Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charlie Deacon, the dean at Georgetown is like 80 years old. He's got a lot of opinions.

Deacon: It began back in 1995 with the recentering of the SAT, which suddenly made many, many more people have high scores. In the year of recentering, Georgetown went from having 95 students with a 750 verbal score in our applicant pool to more than 1,000. Suddenly, the Lake Wobegon effect was 1,000 people felt themselves more qualified than they used to be. Today our applicant pool has more than 3,000 kids with equivalent scores.

The problem in Northern Virginia is Thomas Jefferson, the science-and-technology magnet school. Jefferson robs all the local schools of their best students, leaving behind a culture that’s more dominated by athletics and rock music and less dominated by APs and high academic achievement. It’s great for the kids who get to Jefferson, but it leaves behind a lot of schools where the top of the class is a lot thinner.

So we don’t see a lot of great candidates from Northern Virginia high schools other than Jefferson. Even those that rank high in the class don’t look great to us. We see much stronger candidates from Montgomery County schools than from Fairfax.

Bullsh@t

Anonymous wrote:Charlie Deacon, the dean at Georgetown is like 80 years old. He's got a lot of opinions.

Deacon: It began back in 1995 with the recentering of the SAT, which suddenly made many, many more people have high scores. In the year of recentering, Georgetown went from having 95 students with a 750 verbal score in our applicant pool to more than 1,000. Suddenly, the Lake Wobegon effect was 1,000 people felt themselves more qualified than they used to be. Today our applicant pool has more than 3,000 kids with equivalent scores.

The problem in Northern Virginia is Thomas Jefferson, the science-and-technology magnet school. Jefferson robs all the local schools of their best students, leaving behind a culture that’s more dominated by athletics and rock music and less dominated by APs and high academic achievement. It’s great for the kids who get to Jefferson, but it leaves behind a lot of schools where the top of the class is a lot thinner.

So we don’t see a lot of great candidates from Northern Virginia high schools other than Jefferson. Even those that rank high in the class don’t look great to us. We see much stronger candidates from Montgomery County schools than from Fairfax.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:HS students should get one bite at the apple. ACT, SAT, their choice. But one at bat. That’s it. This super scoring horseshit is the one of the most bizarre developments since I was applying to college hundreds of years ago.

Here comes the one-and-done-1600 mom pushing her kid's interests. If her kid hadn't lucked out that day, she'd be singing a different tune.

i

I’m fine with taking it more than one, but no super-scoring. That’s how it was in the 80s.

It was so weird to me to find people can now combine subscores from different test sittings.

What do you think the test score measures, if the same student can get 2 different scores?

Data has shown scores do not rise dramatically between different sittings, but sometimes a particular test may be harder than a different sitting. And, sometimes a kid may be slightly under the weather. Or, they take it Fall of junior year but then after a year of more course work, maturity they take it again Fall of senior year and score better.

We aren’t talking dramatic swings, but even in the 80s two sittings was always recommended- unless of course you scored a perfect score.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:HS students should get one bite at the apple. ACT, SAT, their choice. But one at bat. That’s it. This super scoring horseshit is the one of the most bizarre developments since I was applying to college hundreds of years ago.

Super scores have been around for a while. I know they were doing it when I applied to college in 1992

Might suggest 2 tries since there will be some with legitimate extenuating circumstances - but just don't allow super-scoring at all.

On another note, I just don't get the rationale at all for TO - schools should be encouraged to accept students with a reasonable range and not just all 35/36. Knowing where students might need more support would be very helpful, even with the essay and freshman writing seminar placement.

Right. TO isn't because test scores are bad. TO is because the culture around admissions is insane, perpetuated by AOs.

Deacon: It began back in 1995 with the recentering of the SAT, which suddenly made many, many more people have high scores. In the year of recentering, Georgetown went from having 95 students with a 750 verbal score in our applicant pool to more than 1,000. Suddenly, the Lake Wobegon effect was 1,000 people felt themselves more qualified than they used to be. Today our applicant pool has more than 3,000 kids with equivalent scores.

