

If two UNHOOKed kids with same gpa and similar ecs apply from same school and only one submitted test scores, the kid with the test scores is more likely to be admitted. Every college counselor would admit this. A student has to either be hooked or done better with gpa or extracurriculars to win out in the comparison.

Nope. Essays matter, one might take a language they find more interesting, holistic means holistic. Many things can tip in a student's favor other than test scores.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some kids who are great students but have terrible test anxiety and TO is a good option. I still don't think it helps much for the top schools though, unless you are submitting APs. Best advice is to put the time into prepping for SATs and APs. Don't rely on TO.

Unfortunately that argument is a hard sell on this board. I happen to agree with you. I know plenty of smart, accomplished kids who don't do well on the standardized tests. I also remember having really smart friends back when I was in high school who had this issue. They went on to do really well in T20 schools and little Ivies. But many on this board assume that those kids are frauds who have skated by on grade inflation and undemanding schools and declare that "not doing well on tests" is just an excuse. It's irritating.

If they did poorly on the test, they weren’t getting into a top 20, two or three decades ago.

PP here. They would be surprised to find out that they didn't go to Princeton and Amherst, for example. I'm not talking about making a terrible score (and usually on this board we're not talking terrible scores.) I've seen people disparage kids who are making scores in the 90th percentile because they're not in the 98th percentile. People talk about kids who score 1400 or 31 as if they're frauds and it gets really old.

Same even with a 33….

+1 people need perspective! The following was posted on another thread. Keep in mind this is the average, so there are plenty of low 30s and low 1400s in the 25-50th percentile.

Pre-covid, when scores were mandatory, this was the ranking of every college's average SAT:

1. Cal Tech 1544
2. MIT 1507
3. Olin College of Engineering 1506
4. UChicago 1506
5. Yale 1498
5. Vanderbilt 1498
7. Harvard 1497
8. Princeton 1490
9. Harvey Mudd 1484
10. Rice 1482
11. Stanford 1479
12. Columbia 1473
13. Wash Univ 1469
14. Northwestern 1460
15. Penn 1457
15. Brown 1457
17. Notre Dame 1455
18. Johns Hopkins 1453
19. Amherst 1451
20. Duke 1450
21. Carnegie Mellon 1448
22. Williams 1442
23. Webb Iinstitute 1442
24. Dartmouth 1437
25. Pomona 1435
25. Northeastern 1435

Pre-covid and pre test optional so utterly irrelevant to today's market

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some kids who are great students but have terrible test anxiety and TO is a good option. I still don't think it helps much for the top schools though, unless you are submitting APs. Best advice is to put the time into prepping for SATs and APs. Don't rely on TO.

Unfortunately that argument is a hard sell on this board. I happen to agree with you. I know plenty of smart, accomplished kids who don't do well on the standardized tests. I also remember having really smart friends back when I was in high school who had this issue. They went on to do really well in T20 schools and little Ivies. But many on this board assume that those kids are frauds who have skated by on grade inflation and undemanding schools and declare that "not doing well on tests" is just an excuse. It's irritating.

If they did poorly on the test, they weren’t getting into a top 20, two or three decades ago.

PP here. They would be surprised to find out that they didn't go to Princeton and Amherst, for example. I'm not talking about making a terrible score (and usually on this board we're not talking terrible scores.) I've seen people disparage kids who are making scores in the 90th percentile because they're not in the 98th percentile. People talk about kids who score 1400 or 31 as if they're frauds and it gets really old.

Same even with a 33….

+1 people need perspective! The following was posted on another thread. Keep in mind this is the average, so there are plenty of low 30s and low 1400s in the 25-50th percentile.

Pre-covid, when scores were mandatory, this was the ranking of every college's average SAT:

1. Cal Tech 1544
2. MIT 1507
3. Olin College of Engineering 1506
4. UChicago 1506
5. Yale 1498
5. Vanderbilt 1498
7. Harvard 1497
8. Princeton 1490
9. Harvey Mudd 1484
10. Rice 1482
11. Stanford 1479
12. Columbia 1473
13. Wash Univ 1469
14. Northwestern 1460
15. Penn 1457
15. Brown 1457
17. Notre Dame 1455
18. Johns Hopkins 1453
19. Amherst 1451
20. Duke 1450
21. Carnegie Mellon 1448
22. Williams 1442
23. Webb Iinstitute 1442
24. Dartmouth 1437
25. Pomona 1435
25. Northeastern 1435

Perspective for what though? Most would tell you not to submit a 33 to T20?!?

That's my point. TO has created a belief that anyone with a score below 34 is not T20 material, i.e., doesn't belong there and can't survive. The pre-covid evidence says otherwise.

