Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But how many kids who ultimately get in the 1500s start out around 1350 and then study and tutor up to the 1500s? I'll put my own kids in that bucket. And I know that's the way it is but man the rat race we've created that rewards the kids who can afford those privileges...

(shrug) life should reward people who work hard over a long period of time.

Ugh - what is the point of "working hard" to achieve a score though on this test? I'd so much rather kids spend time working hard at a job or in classes or on activities they enjoy. Or just relaxing and not working hard. And it is absolutely a privilege and a luxury to be able to get a kid tutors and classes to boost their scores. That's one of the reasons schools like Bowdoin went test optional in the first place, because these scores are falsely inflated.

It's quite the privilege to have an opinion like that. Many families need their kids to go to the best schools they can so that they can guarantee getting the best job they can so that they can lift their families out of poverty or even from a slowly dying middle class existence. Some people don't have the wealth of social welfare networks such as extended family or generational wealth to buttress them. Hopefully their next generation or the one after that can have your laissez-faire attitude.

You're missing the point entirely. Of course kids should go to the best schools they can. The point is their admission shouldn't depend on SAT scores.

NP. So this entire thread is yet another on why you think SAT scores are not relevant? Some colleges disagree, as several top schools have gone back to requiring scores after trying test optional.

Still, many schools are still test optional. Apply to those if you are not interested in submitting test scores.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm confused... you're asking why your kid didn't get an A on the SAT?

No--- I'm asking why 1350plus is not "smart enough" for most top schools

You are conflating different things. The majority of kids in our public magnet, get above 1300 on the SAT. The average grade in each high school class is typically a low A(90 and above is an A here). The tests have plenty B grades or occasional C but the overall semester average results in about half the students getting an “A” because of homework and participation grades. It is what the principal tells the teachers to aim for: half As. This is true in the lowest math class and the highest, and it is also true at my friend’s school: she teaches in the city at a public with an SAT average of 1000 and that school also has about half the kids get 90 or above for a semester average, sometimes more like 2/3 because they do test retakes below 85. Result: the top half of the graduating class in her school and mine has almost all As. Yet completely different SAT ranges. The A says nothing about SAT or intelligence, it is just a grade reflection a certain level of mastery that is frankly a low bar(tests and quizzes make up less than half the grade).
Ok for colleges: pre-test optional at the top 15-20 schools in the country had a median SAT of just below 1500. A 1350 is FAR below the 25th percentile for these schools even pre-test optional. A 1350 is “not smart enough” to get in because these schools accept and matriculate almost all 98-99th percentile kids even pre test optional. A 1350 is smart enough to pass college , at any school, because these schools do let in 1150-1250 athletes all the time and they pass. That group of athletes does not do well in the challenging majors and are often firmly discouraged or even banned from these majors by their coaches or mandatory academic tutors. Its not that your student could not pass these colleges, likely with mostly Bs and maybe some As depending on major, given that the average gpa is 3.7 at top colleges and the bottom 25% still have over a 3.0. The fact is your student with a 1350 is not competitive enough to get in because there are tens or f thousands of kids out of the 60k who apply to each who have all As AND much higher scores. The top schools let ANY student admitted be premed or start on track of econ major or a physics major: for the unhooked they want students who can change their mind and pick any major with a reasonable chance of doing well. They cannot in good conscience let in a bunch of 1350s or lower when the average student has 1500+: in a curved classes like econ, calc, physics the bottom 1/3 get Cs. As I said the lower scoring athletes are pushed into easier majors where the bottom of the easy courses get Bs . They are admitted for sports. A XC runner who has 1450 wont be banned from a major because he/she wont be flagged as borderline by coach.
You have to reset your thinking to be that of looking for colleges where your kid will fit academically: the 1350 should at least be 25th%ile if not closer to average for your kod’s success. And that is likely the schools that she has a real chance at getting admitted. 1350 should be above the college’s average by a lot if your kid wants premed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But how many kids who ultimately get in the 1500s start out around 1350 and then study and tutor up to the 1500s? I'll put my own kids in that bucket. And I know that's the way it is but man the rat race we've created that rewards the kids who can afford those privileges...

