19:24 here. Maybe I wasn't clear. The scores are the most important part of the package. If you mean "mediocre... can be determinative" ... of *rejection,* then I wholly agree. But what I mean to say is that great test scores are often insufficient. W.o great test scores, it is much tougher.

Sorry but my strong sense is that mediocre SSAT scores can definitely be determinative.

Re "I got the impression that these schools do not routinely see many 99s on this test," I don't think that is true - they see quite a lot of them. Remember, "99th%" is both 99.0% (one of 100 kids on a universal norm - not just of kids taking that test) and 99.9% (one of 1,000). And kids have both verbal and math. So even at the tip top there is a range. Some of these schools weight also the school visit, and if the teachers don't like you or think you won't fit in well, then even 99.9 won't help (I know a case like this).

My impression from watching several grades apply K-8 to HS: 99 range and well rounded and likable is almost a sure winner. 99 and likable also a great bet. But if the 99 is not there, it gets harder and harder. And if there is one big strike against, then chances go way down.

As we saw in action, high SSAT scores are not the only predictor of college potential. We saw a kid with really high SSAT scores turned down in favor of somebody else in the class with mediocre SSAT scores and wealthy parents ... making this kid a good college prospect for non-academic reasons, I guess.

SSATs are the best possible proxy for later performance on the SAT. Top tier schools care about your kid's ability to get into college, which makes SATs (and thus SSATs) really important. SATs are on their way out as a college admissions measure, but they aren't out yet. To the extent that you're applying to a top tier school that cares about it's ultimate exmissions to colleges that care about SATs (some care more than others), they are going to be a big deal.

Like discussions about the "big 3", test scores are also the third rail. SATs are on their way out because studies show conclusively that they are fiercely tied to socio-economic factors and may possibly only indicate how someone might do only during their first semester of college. There will be big changes ahead for college apps and it will trickle down to SSATs as well. One private school AD told me that SSAT scores are generally used to help understand the big picture about the student. They do not have the heavy weight that many presume them to have.

My son got into all but one of the top schools he applied to. ERBs were OK and SSAT scores were good with verbal being exceptional and math could have been better. The schools all told us he blew them away in the personal interview and his teachers loved him and wrote great letters. He also was pulling all A's and wrote great app essays. Some kids just don't test well and schools know this.

I've also known a number of kids who did well testing and academically but had little personal depth. They did not get in. The smartest kid I ever knew growing up was academically brilliant. He was turned down at all the top schools because he simply did not come across well in the interview. We need to look at the big picture and not just one factor.

With the SATs now being phased out, my colleges are now saying that they will be putting alot more weight on the interview and writing.

Oh no, here we go again -- snarky posters added to a request to define the Big 3. I think I'm out of here!

Who are the "Big 3"?

13:07, here's another example for your study on cyber-bullying!

A pointless post that pretends to ignore the first poster's obvious question.

"Are many kids getting 99th percentile on their SSAT scores? If they do get 99th percentile, how likely are they to get into some of these schools? How important are the SSAT scores to the schools? "

Of course not. 99th percentile means that 98% of the kids get less than 99%.
Lets hope your kid gets their brains from someone else.

Anonymous wrote:Um, Sidwell (and other peer institutions) want to round out high school classes with actors, athletes, musicians and other talents that may not be present in the community.

Get over yourself.

Combining "um," for an introduction, which everybody here hates, with pointless snarkiness -- how tacky!

Anonymous wrote:Um, Sidwell (and other peer institutions) want to round out high school classes with actors, athletes, musicians and other talents that may not be present in the community.

Get over yourself.

Actually, I'm just doing research on cyber-bullying.

Anonymous wrote:Um, Sidwell (and other peer institutions) want to round out high school classes with actors, athletes, musicians and other talents that may not be present in the community.

Get over yourself.

I know a female soccer player who was recruited by Sidwell (no money offered, so she didn't go), but no musicians or actors. I seriously doubt the theater and musical groups can't be filled from within the existing ranks of well-rounded kids with tons of extra-curriculars, who are applying through the regular admissions pool. NCS specifically looks for choristers to fill their evensong program, however.

A lot of kids have trouble with the SSAT -- 99's do not come easily, especially across the board. I've seen more kids with high verbal or math, but not many with such consistently high scores. The schools would not fill their classes if they held out for 99s.

What is a "scaled score?"