Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the 1500+ is the first try, sure you should retake. Don’t most kids increase their score after a couple tries?

But if it’s already after 3-4 tries or super scored to get to 1500, then don’t bother bc I have seen it backfire in more than one occasion. Some kids actually do worse by the 4th and 5th try due to testing fatigue and it could really sting their confidence. Also, as parents, we need to remember to put prestige aside. Do you really want to put your 1520 after 5 tries superscore kid in a room full of 1st try 1570 kids and make your DC compete like that for 4 years? Yeah yeah I know you’ll say athletes and donor kids also don’t have 1570 but they have other advantages and you know that’s true.

Plenty of kids do exceedingly well graduating from T25-100 colleges, including many at the top of their industries in our country. Give your DC room to spend time to cultivate other aspects of their app and their life, including their confidence and the innate knowledge that their parents think they and their accomplishments are enough.

Agree with all of this. If your kid wants to retake it and try for 1550+, then go ahead and let them. But if they've already prepped and taken it a couple of times and hasn't reached it and you are the one pushing your kid to retake it, then you're putting too much emphasis on the test and you are sending them the message that a 1500 is not good enough. Everyone here has said that it's just one factor and not determinative anywhere and even with 1550+, there's zero guarantee your child will end of at a T25 college. (Anecdotally, I personally know a 1590 who was shut out of all Ivy plus schools despite strong ECs, leadership, personal qualities, and the parents paid thousands of dollars to an independent college counselor).

Anonymous wrote:If the 1500+ is the first try, sure you should retake. Don’t most kids increase their score after a couple tries?

But if it’s already after 3-4 tries or super scored to get to 1500, then don’t bother bc I have seen it backfire in more than one occasion. Some kids actually do worse by the 4th and 5th try due to testing fatigue and it could really sting their confidence. Also, as parents, we need to remember to put prestige aside. Do you really want to put your 1520 after 5 tries superscore kid in a room full of 1st try 1570 kids and make your DC compete like that for 4 years? Yeah yeah I know you’ll say athletes and donor kids also don’t have 1570 but they have other advantages and you know that’s true.

Plenty of kids do exceedingly well graduating from T25-100 colleges, including many at the top of their industries in our country. Give your DC room to spend time to cultivate other aspects of their app and their life, including their confidence and the innate knowledge that their parents think they and their accomplishments are enough.

Anonymous wrote:I'm not asking for anecdotes or hearsay truisms, just hard data.

Does anyone have any data for any T50 school that indicates a 1500 SAT scorer has a lower chance of admission than a 1550+ scorer? Something like 1500 SAT scorers were admitted at 10% rate, 1550 scorers were admitted at 20% rate?

Anonymous wrote:We were in a similar boat and told two things:

** The application review starts and ends with the transcript and rigor relative to the school they attend—that's far more important than anything else. If that piece is weak, most other things don't matter, including a rocking score (excluding major hooks or lifestyle challenges that are not common).

** Testing alone is not going to get you into a school or keep you out of one. A test score that is within the school's usual range will check a box but never overcome fundamental/foundational weaknesses in the transcript (or other key parts of the application).

We've heard variations of the above from our counselor and three T20 admissions officers in various presentations.

Anonymous wrote:We were in a similar boat and told two things:

** The application review starts and ends with the transcript and rigor relative to the school they attend—that's far more important than anything else. If that piece is weak, most other things don't matter, including a rocking score (excluding major hooks or lifestyle challenges that are not common).

** Testing alone is not going to get you into a school or keep you out of one. A test score that is within the school's usual range will check a box but never overcome fundamental/foundational weaknesses in the transcript (or other key parts of the application).

We've heard variations of the above from our counselor and three T20 admissions officers in various presentations.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a summary of the Dartmouth paper. The first chart is a bit hard to read, but for more-advantaged students, those with a 1500 SAT had about a 6% chance of admissions while those at 1550 had about a 10% chance. So meaningful. Note, this isn't all-else-equal, meaning that the 1550 kids might have been stronger in other areas. Still, which would you rather be?

I'd re-take IF I thought a higher score was possible. But people also reach their limits and hitting your head against the ceiling may not be helpful emotionally.

https://www.nber.org/digest/202504/test-optional-policies-and-disadvantaged-students?page=1&perPage=50

Anonymous wrote:On this forum I have seen posts claiming that Dartmouth published their data that demonstrated how incremental changes after 1500 did lead to higher acceptance rate at Dartmouth. One can argue its correlation as opposed to causation, but as an engineering faculty for many years I believe there is a tangible difference in how fast/well a new concept is learned and in exam performance between a student with a 780 math and another with a 720 assuming these scores are their ceiling after multiple attempts and assuming they have worked reasonably hard in the class.