(shrug) life should reward people who work hard over a long period of time.

Ugh - what is the point of "working hard" to achieve a score though on this test? I'd so much rather kids spend time working hard at a job or in classes or on activities they enjoy. Or just relaxing and not working hard. And it is absolutely a privilege and a luxury to be able to get a kid tutors and classes to boost their scores. That's one of the reasons schools like Bowdoin went test optional in the first place, because these scores are falsely inflated.

It's quite the privilege to have an opinion like that. Many families need their kids to go to the best schools they can so that they can guarantee getting the best job they can so that they can lift their families out of poverty or even from a slowly dying middle class existence. Some people don't have the wealth of social welfare networks such as extended family or generational wealth to buttress them. Hopefully their next generation or the one after that can have your laissez-faire attitude.

You're missing the point entirely. Of course kids should go to the best schools they can. The point is their admission shouldn't depend on SAT scores.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But how many kids who ultimately get in the 1500s start out around 1350 and then study and tutor up to the 1500s? I'll put my own kids in that bucket. And I know that's the way it is but man the rat race we've created that rewards the kids who can afford those privileges...

(shrug) life should reward people who work hard over a long period of time.

I'd agree with you if classes in every grade level were rigorous and were graded on a curve. With all the grade inflation and literally "no kid left behind" to repeat a grade even if they're functionally illiterate, actual GPA is meaningless. More so because somehow they deem that a kid in the 90th percentile at a small school in a rural town is as intelligent or college ready as a kid in the 90th percentile in a large suburb or city when it comes to public college admissions in many states. All so they can include some groups of people while excluding others.

Relax, Karen, some barefoot kid from Hog Junction in Grayson County didn't take your kid's spot at UVA.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But how many kids who ultimately get in the 1500s start out around 1350 and then study and tutor up to the 1500s? I'll put my own kids in that bucket. And I know that's the way it is but man the rat race we've created that rewards the kids who can afford those privileges...

(shrug) life should reward people who work hard over a long period of time.

Ugh - what is the point of "working hard" to achieve a score though on this test? [It is far from the only busywork they do from grade K-12. For that matter, they'll do plenty of busywork in college and in the working world.]

I'd so much rather kids spend time working hard at a job or in classes or on activities they enjoy. Or just relaxing and not working hard. [OK your kids can go ahead and do that, then. Meanwhile countless other kids who will compete with your kid for college admission will be working hard on their SAT.]

And it is absolutely a privilege and a luxury to be able to get a kid tutors and classes to boost their scores. [This is just cope. There are so many free resources online now you can study very effectively for free.]

That's one of the reasons schools like Bowdoin went test optional in the first place, because these scores are falsely inflated. [Plenty of elite schools think the scores matter and have meaning.]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But how many kids who ultimately get in the 1500s start out around 1350 and then study and tutor up to the 1500s? I'll put my own kids in that bucket. And I know that's the way it is but man the rat race we've created that rewards the kids who can afford those privileges...

(shrug) life should reward people who work hard over a long period of time.

Ugh - what is the point of "working hard" to achieve a score though on this test? I'd so much rather kids spend time working hard at a job or in classes or on activities they enjoy. Or just relaxing and not working hard. And it is absolutely a privilege and a luxury to be able to get a kid tutors and classes to boost their scores. That's one of the reasons schools like Bowdoin went test optional in the first place, because these scores are falsely inflated.

It's quite the privilege to have an opinion like that. Many families need their kids to go to the best schools they can so that they can guarantee getting the best job they can so that they can lift their families out of poverty or even from a slowly dying middle class existence. Some people don't have the wealth of social welfare networks such as extended family or generational wealth to buttress them. Hopefully their next generation or the one after that can have your laissez-faire attitude.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But how many kids who ultimately get in the 1500s start out around 1350 and then study and tutor up to the 1500s? I'll put my own kids in that bucket. And I know that's the way it is but man the rat race we've created that rewards the kids who can afford those privileges...

