Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had one kid taking the SAT in 2022 (when it was on paper) and one who took the digital year. Lots of kids at their private getting over 1500 both years

I bet if you looked at Naviance, you eould see that very few kids at your private school scored over 1500.

Our high performing high school has between 625-725 seniors on a given year. In all the years we have had kids there, naviance only shows around a dozen kids breaking 1500 on the SAT.

There is zero chance that your private school with a senior class of a couple hundred kids has "lots" of kids scoring over 1500.

Anonymous wrote:I had one kid taking the SAT in 2022 (when it was on paper) and one who took the digital year. Lots of kids at their private getting over 1500 both years

Anonymous wrote:Our oldest is a junior so only recently started taking SAT/ACT. Before we had or own first hand experience, we used to hear everyone got 1560-1590 in their SAT. After the first couple tries, all the so called smart kids at our school only got 1420-1480. Is the scoring tougher now or were people always exaggerating?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought the SAT was distributed on a curve so there are always the same number of high scorers.

I have never seen data on how many kids submit a super score but my hunch is such a significant amount that the scores are significantly increased. Like maybe makes it so 10% of kids get above a 1500? Also, my older kid took the ACT so there are all those high scorers too.

Ironically and sadly a super score didn’t help my kid. Oh well.

This just underscores how many people in the DCUM bubble have no concept of "average." Average high school in rural Minnesota. Average inner city high school. Average high school across town.

Does 10% of Sidwell or Churchill gets above a 1500 superscore? Maybe. Maaaaaybe. Of all SAT takers - ha!

Anonymous wrote:I thought the SAT was distributed on a curve so there are always the same number of high scorers.

I have never seen data on how many kids submit a super score but my hunch is such a significant amount that the scores are significantly increased. Like maybe makes it so 10% of kids get above a 1500? Also, my older kid took the ACT so there are all those high scorers too.

Ironically and sadly a super score didn’t help my kid. Oh well.

Anonymous wrote:On DCUM, there was always a large percentage of parents from magnet schools and other highly rated schools from DMV, and their kids were high achievers from the earliest grades.

These parents were super clued in about what the top universities or the most rigorous majors required. So, for these students getting extremely high scores in SAT/ACT was not something that was impossible. It was a given.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:just remember when people tell you their score, they're reporting the superscore.

my kids never scored over a 1500 on the paper or digital tests. but all three would say their SAT scores were 1530-1560. people say the score they reported on the common app.

also, every cycle there are kids who take it 8 times and their parents can't believe they can't break 1500. every dang time. it's not as easy as reddit has you believe.

This is why it's more meaningful to report a single best score to colleges. A one-shot high score means more than a superscore. Both can be good, but they are different.

nope, disagree. you have to remember why colleges want scores: 1) to show their admissions team this kid can do the work. a very very single seating is impressive, but superscore or single seating works for this. 2) to report to public (and now govt) via CDS - superscore, they want the best number possible. 3) to show faculty via internal memos - superscore, they want the best number possible. 4) to show trustees - superscore, they want the best number possible.

I am tenured faculty (and have admin responsiblities) and have never ever received an internal memo about SAT scores. I also don't believe our trustees are this granular: the information they receive is shockingly thin.

Thanks for that. I believe you.

Can I ask then:

- who is it at the universities who drives this endless pursuit of higher SATs? Is it the admissions office alone? The president? A combination of the two?

Are admins primarily chasing USNWR rank? Or are they truly trying to improve the kids education we pay for?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:just remember when people tell you their score, they're reporting the superscore.

my kids never scored over a 1500 on the paper or digital tests. but all three would say their SAT scores were 1530-1560. people say the score they reported on the common app.

also, every cycle there are kids who take it 8 times and their parents can't believe they can't break 1500. every dang time. it's not as easy as reddit has you believe.

This is why it's more meaningful to report a single best score to colleges. A one-shot high score means more than a superscore. Both can be good, but they are different.

nope, disagree. you have to remember why colleges want scores: 1) to show their admissions team this kid can do the work. a very very single seating is impressive, but superscore or single seating works for this. 2) to report to public (and now govt) via CDS - superscore, they want the best number possible. 3) to show faculty via internal memos - superscore, they want the best number possible. 4) to show trustees - superscore, they want the best number possible.

I am tenured faculty (and have admin responsiblities) and have never ever received an internal memo about SAT scores. I also don't believe our trustees are this granular: the information they receive is shockingly thin.

Anonymous wrote:On DCUM, there was always a large percentage of parents from magnet schools and other highly rated schools from DMV, and their kids were high achievers from the earliest grades.

These parents were super clued in about what the top universities or the most rigorous majors required. So, for these students getting extremely high scores in SAT/ACT was not something that was impossible. It was a given.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1560 is at the 99th percentile.

1 in 100 is a lot of people.

Also 1560 is the top 1% of single-sitting scores, but most colleges take superscores. So it’s even more people.

You’re an idiot

Ah, the scintillating discourse of DCUM.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1560 is at the 99th percentile.

1 in 100 is a lot of people.

Also 1560 is the top 1% of single-sitting scores, but most colleges take superscores. So it’s even more people.

You’re an idiot

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1560 is at the 99th percentile.

1 in 100 is a lot of people.

Also 1560 is the top 1% of single-sitting scores, but most colleges take superscores. So it’s even more people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think what is happening is the College board is releasing score percentiles by test and then averaging those to report. My kid took the test twice to superscore into the 1%. His friends, many of whom are Asian, would take it as many times as they had to until they hit 1550 and were preparing for years..literally starting in 8th grade. Two kids took it four to five times. There was a stampede to get to the SAT before it went digital in that group. My kid did digital because he didn’t want to bother traveling and staying in a hotel to take it earlier on paper.

This entire group of kids reports as being over 1550 but that isn’t counting superscore and the numerous retakes. This doesn’t even factor in the cheating rings that are out there.

So what college board is reporting is not what is actually being reported to colleges.

I thought that I have been around the SAT block...I have never heard this.