<p>My D#1 had a similar profile to the OP's daughter--she was in a large, high-achieving, AP oriented public school though. While she did not take the MOST challenging curriculum at her high school, she took honors and AP classes. She did not take calculus senior year, but she did take AP Statistics. Her grades were always excellent, and trended up from a 3.75 freshman year to a 4.0 by senior year. Her test scores were above average but nothing special. </p>
<p>She was quite aware that she wasn't as "smart" as her friends, but she made up for that by sheer hard work. She studied longer, prepared more, did extra math homework, etc. I believe her grades are a function of that hard work. Her test scores correlated very closely with her percentile rank on ITBS all the way through elementary school and middle school--she was always 75-80th percentile, and that's exactly where she ended up with the SATs AFTER three retakes and a Kaplan class. </p>
<p>She is THRIVING at a small liberal arts college where her test scores are above the 50th percentile. Her work and study habits are orders of magnitude more disciplined than her fellow students. She was a little bit bummed out at first because she had trouble finding a peer group of people as driven as she was, but she's won several awards and got a prestigious research job this summer, which almost never goes to freshman.</p>
<p>I second the recommendation to do some test prep, but look for colleges where your daughter's test scores are above the median. If she's done well because she's diligent and hardworking, putting her in an environment where everybody is brilliant and just shows up and does well can be very discouraging.</p>
<p>3K wrote, "I view the MBTI as a tool for self-exploration."</p>
<p>And, that is how it is meant to be. In fact, many of the "problems" associated with the the MBTI is that people accrue it more "power" than was ever meant to be. It is a merely a starting point for most people to begin analyzing their type. The results of the MBTI is not your four-letter personalty type. The real work begins after the test! </p>
<p>Very few people read the type description that comes with the results from the MBTI and say, "That's me". Most do not. It's more common for someone to say, "Well, this part is fairly accurate, this other part isn't like me at all, and I'm not sure about this part..." With a well educated, well trained consultant/counselor - one begins to discern one's type. Occasionally, one's "true type" is nothing like the results predicted by the MBTI. But, the process was still instrumental in understanding oneself.</p>
<p>3K, "The PhD psychologist discussing our results also spoke about gender differences and age in expressing preferences. We use different preferences in middle life for example. She also talked about the role of learned behavior and how that results in preference difference."</p>
<p>Exactly. But, one's true type remains the same. It's just that at midlife we begin access our tertiary functions, etc. We've all seen this happen. The corporate CEO who was a driven taskmaster father becomes a "tender" grandfather, etc. His same "true type" that identified him as the CEO - would also predict his maturation and new "gentleness". </p>
<p>"I guess the point I'm making is that the test report itself does not use such definitive language. In fact it says, "every person is too complicated to be completely explained by a few questions, no matter how good the questions."</p>
<p>That is also my point. The MBTI does not decide one's personality type. That was not the purpose of the instrument. The MBTI is merely a list of topics to consider - it's all about your preferences. While, the MBTI instrument may be the best "starting point" for the majority of individuals to consider preferences. However, many "types" do better with a more holistic approach. It is a process not a product. </p>
<p>The end result is just a description of psychological preferences - how we prefer to use out mind.</p>
<p>Thank you reflectivemom for the more nuanced and complete explanation. It is always hard on a BB to fully understand. Speaking with my N intuition type, I still struggle with the language of "one true type" though. There are a ton of studies on MBTI and gifted identified students, and the preference types change from elementary to secondary school based on development.</p>