(shrug) life should reward people who work hard over a long period of time.

Ugh - what is the point of "working hard" to achieve a score though on this test? I'd so much rather kids spend time working hard at a job or in classes or on activities they enjoy. Or just relaxing and not working hard. And it is absolutely a privilege and a luxury to be able to get a kid tutors and classes to boost their scores. That's one of the reasons schools like Bowdoin went test optional in the first place, because these scores are falsely inflated.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But how many kids who ultimately get in the 1500s start out around 1350 and then study and tutor up to the 1500s? I'll put my own kids in that bucket. And I know that's the way it is but man the rat race we've created that rewards the kids who can afford those privileges...

(shrug) life should reward people who work hard over a long period of time.

I'd agree with you if classes in every grade level were rigorous and were graded on a curve. With all the grade inflation and literally "no kid left behind" to repeat a grade even if they're functionally illiterate, actual GPA is meaningless. More so because somehow they deem that a kid in the 90th percentile at a small school in a rural town is as intelligent or college ready as a kid in the 90th percentile in a large suburb or city when it comes to public college admissions in many states. All so they can include some groups of people while excluding others.

.....vast majority accept superscores

Sorry, the above post was meant for the poster devaluing multiple attempts to score 1500.

I actually agree with your post.

There is a reason colleges are moving away from test optional and vast majority except superscores.

I feel like an outlier on this topic, have one kid that had perfect stats and gpa at a top school. Second kid has 97% SAT score with prep being 2 practice exams, but a low gpa at a tough private where they get mostly B’s with an occasional A. I don’t think they could keep up at a top school despite high SAT.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is a lot of easier to get all As than top 10% or top 1% in SAT/ ACTs. Approx 40% of the 3.7million people applying have all As but only 1% have over 1500. That still is 37K students for top ranked schools to pick from.

1350 is a decent score but you are not in the top 1% of the population. Grading system in schools is screwed up so you are really measure students caliber based on grades.

Do those 1% have 1500 in one sitting or with superscore?

I know many kids that got 1500+ in one sitting, some even on their first attempt before 11th grade. Comparing anything under 1500 to kids in the 1500s is, well, not comparable in some sense because like pp has said, there are literally 10s of 1000s of kids in that group and most selective schools have small freshman classes. Yes, you can test prep to a 1500 but at least that shows a bit of diligence that will help those kids succeed in a selective school. I hate the 100% privilege argument (we are not wealthy at all) because there are things like Khan Academy and other free or cheap resources such as YouTube and the local library that are really good and accessible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is a lot of easier to get all As than top 10% or top 1% in SAT/ ACTs. Approx 40% of the 3.7million people applying have all As but only 1% have over 1500. That still is 37K students for top ranked schools to pick from.

1350 is a decent score but you are not in the top 1% of the population. Grading system in schools is screwed up so you are really measure students caliber based on grades.

Do those 1% have 1500 in one sitting or with superscore?

Here's the fun thing, it doesn't matter. Your 1500 counts just the same either way.

it doesnt matter. "A" grades are also earned based on effort throughout the year and in many cases with multiple retakes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is a lot of easier to get all As than top 10% or top 1% in SAT/ ACTs. Approx 40% of the 3.7million people applying have all As but only 1% have over 1500. That still is 37K students for top ranked schools to pick from.

1350 is a decent score but you are not in the top 1% of the population. Grading system in schools is screwed up so you are really measure students caliber based on grades.

Do those 1% have 1500 in one sitting or with superscore?

Here's the fun thing, it doesn't matter. Your 1500 counts just the same either way.

Anonymous wrote:But how many kids who ultimately get in the 1500s start out around 1350 and then study and tutor up to the 1500s? I'll put my own kids in that bucket. And I know that's the way it is but man the rat race we've created that rewards the kids who can afford those privileges...

(shrug) life should reward people who work hard over a long period of time.