Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it depends on the college.

Very few colleges require all scores -- I think only MIT and Georgetown. Most others accept self-reported superscores, so they won't even know if the score was achieved at a single sitting or over six attempts.

On the common app you have to give the date of the score, so the schools have access to the information that the scores come from different sittings. Whether they relay that information to the reader is another question, and also the readers may not care.

On the SAT where there are just two scores this won't matter much because it's not excessive to take a test twice (but it 100% does at Georgetown and MIT) . But on an ACT where there are more sections scored - if your scores come from 3-4 different dates, I think it'd be noticed.

Anonymous wrote:The whole thing is so stupid. DS raised his score on the SAT by taking a course and using a private tutor. While we are happy with the result, all it showed was that he could improve on the test with a combination of money and effort. What is that really saying about anyone's application? How does this weigh as heavily as the hundreds of hours he puts into clubs (over 4 years, I assume he'll continue this year)?

lol Yet you took advantage of it and are on here now to criticize it. Got it.

Anonymous wrote:Superscoring needs to go. Limit SAT attempts to three tries spread out over 6-7 available test dates. Give people who need accommodations whatever accommodations. And leave it at that.

lol OK bud.

Anonymous wrote:The whole thing is so stupid. DS raised his score on the SAT by taking a course and using a private tutor. While we are happy with the result, all it showed was that he could improve on the test with a combination of money and effort. What is that really saying about anyone's application? How does this weigh as heavily as the hundreds of hours he puts into clubs (over 4 years, I assume he'll continue this year)?

Clubs…. Currently AOs don’t put much weight on those. It’s only for your own wellbeing that you keep doing it for four years.

The whole thing is so stupid. DS raised his score on the SAT by taking a course and using a private tutor. While we are happy with the result, all it showed was that he could improve on the test with a combination of money and effort. What is that really saying about anyone's application? How does this weigh as heavily as the hundreds of hours he puts into clubs (over 4 years, I assume he'll continue this year)?

Anonymous wrote:There is zero way for a school to see that you are “one and done” unless they require all scores.

You could have taken it 5 times and only report the score from the sitting with the best results.

This just isn’t a big deal. At all.

If you select "submit all scores" and only one is there, it's obvious.

Anonymous wrote:Kid is at HYP… doesn’t matter.

It does at some schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:THEY DO NOT CARE, DC is one and done 1580, NMF, all 5 on AP, did not get in top 20

Impossible to know what happened here without GPA, AP # and ECs.

Sure .. UW4.0, most rigorous, all AP/IB +magnet, Ok EC presidents of 3 clubs - related to major

Must have bad teacher recs. What happened?

UCs don’t even accept teacher recs.

Some people on here seem desperate to hang onto the belief that the American system is just and rational. Sometimes that desperate need to justify an unjust system descends to the point that people assume some kid they don’t know must be defective. It’s appalling.

They’re all good kids. It’s a bad system. Highly-qualified kids fall through the cracks all the time.

I am happy with holistic review even though DC has high stats. Most of time it's just and rational, but only if you are willing to consider applications holistically.

Taking UC as an example, they don't take test scores, and don't take recommendation letters. That eliminates one standardized factor, and one highly subjective factor. By isolation, it's only logical to deduce that there is a red flag in other parts of the application. PP may not even realize what it is, but it's there.

College results do not define the kid, so the kid is never defective. Regardless the college results, the kid will most likely be successful in the future. But the application has some defects in it for sure.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:THEY DO NOT CARE, DC is one and done 1580, NMF, all 5 on AP, did not get in top 20

Impossible to know what happened here without GPA, AP # and ECs.

Sure .. UW4.0, most rigorous, all AP/IB +magnet, Ok EC presidents of 3 clubs - related to major

Must have bad teacher recs. What happened?

UCs don’t even accept teacher recs.

Some people on here seem desperate to hang onto the belief that the American system is just and rational. Sometimes that desperate need to justify an unjust system descends to the point that people assume some kid they don’t know must be defective. It’s appalling.

They’re all good kids. It’s a bad system. Highly-qualified kids fall through the cracks all the time.

He was qualified by stats only. Not being admitted to ANY T20 with those stats means he wasn't compelling as an applicant, or he aimed too high early and then was an oversubscribed major in the RD pool (being another CS/Eng/STEM major male in RD can be the kiss of death if nothing stands about or is special about your application bc those spots are mainly gone by RD), with poorly customized (shotgun) applications.

Here's a warning for CS/Eng/Business and sometimes math majors: make sure your kid is competitive for your REA beyond the stats. The stats only get you in the door. After that, EVERYTHING else counts - and counts A LOT.
So much other advice here (find the "lessons learned" long thread).
GL.

Superscoring needs to go. Limit SAT attempts to three tries spread out over 6-7 available test dates. Give people who need accommodations whatever accommodations. And leave it at that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do colleges/universities give greater weight to “one and done” scores vs. superscores ACT or SAT? Assuming the difference is apparent in the reporting.

Asking this in the overall context of scores being just one piece of the overall puzzle.

As you note, scores are one part of the admission decision. Would a one and done be looked at more favorably by AOs, probably.

But schools want to post the highest possible ranges on their CDS so don’t care how those 1500+ scores are achieved.

Let’s give the short answer…schools that superscore don’t care at all…the AO doesn’t look more favorably because they just don’t care.

Anonymous wrote:Do colleges/universities give greater weight to “one and done” scores vs. superscores ACT or SAT? Assuming the difference is apparent in the reporting.

Asking this in the overall context of scores being just one piece of the overall puzzle.

As you note, scores are one part of the admission decision. Would a one and done be looked at more favorably by AOs, probably.

But schools want to post the highest possible ranges on their CDS so don’t care how those 1500+ scores are achieved.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools should give far greater weight to a "one and done" applicant vs. a superscore one.
The applicant spending additional funds and time for multiple test sittings tells you something about that person.

You are making this up. It's simply not true.

Colleges that superscore will see the superscore in Slate.

Said should give far greater weight to a "one and done" applicant.

They don't care about one-and-done, at least for SAT. ACT is different.

Why do you think this?

Some colleges superscore SAT but not ACT, primarily because ACT was designed to be a test of stamina (and speed). Schools that don't superscore ACT typically care about the highest composite score and use that in their review/admissions algorithms.

I’ve noticed that some state schools in ACT states don’t superscore SAT. E.g. UIUC, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota. I assume it’s because they don’t want to superscore ACT for the reasons PP has explained and don’t want to give OOS kids an edge.