<p>Stanford78, I can't help with the whole MBTI debate (isn't that a carcinogen of some kind?) but here in the real world, there are a few things you can do. First, accept that college admissions these years are more competitive than ever before - competitive beyond belief. That means that our kids won't necessarily be attending the college(s) that we had envisioned them going to when they were growing up, based on our general feel for which kinds of schools kids of various types were likely to attend. Based on the limited information you posted, absent any other compelling data, your daughter probably won't be attending Stanford. On the other hand, my kids, who test in the 98th - 99th percentile, but get more B's than A's, aren't going to Cal like I did, either. On that subject, while it might kill you to think about it, as Calmom points out, the UC system has consciously adopted an admissions policy which gives greater weight to GPA than to test scores. If you live here in California you might check out the various UC campuses and their qualities. You might be pleasantly surprised at what you find. (Cal67, son of Stanford41 and Stanford43 - and we all survived!)</p>
<p>3K wrote: "There are a ton of studies on MBTI and gifted identified students, and the preference types change from elementary to secondary school based on development."</p>
<p>Most experts do not advocate administering the MBTI to those less that 13-14 years old. It isn't because their "type" changes - it is that their ability to "self-examine" and not be "lead" by other's preferences is less developed.</p>
<p>There are several books written to assist parents in "observing" their children and identifying their type more holistically. I've found those books to be very helpful. Most parents will see consistent patterns - age adjusted of course - throughout development. </p>
<p>Most kids can discern their type using more simplistic models in elementary school. Our elementary school began using a model based on colors with first and second graders and it was amazingly predictive! And, it was amazing how well these kids understood their friends!</p>
In the current context, where I brought up the issue, your alternative is to lump everyone together in a single, one-size-fits-all category, measured by the SAT. Talk about "artificial categories": how many kids are branded for life by that SAT score? </p>
<p>If I posted, simply: </p>
<p>*"My daughter has a 3.85 GPA at a public high school in California; her SAT score is 580 Math/ 620 CR; she's interested in studying Russian and dance and plans to apply to Brown, Barnard, NYU, Chicago & Berkeley. Chances?" * </p>
<p>or:</p>
<p>*"My son is a National Merit finalist, SAT's 700 CR/740 Math, 4.3 high school GPA, unsure of major, looking at Lewis & Clark or Evergreen, but prefers a CSU for financial reasons. Advice?" *</p>
<p>On these boards there would be a "category" -- my daughter would be branded as something of a dolt, a "1200" way out of her league, my son would be seen as crazy not to aim higher. Of course, these are hindsight examples --we know in hindsight that my daughter was accepted at all the schools listed except for Brown -- and I've just given my son's transfer app list, which is a different story entirely from list he had coming out of high school.</p>
<p>But the point is, most people here are quite happy to categorize my offspring as two different animals, one being a 1200 and the other being a 1440, based on a standardized test. </p>
<p>My argument was that personality/temperament/learning style plays an important part in evaluating those test results. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm not denying individual temperament, I'm questioning a made-up taxonomy masquerading as science.
[/quote]
I don't know about Reflectivemom - she obviously knows a lot more about Myers Briggs than I do - but I never called Myers-Briggs "science". I don't view all categorization as being scientific -- for example, "realism", "impressionism", "surrealism" - are not scientific categories, but those labels certainly give us a lot of context that can be used to interpret and evaluate art, and I don't walk into the front door of the MOMA with the same expectations as I have when entering the Met. </p>
<p>We found the personality "category" very helpful at home in understanding some differences among us that often gave rise to conflict and hurt feelings ... and I see some of the statements correlating teaching & learning to personality type gives a lot of insight into why it is that my d. seems so very smart and does so very well on generalized, substantive tests -- but seems to have hit an artificially low ceiling on standardized tests, one that appears to be more than a full standard deviation below her IQ score (if you correlate SAT to IQ, which is what people here seem to be doing). </p>
<p>Given that I now have the added piece of information about college performance for each of my offspring, I've got hindsight confirmation of the personality thing, which definitely goes against the predictive value of the SAT scores. So whether you call it "scientific" or not, the truth is that I think that the personality profile would have had tremendous predictive value as to how each kid would approach college and likely outcomes. </p>
<p>If you don't like "artificial categories" then I would expect to see you at the head of the line arguing for dispensing with the SAT altogether, in favor of a completely holistic, wholly individualized approach to college admissions. If that is not your position... well, then I happen to prefer my more nuanced set of artificial categories than the numerical one produced by the SAT.</p>
