Anonymous wrote:Because I'm bored... if there are roughly 195,000 undergraduates students in the top 20... and roughly 48,750-ish incoming freshman... and only 12,000-ish 99th percentile test scorers... doesn't that mean only 25% of these students are in the top percentile?

That means don't worry if your kid doesn't score in the 99th percentile. There is plenty of room for them. Go ahead and apply and use your scores.

1.9 million SAT scores, 1.4 million ACT. That's 3.3 million test scores, 33,000 of those tests scores are top 1%. There is some overlap with people taking both tests or even retaking a test after getting a 1500 on the SAT but this is reasonably close.

2.34 entering freshmen this fall nationwide. 23,000 is top 1% of college freshmen

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you get away from the Northeast, a lot og those who score in the top 1% aren’t even applying to a Top 20 college.

Yea, the "best" schools aren't full of the "best" students. It is a mix and the endless anxiety of test scores is just too much. Nobody needs to freak out over not having a 99th percentile score.

And this goes the other way too. Plenty of 99% kids are not getting into these schools.

Anonymous wrote:If you get away from the Northeast, a lot og those who score in the top 1% aren’t even applying to a Top 20 college.

Yea, the "best" schools aren't full of the "best" students. It is a mix and the endless anxiety of test scores is just too much. Nobody needs to freak out over not having a 99th percentile score.

If you get away from the Northeast, a lot og those who score in the top 1% aren’t even applying to a Top 20 college.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because I'm bored... if there are roughly 195,000 undergraduates students in the top 20... and roughly 48,750-ish incoming freshman... and only 12,000-ish 99th percentile test scorers... doesn't that mean only 25% of these students are in the top percentile?

That means don't worry if your kid doesn't score in the 99th percentile. There is plenty of room for them. Go ahead and apply and use your scores.

3.2 million kids took the SAT or ACT last year. How do you figure that the top 1% is 12,000 and not 32,000?

College Board reports 1.9 million took the SAT in 2023. Since they administer it I assume their numbers are accurate.

https://reports.collegeboard.org/sat-suite-program-results#:~:text=1.9%20million%20students%20in%20the,participating%20in%20SAT%20School%20Day.

Adding ACT to your totals is like adding pears to your count of apples.

Anonymous wrote:Because I'm bored... if there are roughly 195,000 undergraduates students in the top 20... and roughly 48,750-ish incoming freshman... and only 12,000-ish 99th percentile test scorers... doesn't that mean only 25% of these students are in the top percentile?

That means don't worry if your kid doesn't score in the 99th percentile. There is plenty of room for them. Go ahead and apply and use your scores.

3.2 million kids took the SAT or ACT last year. How do you figure that the top 1% is 12,000 and not 32,000?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:California Institute of Technology (982)
Dartmouth (4458)
Rice (4494)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (4657)
Princeton (5604)
Johns Hopkins (6044)
Duke (6640)
Yale (6645)
Vanderbilt (7151)
Harvard (7240)
University of Chicago (7470)
Brown (7639)
Stanford (8049)
Northwestern (8659)
Columbia (8832)
University of Notre Dame (8971)
University of Pennsylvania (9760)
Cornell (15735)
University of California, Los Angeles (32423)
University of California, Berkeley (32831)

Berkeley and UCLA are test blind. Shouldn't even factor into this

Swap them out for whatever the next two schools would be. The point is that there are clearly lots of kids at these top schools that are just normal smart kids. You don't have to be a 99th percentile student to get into a great school.

Why? They are still taking large numbers of 99% kids out of the overall pool.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:California Institute of Technology (982)
Dartmouth (4458)
Rice (4494)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (4657)
Princeton (5604)
Johns Hopkins (6044)
Duke (6640)
Yale (6645)
Vanderbilt (7151)
Harvard (7240)
University of Chicago (7470)
Brown (7639)
Stanford (8049)
Northwestern (8659)
Columbia (8832)
University of Notre Dame (8971)
University of Pennsylvania (9760)
Cornell (15735)
University of California, Los Angeles (32423)
University of California, Berkeley (32831)

Berkeley and UCLA are test blind. Shouldn't even factor into this

Swap them out for whatever the next two schools would be. The point is that there are clearly lots of kids at these top schools that are just normal smart kids. You don't have to be a 99th percentile student to get into a great school.

