Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

anonymous wrote:
They want all this other crap for the same reason banks used to hand out toasters, because there was a limit on how much you could pay out in interest on deposits so the banks gave you a toaster instead. There is a limit on how finely the SATs will select at the right end of the curve so they look to other indicators that you are in the 0.1%

But that is the point- GPA and super high SAT score won't do it. They are required but not sufficient. I think people don't understand the daunting statistics. Yes, SAT in mid 1500 is top 1% but that is still ~20k kids and its 40k if you move the needle to 1500. Ignoring GPA because those are inflated and difficult to compare across thousands of high schools. Either way that is more "qualified" applicants than there are spots at the "Ivy +"

It's because there is a limit. The limit might be their own doing but they have limited the one tool that would give them a finer filter because they didn't like who was getting filtered out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot of our frustration as parents comes from our own outdated understanding of the landscape, which is radically different today. Most of the misunderstanding probably surrounds the idea of "high stats kids" because we are using the metrics and SAT scales from the 90s. It is pretty sobering to realize that an estimated 20,000 students will score at ~1530 or above every year in one sitting (top 1%). With superscoring, that number of students will be even higher. This varies by school type, but I have also seen estimates that nearly 50% of US students will graduate high school with overall averages in the A range.

This! 1530 is the new 1400. 4.0 is the new B. The scary thing is you can't differentiate futher among the ones with 1530+ and 4.0 on numbers. It creates a delusion of "high stats kids."

20, 30 years ago, there are rare, very rare. Nowadays it's not. So many posters in this thread responded with results of their "high stats kids" says they are not rare.

The posts in this thread would have been rare enough in the mid-90s before the SAT got recentered that they would not be anonymous.

Not only were the scores recentered, the test content itself was redesigned to make the score more responsive to studying, right? I do not remember so many repeat test takers in the 90s. There was only so much you could do to raise the verbal score because there were so many esoteric vocab words and logical analogies. People who nailed the verbal section usually benefitted the most from a lifetime of reading, not a year or two of cramming. In any case, it sure was a lot simpler to figure out a realistic college list when we were applying. Today, with so many high stats kids, the kids are frustrated because they see that Joe got into Harvard with the same SAT score as they did while they only got into their decent local safety school.

Yes, this is all true of the mid 90s SAT before recentering (I think it was recentered around 1998). It was less common to see retakes, and very rare to see more than one retake (I don't know anyone who took it more than twice) for the reasons you mentioned and because all scores were reported. I also never heard the term "superscoring" back then.

The very few people I know who got 1600s and 1590s back then tended to be, as you mentioned, lifetime readers who also could read extremely fast, and the types of people who were freakishly good at puzzles. It's no surprise that the kid I know who got a 1600 also got a 179 on the old, very difficult, LSAT.

I wonder how TJ students did in the 90s. Currently the average SAT score at TJ is 1520, which means a good half of the large class of TJ is among the top percentile.
Sure, TJ is a magnet school so the students there are smarter than your neighborhood school. The question remains, is it possible that so many students in one high school are top students according to SAT scores? It would be good to compare their 90s' results.

There are multiple Bay area public high schools which look remakrably like TJ. Test scores aren't quite the same but close enough that they are more impressive when you consider that they take anyone who lives in the neighborhood.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Intense? Yikes My kid was that profile is at an Ivy. Not an intense kid but academically, motivated. Doesn’t like intense. He’s a kind, sweet kid. Didn’t ED or REA anywhere.

Nobody can tell you. My kid had the same grades and stats as other friends, but he was the only one in the group to get accepted to multiple T10/20 schools and I could not tell you why. Unhooked. Typical kid- job, sports, ecs. He usually has bad luck so it was a surprise.

It really becomes a lottery at the T10/20s. Every kid has those stats and similar activities.

He just applied where he thought he would like to go. He had no clear first choice so didn’t want to ED.

Humanities or social science major? That matters. Otherwise, probably just a likeable kid who wrote nice essays and had glowing recs. People tend to underestimate the value of plain old likability in the application process. Even elite colleges prefer to admit nice kids they think will be a positive presence on campus.