<p>Calmom--I don't quite get your dichotomy. I'm not arguing for or against holistic review on this thread (though, of course, it's easy to see i've always been in favor of it.) I have no interest in an SAT tussle--there's an over-abundance on this board without me adding any more to it,and none of my comments here addressed that.</p>
<p>Art is something we invented; dividing into different types makes sense--people created art, and we can categorize it as we please. </p>
<p>But taking who we are, and inventing categories for that, seems qualitatively different, to me. Barnard was plenty able to see your D's intellectual qualities without that schematic to "define" her.</p>
<p>Probably because Barnard read the essay and letters of recommendation,and so they had a lot of "personality" info, even if they didn't define it in M-B terms. I do know that in addition to her rec letters, her g.c. asked 3 of my daughter's teachers who were not supplying recommendations to each provide 3 adjectives to describe my daughter, and then included that in his letter of rec. The word "ambitious" came up more than once. I'm sure that one word conveys more info about how well my d. would do in college than any test score. </p>
<p>I don't have a quarrel with how the college process went for my d. Obviously it WAS holistic - obviously the colleges did look at grades and accomplishments and personality and treated them as more significant than the test score. </p>
<p>I am uncomfortable with some of the statements that have been directed here toward the OP and her daughter. Yes, those scores hurt as far as admissions to elite colleges. Do they mean that the daughter does not have the right stuff to attend an elite? I don't know -- I'd look at her performance in high school, coupled with info about how rigorous the school is and how her GPA looks in relation to others, as a better indication as to what type of college she might do well at. Are those scores invariably fatal to the d's application to a more competitive college? I don't know... but people who purported to be experts at college admissions pretty much told me that my d. was wasting her time applying to Barnard. </p>
<p>I think that the OP's kid should find some safeties and then also apply to wherever she feels she wants to go, whether or not she retakes the SATs. If she focuses on <em>fit</em> rather than where the college lies along the spectrum of selectivity, her chances may be a lot better than people who focus on the scores might think -- assuming that her idea of <em>fit</em> meshes in with what the college is looking for in its students.</p>
<p>With some kids, it's obvious what tier they should aim for because they have grades, SAT scores, and ECs that seem consistent. You can tell from their stats and ECs more or less what type of student they are. Far more, however, have that wild card element: a weak sophomore year, or SAT scores that don't match the grades, or ambitious ECs that might trump SAT scores. For these students, it's tough to decide where to apply since part of their application might scream top tier, while another might suggest that they aim lower, much lower. How then do you decide which are match schools? Such students have to create a greater range in the schools where they apply. Yes, they might get into their first choice, but they might also end up at their "safety." (Of course, it's true of all applicants, but it is especially likely with a student who has a "weak" area.)</p>
<p>I would include SAT-optional schools along with the others, just to make sure that the SATs are taken out of the equation with a few of the applications. She might also have to apply to more colleges than you would have expected to get that range.</p>
<p>Remember, though, fit <em>is</em> everything (unless you need aid, and then aid is everything :))</p>
<p>
[quote]
Such students have to create a greater range in the schools where they apply. Yes, they might get into their first choice, but they might also end up at their "safety." (Of course, it's true of all applicants, but it is especially likely with a student who has a "weak" area.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In this case I think it's critical for the student to fall in love with a "safety" school. Doing so takes a lot of pressure off of the entire process. We started our list for S, now going into his 3rd year of college, from the bottom and worked our way up. When we found the safety school that he could love, I could finally relax a little bit because I knew that he could get into a school that would allow him to thrive. Maybe it didn't have Everything the other schools on the list had, but it had more than enough.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In this case I think it's critical for the student to fall in love with a "safety" school.
