Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can tell from our naviance that 1520 and up kids get into HYP. No real difference btw red and green in that zone. Still lots more red

DP: but the ones who got in could be legacy with lower score

Or it could be that with all the time they saved by not being test bots, they did more productive things that enhanced their appeal.

Stop assuming that every kid who has high test did it through hours and hours of personal tutoring and multiple re-takes. Some kids really are just that naturally high scorers with no prep. And are also the ones with high grades. amd the ones that learn fast enough to maintain the high grades and have time to pursue extracurriculars at a high level.

That's why one sitting matters (contrary to many here).

If a kid gets in the range of 1580-1600 one and done, it's very very hard for AOs not to notice that remarkable score.

Wrong because almost every school (except CMU and Georgetown) doesn't even see that remarkable score.

On the Common App you report the date(s) the test was taken and then next to verbal and math you report the dates those scores are from, so the school does know if the aggregate score is a one and done or not

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can tell from our naviance that 1520 and up kids get into HYP. No real difference btw red and green in that zone. Still lots more red

DP: but the ones who got in could be legacy with lower score

Or it could be that with all the time they saved by not being test bots, they did more productive things that enhanced their appeal.

Stop assuming that every kid who has high test did it through hours and hours of personal tutoring and multiple re-takes. Some kids really are just that naturally high scorers with no prep. And are also the ones with high grades. amd the ones that learn fast enough to maintain the high grades and have time to pursue extracurriculars at a high level.

That's why one sitting matters (contrary to many here).

If a kid gets in the range of 1580-1600 one and done, it's very very hard for AOs not to notice that remarkable score.

Wrong because almost every school (except CMU and Georgetown) doesn't even see that remarkable score.

they do if you send it

But they also see that score if you have it but it's not "one and done", and you don't send the lower score.

Anonymous wrote:Caltech treats 1570+ differently.

Data released in SFFA showed Harvard treated 1560+ differently.

Dartmouth report says the same.

Prove it.
Everything I find is comparing races within SAT brackets, and shows that the average SAT score (half below !) even for the highest scoring race (Asians? is only 1535)


SFFA was comparing 1500+ SAT Asians to 1400- SAT URM, not broken down to details like 1500-1550 vs 1550-1600

Even if you found data showing higher admit rates for higher SAT scores, that still wouldn't prove the point until you controlled for other measures of interest (GPA, rigor, EC awards)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can tell from our naviance that 1520 and up kids get into HYP. No real difference btw red and green in that zone. Still lots more red

DP: but the ones who got in could be legacy with lower score

Or it could be that with all the time they saved by not being test bots, they did more productive things that enhanced their appeal.

Stop assuming that every kid who has high test did it through hours and hours of personal tutoring and multiple re-takes. Some kids really are just that naturally high scorers with no prep. And are also the ones with high grades. amd the ones that learn fast enough to maintain the high grades and have time to pursue extracurriculars at a high level.

That's why one sitting matters (contrary to many here).

If a kid gets in the range of 1580-1600 one and done, it's very very hard for AOs not to notice that remarkable score.

Wrong because almost every school (except CMU and Georgetown) doesn't even see that remarkable score.

they do if you send it

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can tell from our naviance that 1520 and up kids get into HYP. No real difference btw red and green in that zone. Still lots more red

DP: but the ones who got in could be legacy with lower score

Or it could be that with all the time they saved by not being test bots, they did more productive things that enhanced their appeal.

Stop assuming that every kid who has high test did it through hours and hours of personal tutoring and multiple re-takes. Some kids really are just that naturally high scorers with no prep. And are also the ones with high grades. amd the ones that learn fast enough to maintain the high grades and have time to pursue extracurriculars at a high level.

That's why one sitting matters (contrary to many here).

If a kid gets in the range of 1580-1600 one and done, it's very very hard for AOs not to notice that remarkable score.

