Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree that SAT scores provide information, but not that much: A group of students scoring 1550 are going to do slightly better, on average, than a group scoring 1500, but if you compare one 1500 student with one 1550 student, the odds that that 1550 student will do better are only a bit above 50 percent.

Much more important is what they are interested in and how hard they work. A student who is passionate about English literature will be better off in a class full of students who are equally passionate and who read a lot for fun than a class full of kids with 1600 SAT scores whose dream is to go into consulting and get rich.

What does "do better" really mean?
Lifetime W-2 income? Or Net worth?

Statistically, certainly yes.

Anonymous wrote:I agree that SAT scores provide information, but not that much: A group of students scoring 1550 are going to do slightly better, on average, than a group scoring 1500, but if you compare one 1500 student with one 1550 student, the odds that that 1550 student will do better are only a bit above 50 percent.

Much more important is what they are interested in and how hard they work. A student who is passionate about English literature will be better off in a class full of students who are equally passionate and who read a lot for fun than a class full of kids with 1600 SAT scores whose dream is to go into consulting and get rich.

What does "do better" really mean?
Lifetime W-2 income? Or Net worth?

There are very bright kids at all T-50 schools (and beyond) these days. No none knows what you mean specifically. Just visit different schools and see where your kid seems to fit best.

But any of the good state flagships with honors colleges, Chicago, and SLACs just outside of the top 5, quickly come to mind.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you are assigning value to the SAT that isn’t true. Lots of brainiacs at many schools.

I don’t think you can tell the difference between a kid scoring a 1540 and 1400 if you meet them on the street.

OP here. Please no flame, but at our school, DD and 2 close friends who are similarly smart but not genius types scored 1530-1540 first try, minimal prep. While a true brainiac kid who has been brilliant since 1st grade scored 1600 first try, no one was surprised. Other friends told us their kids scored in the 1300s and need tutors to get up to 1450-ish. Those are the kids who always needed tutors and consistently performed a band under the 1540 kids (bc the school have different tracks for core subjects since middle school) and def under the 1600 kid. We have known all these kids since K and it's been very consistent. I disagree you can't tell the difference between a 1540 and 1400 kid, just as I can tell the difference between my 1540 kid and the 1600 kid. I have also seen kids who were happy in normal courses and got pushed by parents to get tutored into the advanced track math and chem classes and ended up having to drop back down to non-advanced track the following year.

I truly think kids do well in the track they naturally excel in but all have a chance to be very successful when they grow up if they learned in an environment where learn with peers with similar aptitudes and build confidence.

So I’m going to tell you a story about my Ivy kid.

1400 first try no prep. With a few attempts, up to 1540. It’s test prep. Whatever. Private HS.

Now at Ivy - their “brainiac” friends are in the library nonstop. Devastated they don’t get into the right business club. Devastated with choices with Greek life. Devastated by not getting the next “rung” (internships, coffee chats, etc).

Then there are other kids that are really low-key and easy-going that end up rolling with the punches. None of this makes or breaks them. Now those low-key kids (including mine) are in the ultimate student leadership positions of the Ivy and no one knows how it happened. The PE internships are just falling in their lap.

Strange tbh. Those other kids - my kids friends - intuitively have perfect stats, perfect scores, perfect college grades (which mine definitely doesn’t have) perfect everything. But they are frankly just overwhelmed by constantly seeking perfection. They almost can’t cope or deal with the fast balls that come their way.

What you think is the perfect environment for your kid may actually not be. We have been so surprised.

My kid always said they were bottom 50% of the class when they matriculated. But now? Leading everything. President of uni knows on first name basis on speed dial.

I wouldn’t over rotate on your kids perceived strengths. What you think of is a strength man being a weakness and vice versa.

You can’t over engineer this. Cream rises. Let your kid figure it out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you are assigning value to the SAT that isn’t true. Lots of brainiacs at many schools.

I don’t think you can tell the difference between a kid scoring a 1540 and 1400 if you meet them on the street.

OP here. Please no flame, but at our school, DD and 2 close friends who are similarly smart but not genius types scored 1530-1540 first try, minimal prep. While a true brainiac kid who has been brilliant since 1st grade scored 1600 first try, no one was surprised. Other friends told us their kids scored in the 1300s and need tutors to get up to 1450-ish. Those are the kids who always needed tutors and consistently performed a band under the 1540 kids (bc the school have different tracks for core subjects since middle school) and def under the 1600 kid. We have known all these kids since K and it's been very consistent. I disagree you can't tell the difference between a 1540 and 1400 kid, just as I can tell the difference between my 1540 kid and the 1600 kid. I have also seen kids who were happy in normal courses and got pushed by parents to get tutored into the advanced track math and chem classes and ended up having to drop back down to non-advanced track the following year.

I truly think kids do well in the track they naturally excel in but all have a chance to be very successful when they grow up if they learned in an environment where learn with peers with similar aptitudes and build confidence.

Everything that you mentioned likely has more to do with your school than the kids.

Anonymous wrote:I think you are assigning value to the SAT that isn’t true. Lots of brainiacs at many schools.

I don’t think you can tell the difference between a kid scoring a 1540 and 1400 if you meet them on the street.

+1

It's really not an important part of life. Just like, go check where everyone you work with attended college. Good chance most are not T30 schools (or even T50). Good chance you report to someone (or a few levels up from you) who didn't even attend a T100 school.

Anonymous wrote:Some flaws in your first post:

Dartmouth is on year 2 of test required.

Chicago takes a lot of middle-of-the-road private school kids who apply ED and are full pay. There may be some geniuses there but also a lot of completely regular kids who got a great great education at a strong private in NYC, Boston, DC but were totally average kids.

A big flagship like UCSD probably still have a larger number of "genius" kids (whatever it means) than Chicago.

Some self prep is known as prepping.

Also, Georgetown since they require all scores to be submitted.

Anonymous wrote:I agree that SAT scores provide information, but not that much: A group of students scoring 1550 are going to do slightly better, on average, than a group scoring 1500, but if you compare one 1500 student with one 1550 student, the odds that that 1550 student will do better are only a bit above 50 percent.

Much more important is what they are interested in and how hard they work. A student who is passionate about English literature will be better off in a class full of students who are equally passionate and who read a lot for fun than a class full of kids with 1600 SAT scores whose dream is to go into consulting and get rich.

Come on, everyone knows that the best writers are people who speed-read short passes to identify literary jargon.

W & M

Top tier
MIT, Caltech, CMU, Berkeley EECS (noted EECS)

Second tier
UIUC, UMichigan, UCLA, UMD... a few state flagship

Some flaws in your first post:

Dartmouth is on year 2 of test required.

Chicago takes a lot of middle-of-the-road private school kids who apply ED and are full pay. There may be some geniuses there but also a lot of completely regular kids who got a great great education at a strong private in NYC, Boston, DC but were totally average kids.

OP's obsession with fine graduations of score as determinant of personality and compatibility is lunatic.

To humanities moms above, take a statistics course at a local community college.

If I understand correctly, your goal is a high concentration of genuinely talented, less overly-prepared students in the T20 institutions?