[/quote]
Easier said than done. One reason that my daughter did not apply to any test-optional schools is that they were not good fits for her. Her "safeties" were not what she wanted, either -- she started off visiting & even attending some classes at safety colleges, and was very much disappointed in the perceived lack of rigor/challenge at those schools. </p>
<p>However.... going back to Myers-Briggs... my daughter's an extrovert. Now that she has been to college, she took a class in psychology of personality, and she learned along the way that extroverts tend to be optimists, who bounce back rather quickly from set backs. They tend not to dwell too long about the bad things that happen to them along the way. Self pity and melancholy is not for them. </p>
<p>And without all that psychobabble -- I figured out when my d. was about 6 years old that she was happy anywhere that she could make friends, and miserable where she couldn't. Hence my feeling that UC Santa Barbara, widely known as a party school, was a fine safety for her. Sure she would have been miserable for about 20 minutes if college rejections or finances had left her with no other choice. But she would have shifted focus quickly enough... all she would need was one good friend who also was going and things would be fine. (And, as it turned out one of her best friends from high school did end up at UCSB... so I know in hindsight that all would have been fine. Somewhat ironically, the UCSB kid was the happiest during the first semester at college among all her classmates. I think her dorm had a swimming pool.) </p>
<p>Anyway, the problem with the "love thy safety" rule is that sometimes the kid really wants something different. Fortunately, many people are flexible enough that they can aim for their dreams and weather disappointments with little difficulty. </p>
<p>And as to the "finding a match" issue: I am now firmly convinced that there is no such thing as a "match" ... there are either colleges where you are sure of being admitted or colleges where you are not. Sure, the odds vary among the non-safeties from "probable" to "highly unlikely".... but it's also more probable that I will roll a 7 than an 11 if I am playing craps. Probability doesn't mean all that much in the long run. </p>
<p>So while I don't have any more kids applying to college... if I did, I think I'd insist that they apply to 2 safeties and pretty much let all the rest fall in the "whatever you want" category... rather than foster a hierarchical approach. The problem is that I think it can be more painful emotionally to be attending a safety after being rejected from a bunch of "match" schools than if all the rejections came from reaches.</p>
<p>Sometimes a kid is just a 24. It does not mean they test badly or anything else. I could practice every waking hour and never run the 100 yard dash in under 11 seconds. I'm just slow.
That score shows enough basic smarts to do well in college if you work hard and stay away from astrophysics.</p>
<p>I'm firmly in agreement with building the list from the bottom up, but I'm not ready to lump all of the non-safeties into the "whatever you want" category (my recent experiences notwithstanding). In my view, a match school is one that is more selective than the safeties, but that the kid has a reasonable shot of getting accepted at. I think that a more challenging environment is a better fit for some kids, and think that the more selective schools may be more challenging. </p>
<p>Having said that, in the fog of January you don't know how accurate your match predictions are, as I have learned in the past year. January's list is written lightly in pencil, while April's list is in indelible ink.</p>
<p>My S applied to seven excellent schools, selecting them based on the quality of the program, school size, location, etc. Unfortunately, in creating the original list, there weren't many schools that met his criteria that fell between the safety and reach levels. Based on the stats and acceptance rates, I "knew" that my S would get into his three "safeties" and not into his two "long-shots." He had one "match" (where I though he had a pretty good chance) and one "reach" (which could go either way). We were pretty much planning on the "match" school for the following year. The "safety" and "long-shot" decisions came in as expected, but he was rejected at the "match" and waitlisted at the "reach." </p>
<p>I suppose I misjudged the probabilities, and that my S's chances at the match and reach weren't as good as I thought. However, we are only talking about two coin tosses here, and probability is meaningless in hindsight. It made me wonder if I misjudged the safeties, too--maybe they were statistical "matches" rather than "safeties," and he was lucky to get into them. But no, he got merit money at two and an honors program at the third, so I think my high-prob estimate was sound on those. </p>
<p>So he was left with three choices, and we learned during a mid-April visit what it meant to "love your safety." (A belated Amen to curmudeon.) I'm thrilled with where my S is headed next year, and it may be a better "fit" than those from which he was rejected.</p>
<p>This experience might seem to support Calmom's contention of letting the kids apply "whatever they want" beyond the safeties, but I still think for many kids it is important to apply to a broad range of schools that could be a good fit, considering as best as possible the odds of getting accepted.</p>
<p>Without crafting a good list of match schools, it might be too tempting for some kids to think "I've got my safety covered with Podunk U, now I'll just throw some hail-Mary's." Or they might not apply to the perfect school for them because they think there is only a 30 percent chance that they will be accepted, and who wants to deal with rejection? Since we really don't know what the odds are upfront, we could do worse than "Pick Three from Column A, Three from Column B, and Three from Column C."</p>