I think this is a bigger factor that people realize. These schools do actually care about building their community. A kid I know who got into Yale a couple of years ago was like this—strong academically, well-rounded, but also lovely, delightful, a ray of sunshine—and I’m guessing it was clear in his recommendations and essays.

Are podcasters reading this group thread?

Saw this on apple this morning.
“Hillary, I want to talk to you about something I've been thinking about a lot. I've been wanting to share this on the podcast, but I struggle with how to communicate this, and I just wanted to get your thoughts on it. So one of the things that I find in reading students' writing that really, I guess, just increases their desirability is if they come across very likable.

But yet when you say that, it sounds like a pop-up. Is this a popularity contest? But I really think have a stranger, somebody doesn't know you that well, read that and think, is this a likable person?

How often are you going to really fight for, advocate for, or get attached to someone who you don't find that likable? I doubt very often. I know I didn't when I was in admissions.

Like the whole idea of, and some of it's combined with other things, right? You're likable because you have personal qualities that are going to add. You're likable because you're interesting.”

From Your College Bound Kid | Admission Tips, Admission Trends & Admission Interviews: How Does Being Likeable Impact College Admissions Decisions, Aug 7, 2025

I feel like this has always been the case. People with good soft skills are always going to have an advantage in life as well as people who are intelligent

Anonymous wrote:i've been surprised how well colleges can differentiate between the "complete outlier" top kids and the "have the same stats but are simply very bight" kids----at least coming from private.

I had kids in the class of 2024 and 2025. Both had similar stats as did many of their peers. My one who has the ability to absorb material instantly and generally without any studying was admitted to an Ivy SCEA (24). My one without this ability who had the same grades was not and committed to a non-Ivy RD. Basically I think the colleges got this right. Somehow they were able to tell that Kid #1 is something special from an intellectual standpoint (something we as parents have seen over the past few years as well--when compared to our other 2 bright kids who did extremely well in high school this one stood out). I 1000% saw the same things happen with admissions from their peers from the same high school--the true rockstars got the admits, the same grades but not as brilliant did not. I have to believe that subtle differentiators come through in the recommendations, at least from private high schools where the teachers possibly have more knowledge of the kids. And certainly there are kids who fall through the cracks or end up on the wrong side of the stats as well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid is just a regular smart boy (private school) with a 35 ACT and high gpa/rigor. I never even thought he might have a chance at a top 20 because he is a classic 1990s-style well rounded kid. Athlete, involved in school clubs, part-time job. Nothing national level. Are these type of kids actually applying to top 20s? He would like a school like Dartmouth, Vandy, Duke or Brown, but I told him he would never get in. Should he throw in a few super reach apps?

Yes, he should definitely throw in some high reaches. I reccomend you come up with a RD1, with lots of EAs, and an RD2 strategy in case RD1 doesn’t work out. My private school 3.73 (no weighting at his school) 36 ACT, DS got into a T10 for CS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot of our frustration as parents comes from our own outdated understanding of the landscape, which is radically different today. Most of the misunderstanding probably surrounds the idea of "high stats kids" because we are using the metrics and SAT scales from the 90s. It is pretty sobering to realize that an estimated 20,000 students will score at ~1530 or above every year in one sitting (top 1%). With superscoring, that number of students will be even higher. This varies by school type, but I have also seen estimates that nearly 50% of US students will graduate high school with overall averages in the A range.

This! 1530 is the new 1400. 4.0 is the new B. The scary thing is you can't differentiate futher among the ones with 1530+ and 4.0 on numbers. It creates a delusion of "high stats kids."

20, 30 years ago, there are rare, very rare. Nowadays it's not. So many posters in this thread responded with results of their "high stats kids" says they are not rare.

The posts in this thread would have been rare enough in the mid-90s before the SAT got recentered that they would not be anonymous.

Not only were the scores recentered, the test content itself was redesigned to make the score more responsive to studying, right? I do not remember so many repeat test takers in the 90s. There was only so much you could do to raise the verbal score because there were so many esoteric vocab words and logical analogies. People who nailed the verbal section usually benefitted the most from a lifetime of reading, not a year or two of cramming. In any case, it sure was a lot simpler to figure out a realistic college list when we were applying. Today, with so many high stats kids, the kids are frustrated because they see that Joe got into Harvard with the same SAT score as they did while they only got into their decent local safety school.

