Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am confused as to why this is more of an issue at private schools. At public schools, dozens of kids apply to the same competitive schools and the chips fall where they may. There isn’t the same level of ownership over the process. Everyone knows they have zero control and they have a “might as well try” attitude.

I think because it is a very rare kid who does perfectly or close to it at the top privates. When a kid has a 3.98 or 4.0 they tend to get in everywhere they apply: Stanford, Princeton, Duke, Rice, Penn, Brown etc.
This was the admissions pattern for this type of kid in 2022 and 2023 at the Big3 school my kids attend.

It's enough of a unicorn that they do incredibly well.

You’re not a unicorn if you apply TO. More like a jackalope.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1 1/2 pages through this thread and not a single mention of test scores. Just GPA. Or rank, which is derivative of GPA. A little nod to rigor, which can be very subjective, too. But nothing about test scores.

How embarrassing. What a flawed system, regardless the type of class a college is trying to build through admissions.

Everybody’s got a 34; 35 or 36. That really does not make a difference to admissions officers. Hate to break it to you.

That’s not accurate. And who cares about 34 or 35 if we’re writing off 3.8 and 3.9 GPAs?

Less than 2,500 per year with a composite 1600 or 36 in their first and only administration. That’s your 4.0 unweighted equivalent.

My daughter has a friend who scored 36 in one sitting and was rejected from Princeton, Middlebury, Williams, and Wesleyan and waitlisted at Syracuse last spring. Excellent grades and rigor at a top 5 boarding school in Mass. That made me lose my faith in test scores mattering 😂

If all those schools reached the same decision - it’s not an accident

All those schools. All four of them, all with extremely low acceptance rates across the board. 😂🤣😭

Anonymous wrote:I am confused as to why this is more of an issue at private schools. At public schools, dozens of kids apply to the same competitive schools and the chips fall where they may. There isn’t the same level of ownership over the process. Everyone knows they have zero control and they have a “might as well try” attitude.

I think because it is a very rare kid who does perfectly or close to it at the top privates. When a kid has a 3.98 or 4.0 they tend to get in everywhere they apply: Stanford, Princeton, Duke, Rice, Penn, Brown etc.
This was the admissions pattern for this type of kid in 2022 and 2023 at the Big3 school my kids attend.

It's enough of a unicorn that they do incredibly well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Superscoring is weak. It distorts the purpose of a standardized test.

First admin, how did you do? That’s what should be considered.

And sorry to be the bearer of unpleasant news, but a super scored 34 over 4 administrations has nothing in common with a one-and-done 34 (much less 35 or 36).

Will colleges notice if a strong score is achieved one administration? My DC got a 35 in August of Junior year (36 math) and did not take it again.

I’ve read that some schools, like Georgetown, will seek out that information.

Honestly, every admin. after the first is no different than taking a class over, in my view. The AI should see repeat administrations, just as they do with repeated classes that are on the transcript but not factored into GPA.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1 1/2 pages through this thread and not a single mention of test scores. Just GPA. Or rank, which is derivative of GPA. A little nod to rigor, which can be very subjective, too. But nothing about test scores.

How embarrassing. What a flawed system, regardless the type of class a college is trying to build through admissions.

Everybody’s got a 34; 35 or 36. That really does not make a difference to admissions officers. Hate to break it to you.

That’s not accurate. And who cares about 34 or 35 if we’re writing off 3.8 and 3.9 GPAs?

Less than 2,500 per year with a composite 1600 or 36 in their first and only administration. That’s your 4.0 unweighted equivalent.

My daughter has a friend who scored 36 in one sitting and was rejected from Princeton, Middlebury, Williams, and Wesleyan and waitlisted at Syracuse last spring. Excellent grades and rigor at a top 5 boarding school in Mass. That made me lose my faith in test scores mattering 😂

If all those schools reached the same decision - it’s not an accident

Anonymous wrote:Superscoring is weak. It distorts the purpose of a standardized test.

First admin, how did you do? That’s what should be considered.

And sorry to be the bearer of unpleasant news, but a super scored 34 over 4 administrations has nothing in common with a one-and-done 34 (much less 35 or 36).

Will colleges notice if a strong score is achieved one administration? My DC got a 35 in August of Junior year (36 math) and did not take it again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1 1/2 pages through this thread and not a single mention of test scores. Just GPA. Or rank, which is derivative of GPA. A little nod to rigor, which can be very subjective, too. But nothing about test scores.

How embarrassing. What a flawed system, regardless the type of class a college is trying to build through admissions.

Everybody’s got a 34; 35 or 36. That really does not make a difference to admissions officers. Hate to break it to you.

