<p>Mallomar, I know what you mean...I know one or two people who didn't study, didn't stress, didn't do anything, and got 2400s. They're brilliant, and they're my best friends. I didn't get a 2400, but frankly, I didn't want a 2400, because that opens me up to all sorts of problems...frankly, I would've hated to get a 2400, because that makes me look obsessive/compulsive/perfectionist, etc. However, my score was certainly good enough to attract attention. ^_^</p>
<p>
[quote]
frankly, I would've hated to get a 2400, because that makes me look obsessive/compulsive/perfectionist, etc.
[/quote]
^I totally agree. I feel that this did me in in college admissions.</p>
<p>"I think a 2400 score can sometimes indicate an obsessive/compulsive personality. Someone who spends way too much time perfecting a "number." Almost pathological."</p>
<p>sour grapes??</p>
<p>No. For someone who scored a 2400, its surprising you chose to ignore the word "sometimes" in my post.</p>
<p>
[quote]
what is so great about running a mile under 3 mins or climbing mount everest?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>BTW Simba,</p>
<p>No one has ever run a mile in under 3 minutes. The record is about 3:43</p>
<p>What' sad to me is that my DH attended an information meeting where he was told that the school assumes that if you are from particular areas of the country, the admissions office assumes you had test prep.</p>
<p>Unfair! I don't like the assumption that a kid's excellent score was achieved only through assistance. It diminishes the accomplishment of those who walked up to the plate and knocked the ball out of the park on their first at-bat, based on their innate abilities and efforts.</p>
<p>^^^ One way to discern whether a kid "knocked the ball out of the park" the first time around would be to look at how many times that kid took the SAT. But because schools seem to combine subscores to come up with the highest possible composite at the clerical level, the admissions office never knows whether the score it sees for a particular kid is the result of multiple takings and mixes and matches of subscores, or a single outstanding sitting. I guess they don't care. The ACT is slightly more transparent in this respect, since the vast majority of schools don't combine subscores to come up with the highest possible composite. OTOH, ACT kids only need to send schools their highest possible composite.</p>
<p>In the instance I'm discussing, the SAT was taken once, in junior year. PSAT was comparable, but slightly lower. Never took the SAT for talent searches.</p>
<p>Makes me wonder if the GC letter should mention the score is a one-shot, no prep, if the admissions folks only see the high scores and don't realize what's a superscore vs. a one-timer...</p>
<p>I hear ya, CountingDown. I think it's unfair, too. Seems like that single, spectacular sitting ought to be worth something! Unfortunately, I think it's not worth anything. Schools seem to focus on the combination of highest possible subscores, regardless of how many tries it took to earn them.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Makes me wonder if the GC letter should mention the score is a one-shot, no prep, if the admissions folks only see the high scores and don't realize what's a superscore vs. a one-timer...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Interesting question!</p>
<p>Of course, there's no way to confirm that there was no test prep or whatever... Test prep makes me sick. How do you convince a college admissions officer that you didn't have it?</p>
<p>My son received a 2310 on the March SAT. First time, no prep except he subscribed to the "SAT Question of the Day" service from College Board.</p>
<p>I know a lot of kids like yours, Fresno, but how do you tell that to a college? GC recommendations?</p>
<p>They probably don't care because either way a high score raises their mid 50th numbers. After that point the high school transcript is likely to show more about the applicant's ability. Someone who walks into the SAT with no prep and gets a 2400, if they have any motivation at all (we will assume they do), likely has some spectacular achievements noted in their transcript and record. If they don't, this probably would demonstrate to the admissions officer that multiple sittings and test prep got the high score, or that there was no motivation and potential was wasted. </p>
<p>And I also think they would hesistate to get too worked up because it is after all ONE day of testing. Someone may have taken it more than once because they were extremely sick the first time, or depressed for some reason, etc, and the next time they could get a much higher score. In that case someone may just cancel scores but there are other things that could go wrong. Some people have been surprised by their scores and found that they inadvertantly missed a question early in a section, and then of course most answers after that were incorrect. It is a mistake anyone could make in a time crunch. So for something relatively important, making it just one shot could lower the importance ascribed to it for everyone - there could be very uncharacteristic things that go wrong that one time and then it's not a valid indicator of an individual's ability.</p>