Yes, this is all true of the mid 90s SAT before recentering (I think it was recentered around 1998). It was less common to see retakes, and very rare to see more than one retake (I don't know anyone who took it more than twice) for the reasons you mentioned and because all scores were reported. I also never heard the term "superscoring" back then.

The very few people I know who got 1600s and 1590s back then tended to be, as you mentioned, lifetime readers who also could read extremely fast, and the types of people who were freakishly good at puzzles. It's no surprise that the kid I know who got a 1600 also got a 179 on the old, very difficult, LSAT.

I wonder how TJ students did in the 90s. Currently the average SAT score at TJ is 1520, which means a good half of the large class of TJ is among the top percentile.
Sure, TJ is a magnet school so the students there are smarter than your neighborhood school. The question remains, is it possible that so many students in one high school are top students according to SAT scores? It would be good to compare their 90s' results.

Anonymous wrote:It isn't just scoring changes. Keep in mind the number of students taking the SAT has significantly increased. From about 1m in 1994 to over 2m in 2024, that also accounts for the higher number of kids with top scores.

The problem is admission to the highly rejective colleges really is a zero sum game- that leads to all of this back biting and searching for some magic formula.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

anonymous wrote:
They want all this other crap for the same reason banks used to hand out toasters, because there was a limit on how much you could pay out in interest on deposits so the banks gave you a toaster instead. There is a limit on how finely the SATs will select at the right end of the curve so they look to other indicators that you are in the 0.1%

But that is the point- GPA and super high SAT score won't do it. They are required but not sufficient. I think people don't understand the daunting statistics. Yes, SAT in mid 1500 is top 1% but that is still ~20k kids and its 40k if you move the needle to 1500. Ignoring GPA because those are inflated and difficult to compare across thousands of high schools. Either way that is more "qualified" applicants than there are spots at the "Ivy +"

It's because there is a limit. The limit might be their own doing but they have limited the one tool that would give them a finer filter because they didn't like who was getting filtered out.

“They” meaning the colleges? The college board did the redesign and I’m not sure who was responsible. I am guessing that it is partly just business: the less onerous the test, the more “studyable” it is, the more people will pay to take it. Colleges are not really in the business of designing nationwide tests like SAT/ACT, but as a college prof in the sciences, I personally prefer the older, more logic based verbal section. The grade inflation seems to be a systemic high school problem. Some people are angry college admissions offices weight non-metric qualities so highly but they kind of have to because of the severe weakness of the standard metrics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot of our frustration as parents comes from our own outdated understanding of the landscape, which is radically different today. Most of the misunderstanding probably surrounds the idea of "high stats kids" because we are using the metrics and SAT scales from the 90s. It is pretty sobering to realize that an estimated 20,000 students will score at ~1530 or above every year in one sitting (top 1%). With superscoring, that number of students will be even higher. This varies by school type, but I have also seen estimates that nearly 50% of US students will graduate high school with overall averages in the A range.

This! 1530 is the new 1400. 4.0 is the new B. The scary thing is you can't differentiate futher among the ones with 1530+ and 4.0 on numbers. It creates a delusion of "high stats kids."

20, 30 years ago, there are rare, very rare. Nowadays it's not. So many posters in this thread responded with results of their "high stats kids" says they are not rare.

The posts in this thread would have been rare enough in the mid-90s before the SAT got recentered that they would not be anonymous.

Not only were the scores recentered, the test content itself was redesigned to make the score more responsive to studying, right? I do not remember so many repeat test takers in the 90s. There was only so much you could do to raise the verbal score because there were so many esoteric vocab words and logical analogies. People who nailed the verbal section usually benefitted the most from a lifetime of reading, not a year or two of cramming. In any case, it sure was a lot simpler to figure out a realistic college list when we were applying. Today, with so many high stats kids, the kids are frustrated because they see that Joe got into Harvard with the same SAT score as they did while they only got into their decent local safety school.