The problem in Northern Virginia is Thomas Jefferson, the science-and-technology magnet school. Jefferson robs all the local schools of their best students, leaving behind a culture that’s more dominated by athletics and rock music and less dominated by APs and high academic achievement. It’s great for the kids who get to Jefferson, but it leaves behind a lot of schools where the top of the class is a lot thinner.

So we don’t see a lot of great candidates from Northern Virginia high schools other than Jefferson. Even those that rank high in the class don’t look great to us. We see much stronger candidates from Montgomery County schools than from Fairfax.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:HS students should get one bite at the apple. ACT, SAT, their choice. But one at bat. That’s it. This super scoring horseshit is the one of the most bizarre developments since I was applying to college hundreds of years ago.

Here comes the one-and-done-1600 mom pushing her kid's interests. If her kid hadn't lucked out that day, she'd be singing a different tune.

i

I’m fine with taking it more than one, but no super-scoring. That’s how it was in the 80s.

It was so weird to me to find people can now combine subscores from different test sittings.

What do you think the test score measures, if the same student can get 2 different scores?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:HS students should get one bite at the apple. ACT, SAT, their choice. But one at bat. That’s it. This super scoring horseshit is the one of the most bizarre developments since I was applying to college hundreds of years ago.

Here comes the one-and-done-1600 mom pushing her kid's interests. If her kid hadn't lucked out that day, she'd be singing a different tune.

i

I’m fine with taking it more than one, but no super-scoring. That’s how it was in the 80s.

It was so weird to me to find people can now combine subscores from different test sittings.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:HS students should get one bite at the apple. ACT, SAT, their choice. But one at bat. That’s it. This super scoring horseshit is the one of the most bizarre developments since I was applying to college hundreds of years ago.

Super scores have been around for a while. I know they were doing it when I applied to college in 1992

Might suggest 2 tries since there will be some with legitimate extenuating circumstances - but just don't allow super-scoring at all.

On another note, I just don't get the rationale at all for TO - schools should be encouraged to accept students with a reasonable range and not just all 35/36. Knowing where students might need more support would be very helpful, even with the essay and freshman writing seminar placement.

Right. TO isn't because test scores are bad. TO is because the culture around admissions is insane, perpetuated by AOs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's a strong argument for bringing back SAT subject tests as well.

The SAT II Math Level 2, Physics, Chemistry, US History, etc. were all very useful in helping determine preparation.

None of this is coming back.

Sorry.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:HS students should get one bite at the apple. ACT, SAT, their choice. But one at bat. That’s it. This super scoring horseshit is the one of the most bizarre developments since I was applying to college hundreds of years ago.

Here comes the one-and-done-1600 mom pushing her kid's interests. If her kid hadn't lucked out that day, she'd be singing a different tune.

i

I’m fine with taking it more than one, but no super-scoring. That’s how it was in the 80s.

It was so weird to me to find people can now combine subscores from different test sittings.

What do you think the test score measures, if the same student can get 2 different scores?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:HS students should get one bite at the apple. ACT, SAT, their choice. But one at bat. That’s it. This super scoring horseshit is the one of the most bizarre developments since I was applying to college hundreds of years ago.

Super scores have been around for a while. I know they were doing it when I applied to college in 1992

Might suggest 2 tries since there will be some with legitimate extenuating circumstances - but just don't allow super-scoring at all.

On another note, I just don't get the rationale at all for TO - schools should be encouraged to accept students with a reasonable range and not just all 35/36. Knowing where students might need more support would be very helpful, even with the essay and freshman writing seminar placement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:HS students should get one bite at the apple. ACT, SAT, their choice. But one at bat. That’s it. This super scoring horseshit is the one of the most bizarre developments since I was applying to college hundreds of years ago.