Wrong because almost every school (except CMU and Georgetown) doesn't even see that remarkable score.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My student was accepted to a HYP with a 1530. He was WL at Duke, which was test optional last year (he did submit the 1530) and was later admitted off the WL. Counselor thought that schools like Duke wanted to see a 1550+ because they feel the need to keep those averages as high as possible while HYP is more comfortable in its admissions strategy and doesn’t need to prove itself. Anything above 1500 is strong in their view.

Duke, Vandy, Washu, Chicago, at these schools, a high test score helps their image.

Straight from the mouth of a WashU AO “770 on Math is fine and nothing above is an advantage but 770 and above Verbal is an advantage”. Makes sense give the much higher number of high Math scores relative to high Verbal scores.

WashU: 1550 75%ile SAT, 42% submitted scores.
That means about 90% of WashU's class scored below 1550.

Maybe a 1550+ would get a scholarship offer to boost the school's phony stats

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can tell from our naviance that 1520 and up kids get into HYP. No real difference btw red and green in that zone. Still lots more red

DP: but the ones who got in could be legacy with lower score

Or it could be that with all the time they saved by not being test bots, they did more productive things that enhanced their appeal.

Stop assuming that every kid who has high test did it through hours and hours of personal tutoring and multiple re-takes. Some kids really are just that naturally high scorers with no prep. And are also the ones with high grades. amd the ones that learn fast enough to maintain the high grades and have time to pursue extracurriculars at a high level.

That's why one sitting matters (contrary to many here).

If a kid gets in the range of 1580-1600 one and done, it's very very hard for AOs not to notice that remarkable score.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can tell from our naviance that 1520 and up kids get into HYP. No real difference btw red and green in that zone. Still lots more red

DP: but the ones who got in could be legacy with lower score

That's not a thing. Data indicates legacy admit scores skew higher not lower than other admits. Harvard rejects tons of legacies every year.

Among the admitted legacies, grades and test scores were indistinguishable from non-legacy students. Both groups had an average SAT score that surpassed 1430. Once on campus, legacy students tended to have slightly higher college grades, but their involvement in campus activities, merit awards, academic recognition and on-time graduation rates were indistinguishable from non-legacy students. In sum, legacy students, on average, were about as academically strong as non-legacy students, neither superior nor inferior."

https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-why-elite-colleges-cant-give-up-legacy-admissions/

Butt that doesn't mean it's fair!

Consist this scenario (with made-up numbers)

1000 top legacy applicants with similar stats as 10000 top non legacy applicants.
500 of each are admitted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can tell from our naviance that 1520 and up kids get into HYP. No real difference btw red and green in that zone. Still lots more red

DP: but the ones who got in could be legacy with lower score

Or it could be that with all the time they saved by not being test bots, they did more productive things that enhanced their appeal.

Stop assuming that every kid who has high test did it through hours and hours of personal tutoring and multiple re-takes. Some kids really are just that naturally high scorers with no prep. And are also the ones with high grades. amd the ones that learn fast enough to maintain the high grades and have time to pursue extracurriculars at a high level.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can tell from our naviance that 1520 and up kids get into HYP. No real difference btw red and green in that zone. Still lots more red

DP: but the ones who got in could be legacy with lower score

That's not a thing. Data indicates legacy admit scores skew higher not lower than other admits. Harvard rejects tons of legacies every year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can tell from our naviance that 1520 and up kids get into HYP. No real difference btw red and green in that zone. Still lots more red

DP: but the ones who got in could be legacy with lower score

Or it could be that with all the time they saved by not being test bots, they did more productive things that enhanced their appeal.

Anonymous wrote:I can tell from our naviance that 1520 and up kids get into HYP. No real difference btw red and green in that zone. Still lots more red

DP: but the ones who got in could be legacy with lower score

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For schools going back to test required, it might be the case that very high test scores are now more valuable than they were in the previous five years.

For Chicago (TO), what would be a good score?

1530+, but ideally 1550