I don’t agree that is the perception. Even the top schools want to see the 33 and 1450s. And crazy test optional fanatics are advising not to submit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some kids who are great students but have terrible test anxiety and TO is a good option. I still don't think it helps much for the top schools though, unless you are submitting APs. Best advice is to put the time into prepping for SATs and APs. Don't rely on TO.

Unfortunately that argument is a hard sell on this board. I happen to agree with you. I know plenty of smart, accomplished kids who don't do well on the standardized tests. I also remember having really smart friends back when I was in high school who had this issue. They went on to do really well in T20 schools and little Ivies. But many on this board assume that those kids are frauds who have skated by on grade inflation and undemanding schools and declare that "not doing well on tests" is just an excuse. It's irritating.

If they did poorly on the test, they weren’t getting into a top 20, two or three decades ago.

PP here. They would be surprised to find out that they didn't go to Princeton and Amherst, for example. I'm not talking about making a terrible score (and usually on this board we're not talking terrible scores.) I've seen people disparage kids who are making scores in the 90th percentile because they're not in the 98th percentile. People talk about kids who score 1400 or 31 as if they're frauds and it gets really old.

Same even with a 33….

+1 people need perspective! The following was posted on another thread. Keep in mind this is the average, so there are plenty of low 30s and low 1400s in the 25-50th percentile.

Pre-covid, when scores were mandatory, this was the ranking of every college's average SAT:

1. Cal Tech 1544
2. MIT 1507
3. Olin College of Engineering 1506
4. UChicago 1506
5. Yale 1498
5. Vanderbilt 1498
7. Harvard 1497
8. Princeton 1490
9. Harvey Mudd 1484
10. Rice 1482
11. Stanford 1479
12. Columbia 1473
13. Wash Univ 1469
14. Northwestern 1460
15. Penn 1457
15. Brown 1457
17. Notre Dame 1455
18. Johns Hopkins 1453
19. Amherst 1451
20. Duke 1450
21. Carnegie Mellon 1448
22. Williams 1442
23. Webb Iinstitute 1442
24. Dartmouth 1437
25. Pomona 1435
25. Northeastern 1435

Perspective for what though? Most would tell you not to submit a 33 to T20?!?

That's my point. TO has created a belief that anyone with a score below 34 is not T20 material, i.e., doesn't belong there and can't survive. The pre-covid evidence says otherwise.

Do you think avg test scores are moving down this cycle?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some kids who are great students but have terrible test anxiety and TO is a good option. I still don't think it helps much for the top schools though, unless you are submitting APs. Best advice is to put the time into prepping for SATs and APs. Don't rely on TO.

How does the "test anxiety" brigade manage to do well on AP exams but not the SAT?

Because AP exams are held in your school, during the regular school day, possibly in your actual class you've been in the whole year, with your friends all around you and possibly your teacher as the proctor. Calms you down if you have anxiety. SAT is on a Saturday, sometimes at your school but in the cafeteria or other lecture hall, sometimes at a different school or testing center, with strangers sitting around you, a proctor you just met, room could be too cold, too hot, sun in your eyes, proctor refuses to draw down shades, etc... etc.... amps up the anxiety and hence the propensity to make silly mistakes, run out of time etc... My DS who notices every small thing around them came out of a sitting talking about how frustrating and distracting it was for testers in the room to be audibly cursing regularly during the sitting.

I hate to break it to you, but college exams are often in a different place and at a different time than class. So perhaps the SAT score is more predictive of future success than the AP exam score.

And I hate to break it to you, but AP tests are subject specific and kids can do really well on one type of AP and not another. For example, kids can get 4s and 5s on English, History, Language, etc and then score a 2 on Calculus. (I was one of those kids. And for a further news flash, you can be successful in college and avoid the subjects you hate or don't do well in.) Whereas standardized testing measures two areas, counts them equally, and combines the score. Totally different objective and type of test.

My kid isn't going into STEM, but scores equally as well--5s on all AP exams and straight As. I think now that schools are tired of the grade inflation--everyone has A averages--they are looking at a bigger score/gpa profile. My kid has a 35 ACT (one sitting, not composite) and reported all the exams he took (mixture of STEM/Eng/Hist) through end of Jr year--5s on all. And his uw4.0-and unhooked he's getting in everyhere this cycle which shocked us because our counselor was trying to get him to apply to much lower profile schools and thought he had too many 'reaches'.

This is great and good for your kid. But this is a sample size of 1. You’re missing the larger point. Some kids will score 5s on all their APs, regardless of subject. Some will fail, regardless of subject. But a LOT of people have areas of strength and weaker areas. It by no means indicates that kids with good but not perfect scores, or kids with lopsided scores don’t belong in top tier colleges or are doomed to failure, or somehow skated through high school due to grade inflation. That was the original point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some kids who are great students but have terrible test anxiety and TO is a good option. I still don't think it helps much for the top schools though, unless you are submitting APs. Best advice is to put the time into prepping for SATs and APs. Don't rely on TO.