It definitely looks correlation not causation. The same trend you described is also observed when scores are omitted (solid red line). The increase in admit rate is due to the other parts of the application.

THIS!

Further, you can compare red solid line with red dash line. It couldn't be more clear.
The jump in admit rate is significant in red solid line after 1475+. The jump in admit rate is insignificant in red dash line 1475+.
Excluding test scores, the advantaged students have a more compelling application than the disadvantaged students.

Agree with correlation not causation, with one caveat.

SAT test score only matters for disadvantaged students (but not for advantaged one)!
You can derive this conclusion by comparing blue dash line with red dash line.
The mere difference between blue dash line and red dash line is submission of the test score, where you clearly see a huge difference in admit rates, day and night.

If the student is FGLI, getting 1550+ easily makes them a super star.
For DMV MC kids, unfortunately no. 1580 is not different from 1500 except for Caltech or MIT.
But at Caltech or MIT, 1580 is table stake.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a summary of the Dartmouth paper. The first chart is a bit hard to read, but for more-advantaged students, those with a 1500 SAT had about a 6% chance of admissions while those at 1550 had about a 10% chance. So meaningful. Note, this isn't all-else-equal, meaning that the 1550 kids might have been stronger in other areas. Still, which would you rather be?

I'd re-take IF I thought a higher score was possible. But people also reach their limits and hitting your head against the ceiling may not be helpful emotionally.

https://www.nber.org/digest/202504/test-optional-policies-and-disadvantaged-students?page=1&perPage=50

Anonymous wrote:On this forum I have seen posts claiming that Dartmouth published their data that demonstrated how incremental changes after 1500 did lead to higher acceptance rate at Dartmouth. One can argue its correlation as opposed to causation, but as an engineering faculty for many years I believe there is a tangible difference in how fast/well a new concept is learned and in exam performance between a student with a 780 math and another with a 720 assuming these scores are their ceiling after multiple attempts and assuming they have worked reasonably hard in the class.

It definitely looks correlation not causation. The same trend you described is also observed when scores are omitted (solid red line). The increase in admit rate is due to the other parts of the application.

THIS!

Further, you can compare red solid line with red dash line. It couldn't be more clear.
The jump in admit rate is significant in red solid line after 1475+. The jump in admit rate is insignificant in red dash line 1475+.
Excluding test scores, the advantaged students have a more compelling application than the disadvantaged students.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not that 1500 is a problem. The question really is what other amazing qualities do you have to show for? Most people with lower scores don’t.

This.

It’s actually not difficult to “score” an application to see if it will get to committee or not.

What are the ECs?
Awards?
UwGPA?
Major
Public or private HS?

Not disagreeing with you on the overall logic.
But, the main problem is not get to the committee.
Many applications do get to the committee where stats are not being discussed anymore.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not that 1500 is a problem. The question really is what other amazing qualities do you have to show for? Most people with lower scores don’t.

This.

It’s actually not difficult to “score” an application to see if it will get to committee or not.

What are the ECs?
Awards?
UwGPA?
Major
Public or private HS?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not that 1500 is a problem. The question really is what other amazing qualities do you have to show for? Most people with lower scores don’t.

This.

It’s actually not difficult to “score” an application to see if it will get to committee or not.

What are the ECs?
Awards?
UwGPA?
Major
Public or private HS?

DP agree with this and what someone said earlier that it’s correlation not causation. Kids who easily score a higher SAT after just 1-2 tries without intense prep also tend to excel more effortlessly in music, ECs, school leadership. They get better teachers’ recs. Those things add up to a better overall package to present to committee.

It’s true no one brings an app to committee and say this kid got 1550+ so we should admit them, but if you pool together all the apps that scored 1550+, as a group their overall package would be much more compelling than a group you put together that scored 1450. There are individual outliers of course, but as a group, the 1550 kid will just be stronger overall. If that wasn’t true, they wouldn’t all be returning to test required when test optional increased their application fee revenues and lowered their accept rate. They know it’s not sustainable because they can see patterns of lower performance and faculty complaints tied to test optional. This also tells parents their lower score kids will have a higher chance of underperforming at a top college if most peers scored higher. Put prestige aside and don’t do this to your kid.