And remember, not every 99 percenter is going to apply to these schools. There are plenty kids who want to attend schools that are closer to home or to which they have family ties, are more affordable, and lots of other reasons. On the other hand those who do apply will usually apply to multiple schools, so it still won’t be easy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recommend that you don't use superscoring in this analysis. Superscoring seems like a public relations gesture to stressed out students. Rather than something that really impacts a lot of candidates to get them admitted. And you don't have any data on what improvements are typically seen with superscoring. Any assumptions might be quite off.

?? A 35 superscore is the same as a 35 in one setting. Test scores check a box not get you admitted. It is possible you could create a good impression by a one and done 35 but you would create a better impression by a 36 superscored. All colleges are looking for is the number. It does impact a lot of candidates.

No, it's not. It implies a different (lower) "true ability".

Don’t forget the 180,000+ Chinese and Indian internationals in the 99th percentile, many of whom are applying to ivies too. In top of the kids from Nigeria or Singapore or Korea or wherever.

Anonymous wrote:I recommend that you don't use superscoring in this analysis. Superscoring seems like a public relations gesture to stressed out students. Rather than something that really impacts a lot of candidates to get them admitted. And you don't have any data on what improvements are typically seen with superscoring. Any assumptions might be quite off.

Here's the thing..the percentiles are based on single sittings. There is random variation in scores that a single student will get--even without additional prep--and superscoring provides students the ability to use only the "upside" of this variations. In an analysis like this--where you're looking at the highest achieving students who are going to be disproportionately taking the test multiple times and getting professional test prep, super scores are going to make a big difference. If you look at the "user group percentiles" for single sitting, scores from 1490-1520 are in the 97th-98th percentile. It only takes 10-40 points to move them to 1530 (99th percentile). A large number of kids are going to take the test multiple times and super-score their way there.

So--while I don't have a strong feeling about the "merits" of super scoring, I think in an analysis where you're trying to estimate the number of kids who have a certain score vs their percentile, you have to distinguish between superscoring and the single-sitting percentiles.

Anonymous wrote:I recommend that you don't use superscoring in this analysis. Superscoring seems like a public relations gesture to stressed out students. Rather than something that really impacts a lot of candidates to get them admitted. And you don't have any data on what improvements are typically seen with superscoring. Any assumptions might be quite off.

?? A 35 superscore is the same as a 35 in one setting. Test scores check a box not get you admitted. It is possible you could create a good impression by a one and done 35 but you would create a better impression by a 36 superscored. All colleges are looking for is the number. It does impact a lot of candidates.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:California Institute of Technology (982)
Dartmouth (4458)
Rice (4494)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (4657)
Princeton (5604)
Johns Hopkins (6044)
Duke (6640)
Yale (6645)
Vanderbilt (7151)
Harvard (7240)
University of Chicago (7470)
Brown (7639)
Stanford (8049)
Northwestern (8659)
Columbia (8832)
University of Notre Dame (8971)
University of Pennsylvania (9760)
Cornell (15735)
University of California, Los Angeles (32423)
University of California, Berkeley (32831)

This is the total undergraduate population, not the first year class. So divide the numbers by 4.

Original post did that and estimated 48k freshman. I think if we change out the UC schools for Michigan... and Note Dame we would still be roughly there. Regardless there are obviously many more freshman starting the top schools than there are freshman with the top scores. So many more that even super high TO numbered wouldn't account for them all.

Yea, don't lose any sleep over applying with your less than perfect SAT scores.

Anonymous wrote:California Institute of Technology (982)
Dartmouth (4458)
Rice (4494)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (4657)
Princeton (5604)
Johns Hopkins (6044)
Duke (6640)
Yale (6645)
Vanderbilt (7151)
Harvard (7240)
University of Chicago (7470)
Brown (7639)
Stanford (8049)
Northwestern (8659)
Columbia (8832)
University of Notre Dame (8971)
University of Pennsylvania (9760)
Cornell (15735)
University of California, Los Angeles (32423)
University of California, Berkeley (32831)

This is the total undergraduate population, not the first year class. So divide the numbers by 4.

Anonymous wrote:I recommend that you don't use superscoring in this analysis. Superscoring seems like a public relations gesture to stressed out students. Rather than something that really impacts a lot of candidates to get them admitted. And you don't have any data on what improvements are typically seen with superscoring. Any assumptions might be quite off.

Ok. So any actual data on superscoring?