Unfortunately that argument is a hard sell on this board. I happen to agree with you. I know plenty of smart, accomplished kids who don't do well on the standardized tests. I also remember having really smart friends back when I was in high school who had this issue. They went on to do really well in T20 schools and little Ivies. But many on this board assume that those kids are frauds who have skated by on grade inflation and undemanding schools and declare that "not doing well on tests" is just an excuse. It's irritating.

If they did poorly on the test, they weren’t getting into a top 20, two or three decades ago.

PP here. They would be surprised to find out that they didn't go to Princeton and Amherst, for example. I'm not talking about making a terrible score (and usually on this board we're not talking terrible scores.) I've seen people disparage kids who are making scores in the 90th percentile because they're not in the 98th percentile. People talk about kids who score 1400 or 31 as if they're frauds and it gets really old.

Same even with a 33….

+1 people need perspective! The following was posted on another thread. Keep in mind this is the average, so there are plenty of low 30s and low 1400s in the 25-50th percentile.

Pre-covid, when scores were mandatory, this was the ranking of every college's average SAT:

1. Cal Tech 1544
2. MIT 1507
3. Olin College of Engineering 1506
4. UChicago 1506
5. Yale 1498
5. Vanderbilt 1498
7. Harvard 1497
8. Princeton 1490
9. Harvey Mudd 1484
10. Rice 1482
11. Stanford 1479
12. Columbia 1473
13. Wash Univ 1469
14. Northwestern 1460
15. Penn 1457
15. Brown 1457
17. Notre Dame 1455
18. Johns Hopkins 1453
19. Amherst 1451
20. Duke 1450
21. Carnegie Mellon 1448
22. Williams 1442
23. Webb Iinstitute 1442
24. Dartmouth 1437
25. Pomona 1435
25. Northeastern 1435

Perspective for what though? Most would tell you not to submit a 33 to T20?!?

That's my point. TO has created a belief that anyone with a score below 34 is not T20 material, i.e., doesn't belong there and can't survive. The pre-covid evidence says otherwise.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some kids who are great students but have terrible test anxiety and TO is a good option. I still don't think it helps much for the top schools though, unless you are submitting APs. Best advice is to put the time into prepping for SATs and APs. Don't rely on TO.

Unfortunately that argument is a hard sell on this board. I happen to agree with you. I know plenty of smart, accomplished kids who don't do well on the standardized tests. I also remember having really smart friends back when I was in high school who had this issue. They went on to do really well in T20 schools and little Ivies. But many on this board assume that those kids are frauds who have skated by on grade inflation and undemanding schools and declare that "not doing well on tests" is just an excuse. It's irritating.

If they did poorly on the test, they weren’t getting into a top 20, two or three decades ago.

PP here. They would be surprised to find out that they didn't go to Princeton and Amherst, for example. I'm not talking about making a terrible score (and usually on this board we're not talking terrible scores.) I've seen people disparage kids who are making scores in the 90th percentile because they're not in the 98th percentile. People talk about kids who score 1400 or 31 as if they're frauds and it gets really old.

Same even with a 33….

+1 people need perspective! The following was posted on another thread. Keep in mind this is the average, so there are plenty of low 30s and low 1400s in the 25-50th percentile.

Pre-covid, when scores were mandatory, this was the ranking of every college's average SAT:

1. Cal Tech 1544
2. MIT 1507
3. Olin College of Engineering 1506
4. UChicago 1506
5. Yale 1498
5. Vanderbilt 1498
7. Harvard 1497
8. Princeton 1490
9. Harvey Mudd 1484
10. Rice 1482
11. Stanford 1479
12. Columbia 1473
13. Wash Univ 1469
14. Northwestern 1460
15. Penn 1457
15. Brown 1457
17. Notre Dame 1455
18. Johns Hopkins 1453
19. Amherst 1451
20. Duke 1450
21. Carnegie Mellon 1448
22. Williams 1442
23. Webb Iinstitute 1442
24. Dartmouth 1437
25. Pomona 1435
25. Northeastern 1435

Perspective for what though? Most would tell you not to submit a 33 to T20?!?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some kids who are great students but have terrible test anxiety and TO is a good option. I still don't think it helps much for the top schools though, unless you are submitting APs. Best advice is to put the time into prepping for SATs and APs. Don't rely on TO.