Yes, this is all true of the mid 90s SAT before recentering (I think it was recentered around 1998). It was less common to see retakes, and very rare to see more than one retake (I don't know anyone who took it more than twice) for the reasons you mentioned and because all scores were reported. I also never heard the term "superscoring" back then.

The very few people I know who got 1600s and 1590s back then tended to be, as you mentioned, lifetime readers who also could read extremely fast, and the types of people who were freakishly good at puzzles. It's no surprise that the kid I know who got a 1600 also got a 179 on the old, very difficult, LSAT.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid is just a regular smart boy (private school) with a 35 ACT and high gpa/rigor. I never even thought he might have a chance at a top 20 because he is a classic 1990s-style well rounded kid. Athlete, involved in school clubs, part-time job. Nothing national level. Are these type of kids actually applying to top 20s? He would like a school like Dartmouth, Vandy, Duke or Brown, but I told him he would never get in. Should he throw in a few super reach apps?

Yes, he should definitely throw in some high reaches. I reccomend you come up with a RD1, with lots of EAs, and an RD2 strategy in case RD1 doesn’t work out. My private school 3.73 (no weighting at his school) 36 ACT, DS got into a T10 for CS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think that is one of the reasons colleges want strong extracurriculars, the primary reason being they want engaged students adding to campus life. Perfect grades and top SAT scores while spending 30+ hours a week doing other activities shows they can handle the rigor.
I don't think colleges really want students who will struggle academically, at least not many of them.

LOL. How does a student spend 30+ hours per week on EC's in addition to actual school?

Anonymous wrote:My kid is just a regular smart boy (private school) with a 35 ACT and high gpa/rigor. I never even thought he might have a chance at a top 20 because he is a classic 1990s-style well rounded kid. Athlete, involved in school clubs, part-time job. Nothing national level. Are these type of kids actually applying to top 20s? He would like a school like Dartmouth, Vandy, Duke or Brown, but I told him he would never get in. Should he throw in a few super reach apps?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Intense? Yikes My kid was that profile is at an Ivy. Not an intense kid but academically, motivated. Doesn’t like intense. He’s a kind, sweet kid. Didn’t ED or REA anywhere.

Nobody can tell you. My kid had the same grades and stats as other friends, but he was the only one in the group to get accepted to multiple T10/20 schools and I could not tell you why. Unhooked. Typical kid- job, sports, ecs. He usually has bad luck so it was a surprise.

It really becomes a lottery at the T10/20s. Every kid has those stats and similar activities.

He just applied where he thought he would like to go. He had no clear first choice so didn’t want to ED.

Humanities or social science major? That matters. Otherwise, probably just a likeable kid who wrote nice essays and had glowing recs. People tend to underestimate the value of plain old likability in the application process. Even elite colleges prefer to admit nice kids they think will be a positive presence on campus.

I think this is a bigger factor that people realize. These schools do actually care about building their community. A kid I know who got into Yale a couple of years ago was like this—strong academically, well-rounded, but also lovely, delightful, a ray of sunshine—and I’m guessing it was clear in his recommendations and essays.

Are podcasters reading this group thread?

Saw this on apple this morning.
“Hillary, I want to talk to you about something I've been thinking about a lot. I've been wanting to share this on the podcast, but I struggle with how to communicate this, and I just wanted to get your thoughts on it. So one of the things that I find in reading students' writing that really, I guess, just increases their desirability is if they come across very likable.

But yet when you say that, it sounds like a pop-up. Is this a popularity contest? But I really think have a stranger, somebody doesn't know you that well, read that and think, is this a likable person?

How often are you going to really fight for, advocate for, or get attached to someone who you don't find that likable? I doubt very often. I know I didn't when I was in admissions.

Like the whole idea of, and some of it's combined with other things, right? You're likable because you have personal qualities that are going to add. You're likable because you're interesting.”

From Your College Bound Kid | Admission Tips, Admission Trends & Admission Interviews: How Does Being Likeable Impact College Admissions Decisions, Aug 7, 2025