Here comes the one-and-done-1600 mom pushing her kid's interests. If her kid hadn't lucked out that day, she'd be singing a different tune.

i

I’m fine with taking it more than one, but no super-scoring. That’s how it was in the 80s.

It was so weird to me to find people can now combine subscores from different test sittings.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP here. This is a good article.
For those of you commenting without reading the article, I highly recommend you read it first. The reporter mentions multiple recent studies that all show the same thing - test scores are more predictive of future college success than high school grades.
Most college admissions officials agree that test scores should be used as one factor towards admissions but they are scared of political backlash if they bring test scores back.

Yes, gpa is generally more predictive than test scores alone but not as predictive as gpa plus test scores. Further, gpa has become less and less predictive as grades have become inflated. Source: UC system and Purdue research.

My annoyance is that my DD studied hard and did really well on the SAT - similar to her sisters that got into top 20 schools. But, we went TO b/c the scores that are now reported are much higher as no one is reporting. We agonized over this decision. She lost a valuable side to her application. And, I think every year scores will continue to go up as those on the 25-50% will no longer report. Just a horrible decision.

Hard to guess why one wouldn't submit a strong score, even if it's on the low end for the school. Sorry to be critical of this decision-making, but personally, I think that's a mistake. Submit and then let the chips fall, rather than let the college assume the score was worse.

Because the average scores are so high now that you need a near perfect score to submit.

Of course we cannot know for sure, but TO colleges say they do not assume the scores were worse if not submitted. Thats what makes TO so wrong to me, it’s a guessing game now. A game that most SES and URM will not know how to play and this TO ends up hurting them rather than helping.

I agree that the PP probably received advice not to submit; I'm just saying I think that was bad advice. And I agree completely that URMs and low SES get hurt by test optional for the same reason - bad advice not to take tests and submit the scores.

While most TO colleges may say they do not assume scores were worse if not submitted, it is a logical assumption. It's hard to see how they don't make such an assumption here in 2024.

It is often said "don't submit if your score is under the 50th percentile".

If you don't submit, then the college could assume either (a) you were between 25th and 50th percentile, which means you are perfectly capable of succeeding at the school, or (b) you were below the 25th percentile, and thus significantly less likely to succeed at the school.

The AO could use other factors in your application in order to guess whether you were a or b. Strong gpa with a rigorous curriculum, that's probably (a). And in that case, they'd lean towards admitting you without knowing the exact SAT score. Weak gpa and non-rigorous curriculum, that's probably (b), and they'd lean towards rejecting you without knowing the exact SAT score. Therefore, knowing the exact SAT score probably doesn't matter all that much.

And we know that some colleges don't believe the SAT score is suggestive of ability to succeed at their college. Why would they even bother making any assumptions about you if you didn't submit a score? It doesn't matter to them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:HS students should get one bite at the apple. ACT, SAT, their choice. But one at bat. That’s it. This super scoring horseshit is the one of the most bizarre developments since I was applying to college hundreds of years ago.

Here comes the one-and-done-1600 mom pushing her kid's interests. If her kid hadn't lucked out that day, she'd be singing a different tune.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ that was from my eye-balling of the graph in the NYT article. No score applicants fell around 1300 SAT applicants, as far as college GPA for the schools in the study, which I believe were about 15-20 elite colleges.

Oh actually, it’s a lot lower than 25th percentile. 1300 is 1/4 of the way from 1200 to 1600 (the range), but I wasn’t paying attention to the density of the datapoints. Probably closer to 90% of scores were higher than 1300 for those schools during that time period. But that’s where the no-test applicants landed as far as their success in college.

No. I keep saying this but the SAT scores are nonlinear. A 1350 is probably closer to a1600 than it is to a 1200. A 1200 is ~68 percentile. A 1300 is ~89-90 percentile. THIS is why splitting hairs over what seem like big absolute differences at the high end really is useless.