Unfortunately that argument is a hard sell on this board. I happen to agree with you. I know plenty of smart, accomplished kids who don't do well on the standardized tests. I also remember having really smart friends back when I was in high school who had this issue. They went on to do really well in T20 schools and little Ivies. But many on this board assume that those kids are frauds who have skated by on grade inflation and undemanding schools and declare that "not doing well on tests" is just an excuse. It's irritating.

If they did poorly on the test, they weren’t getting into a top 20, two or three decades ago.

PP here. They would be surprised to find out that they didn't go to Princeton and Amherst, for example. I'm not talking about making a terrible score (and usually on this board we're not talking terrible scores.) I've seen people disparage kids who are making scores in the 90th percentile because they're not in the 98th percentile. People talk about kids who score 1400 or 31 as if they're frauds and it gets really old.

Same even with a 33….

+1 people need perspective! The following was posted on another thread. Keep in mind this is the average, so there are plenty of low 30s and low 1400s in the 25-50th percentile.

Pre-covid, when scores were mandatory, this was the ranking of every college's average SAT:

1. Cal Tech 1544
2. MIT 1507
3. Olin College of Engineering 1506
4. UChicago 1506
5. Yale 1498
5. Vanderbilt 1498
7. Harvard 1497
8. Princeton 1490
9. Harvey Mudd 1484
10. Rice 1482
11. Stanford 1479
12. Columbia 1473
13. Wash Univ 1469
14. Northwestern 1460
15. Penn 1457
15. Brown 1457
17. Notre Dame 1455
18. Johns Hopkins 1453
19. Amherst 1451
20. Duke 1450
21. Carnegie Mellon 1448
22. Williams 1442
23. Webb Iinstitute 1442
24. Dartmouth 1437
25. Pomona 1435
25. Northeastern 1435

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some kids who are great students but have terrible test anxiety and TO is a good option. I still don't think it helps much for the top schools though, unless you are submitting APs. Best advice is to put the time into prepping for SATs and APs. Don't rely on TO.

How does the "test anxiety" brigade manage to do well on AP exams but not the SAT?

Because AP exams are held in your school, during the regular school day, possibly in your actual class you've been in the whole year, with your friends all around you and possibly your teacher as the proctor. Calms you down if you have anxiety. SAT is on a Saturday, sometimes at your school but in the cafeteria or other lecture hall, sometimes at a different school or testing center, with strangers sitting around you, a proctor you just met, room could be too cold, too hot, sun in your eyes, proctor refuses to draw down shades, etc... etc.... amps up the anxiety and hence the propensity to make silly mistakes, run out of time etc... My DS who notices every small thing around them came out of a sitting talking about how frustrating and distracting it was for testers in the room to be audibly cursing regularly during the sitting.

I hate to break it to you, but college exams are often in a different place and at a different time than class. So perhaps the SAT score is more predictive of future success than the AP exam score.

And I hate to break it to you, but AP tests are subject specific and kids can do really well on one type of AP and not another. For example, kids can get 4s and 5s on English, History, Language, etc and then score a 2 on Calculus. (I was one of those kids. And for a further news flash, you can be successful in college and avoid the subjects you hate or don't do well in.) Whereas standardized testing measures two areas, counts them equally, and combines the score. Totally different objective and type of test.

My kid isn't going into STEM, but scores equally as well--5s on all AP exams and straight As. I think now that schools are tired of the grade inflation--everyone has A averages--they are looking at a bigger score/gpa profile. My kid has a 35 ACT (one sitting, not composite) and reported all the exams he took (mixture of STEM/Eng/Hist) through end of Jr year--5s on all. And his uw4.0-and unhooked he's getting in everyhere this cycle which shocked us because our counselor was trying to get him to apply to much lower profile schools and thought he had too many 'reaches'.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some kids who are great students but have terrible test anxiety and TO is a good option. I still don't think it helps much for the top schools though, unless you are submitting APs. Best advice is to put the time into prepping for SATs and APs. Don't rely on TO.

Unfortunately that argument is a hard sell on this board. I happen to agree with you. I know plenty of smart, accomplished kids who don't do well on the standardized tests. I also remember having really smart friends back when I was in high school who had this issue. They went on to do really well in T20 schools and little Ivies. But many on this board assume that those kids are frauds who have skated by on grade inflation and undemanding schools and declare that "not doing well on tests" is just an excuse. It's irritating.

If they did poorly on the test, they weren’t getting into a top 20, two or three decades ago.

PP here. They would be surprised to find out that they didn't go to Princeton and Amherst, for example. I'm not talking about making a terrible score (and usually on this board we're not talking terrible scores.) I've seen people disparage kids who are making scores in the 90th percentile because they're not in the 98th percentile. People talk about kids who score 1400 or 31 as if they're frauds and it gets really old.

Same even with a 33….