<p>Princedog,</p>
<p>I think this is where superscoring is a good approach -- a bad day, a tester sitting next to you who sniffles and coughs the entire time, etc. -- all of these can affect a single sitting score. And I have no objections at all to taking the test more than once -- I took the SAT three times back in the dark ages (this was VERY unusual at my southern HS where less than 1/3 of the kids even WENT to college), the third time in hopes of getting a superscore that would qualify me for a scholarhsip. (Note to readers: Do not take the SAT on the day of the prom, whether or not you have a date.)</p>
<p>What bothered me is some colleges assume we've bought and paid for services because we live in XX part of the country. DS did a couple of practice essays to make sure he could get through the essay in 25 minutes, and did practice sections out of the Blue Book targeted to the types of questions he missed on the PSAT (in his case, idioms and CR analysis of literary works vs. technical/factual articles). In total, he spent maybe 6-7 hours in the six weeks before the test.</p>
<p>Maybe what the folks at many universities tell us is true: The SAT is used to make sure that the applicant can "do the work." So, at any given college, there is something akin to a magic number, and scoring much above that number doesn't matter much. They know the applicant can "do the work," so now it's time to look at the rest of the picture?</p>
<p>How to convince colleges you didn't have test prep? Take the SAT 5 times and have a slow progression of score along these lines:</p>
<p>2000 -> 2100 -> 2200 -> 2300 -> 2400</p>
<p>Mafool, that sounds like an accurate description of the college admissions process to me. My opinion obviously doesn't matter, but I have to say I don't agree with it. Obviously a student who scores a 2400 (and aces subject tests and APs) is different from a student with a 2200, or even a 2300. For colleges to minimize that distinction is sad. I wish colleges recognized and valued exceptionally smart students. Why pick the student with lower scores? I honestly DON'T think that more school awards or club leadership positions or cushy activities/summer programs should make one student more desirable in admissions than another with higher test scores...unfortunately colleges seem to pick students who have these things and maybe not perfect test scores, under the assumption that they are more special than students with higher academic ability. But that bothers me--people go to college to learn and be brilliant in the classroom primarily. And there's no dearth of smart kids who do great things out of the classroom...there doesn't have to be a tradeoff. Colleges seem to think there IS a tradeoff and they've gone even further, setting aside academic ability and valuing outside accomplishments even more. Doesn't make sense to me when the whole point of college is to learn and employ your talents. (I guess it does make sense when you realize, cynically, that the college is building a class that will attract it the most attention.)</p>
<p>Mallomar - your argument does make sense - but only under that the assumption that the SAT is a perfect measurement of both intelligence academic potential. Certainly, the SAT by NO means ideally reflects either. Frankly, drive, motivation, passion, perseverance, willingness to succeed - THESE are far more important factors than the "innate intelligence" that the SAT supposedly measures. The students with these character traits are the ones who will go farthest in life.</p>
<p>Besides, with all of these tutoring programs, it's impossible to differenciate the effortless 2300 from the 5-months-of-relentless-studying 2300.</p>
<p>Also, I firmly believe that anything over a 2250 shows mastery of the SAT.</p>
<p>In my opinion, doing well on that test measures only an ability to do well on the test - not one to do well in life.</p>
<p>Mallomar you answered your own questions by your comment about "applying your talents". I think if you stop and think abit you'll realize that each step you take starting about age 15 or 16 is taking what you've learned and applying it to life. This in the intangible that colleges look for. The "best choice" for a sports team but not be the guy that scores the most free throws or runs the fatest quarter mile, it might be the more average guy that somehow pulls the team together better than anyone else. The "best candidate" for a job might be the person who can't put a sentence together on paper but has incredible critical thinking skills. The best first chair instrumentalist might not be the most technically profficient but may play with an emotion that draws the entire section together. Tough lesson you're learning, but hopefully you can move past this and move forward with your life.</p>