That’s not accurate. And who cares about 34 or 35 if we’re writing off 3.8 and 3.9 GPAs?

Less than 2,500 per year with a composite 1600 or 36 in their first and only administration. That’s your 4.0 unweighted equivalent.

My daughter has a friend who scored 36 in one sitting and was rejected from Princeton, Middlebury, Williams, and Wesleyan and waitlisted at Syracuse last spring. Excellent grades and rigor at a top 5 boarding school in Mass. That made me lose my faith in test scores mattering 😂

There’s also a difference between one sitting and first sitting. If it’s your 3rd or 4th administration and you finally land on 36, is that the same as the kid who did it in their first and only administration? Of course not.

Nevertheless, sure, I’m sure all of us who aren’t living under a rock can point to inexplicable admissions decisions that we’ve heard about.

Essays, ECs, letters of rec, writing sample (for Princeton), meticulous prep of their common app file, etc. A lot can explain what your wrote, albeit perhaps not the Syracuse note.

I am confused as to why this is more of an issue at private schools. At public schools, dozens of kids apply to the same competitive schools and the chips fall where they may. There isn’t the same level of ownership over the process. Everyone knows they have zero control and they have a “might as well try” attitude.

Amazing how everyone’s a capitalist until their kid may not get into college - then they’re all about sacrificing for the common good. Why should anyone decide not to apply somewhere so some other kid may have an infinitesimally better chance of being admitted?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1 1/2 pages through this thread and not a single mention of test scores. Just GPA. Or rank, which is derivative of GPA. A little nod to rigor, which can be very subjective, too. But nothing about test scores.

How embarrassing. What a flawed system, regardless the type of class a college is trying to build through admissions.

Everybody’s got a 34; 35 or 36. That really does not make a difference to admissions officers. Hate to break it to you.

That’s not accurate. And who cares about 34 or 35 if we’re writing off 3.8 and 3.9 GPAs?

Less than 2,500 per year with a composite 1600 or 36 in their first and only administration. That’s your 4.0 unweighted equivalent.

My daughter has a friend who scored 36 in one sitting and was rejected from Princeton, Middlebury, Williams, and Wesleyan and waitlisted at Syracuse last spring. Excellent grades and rigor at a top 5 boarding school in Mass. That made me lose my faith in test scores mattering 😂

Superscoring is weak. It distorts the purpose of a standardized test.

First admin, how did you do? That’s what should be considered.

And sorry to be the bearer of unpleasant news, but a super scored 34 over 4 administrations has nothing in common with a one-and-done 34 (much less 35 or 36).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1 1/2 pages through this thread and not a single mention of test scores. Just GPA. Or rank, which is derivative of GPA. A little nod to rigor, which can be very subjective, too. But nothing about test scores.

How embarrassing. What a flawed system, regardless the type of class a college is trying to build through admissions.

Everybody’s got a 34; 35 or 36. That really does not make a difference to admissions officers. Hate to break it to you.

That’s not accurate. And who cares about 34 or 35 if we’re writing off 3.8 and 3.9 GPAs?

Less than 2,500 per year with a composite 1600 or 36 in their first and only administration. That’s your 4.0 unweighted equivalent.

But those kids are spread out across the nation AND one and only sitting doesn't matter to AOs because of superscoring.

GPA is the product of a hell of a lot more than capacity. Test scores are the common denominator that cannot be influenced by non-capacity considerations.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1 1/2 pages through this thread and not a single mention of test scores. Just GPA. Or rank, which is derivative of GPA. A little nod to rigor, which can be very subjective, too. But nothing about test scores.

How embarrassing. What a flawed system, regardless the type of class a college is trying to build through admissions.

Everybody’s got a 34; 35 or 36. That really does not make a difference to admissions officers. Hate to break it to you.

Correct. It's pretty much baseline for this crowd at the privates. They all have a 34 or 35 or a 1520 and up. 36 and 1600 are more rare but don't seem to move the admissions needle.
GPA is the differentiator.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1 1/2 pages through this thread and not a single mention of test scores. Just GPA. Or rank, which is derivative of GPA. A little nod to rigor, which can be very subjective, too. But nothing about test scores.

How embarrassing. What a flawed system, regardless the type of class a college is trying to build through admissions.

Everybody’s got a 34; 35 or 36. That really does not make a difference to admissions officers. Hate to break it to you.

That’s not accurate. And who cares about 34 or 35 if we’re writing off 3.8 and 3.9 GPAs?

Less than 2,500 per year with a composite 1600 or 36 in their first and only administration. That’s your 4.0 unweighted equivalent.