<p>To provide balance and to relieve some anxiety, a lot of students do improve after their first sitting with little or no prep based on test familiarity. I thought Papa Chicken’s threads at the time provided some relief on this point, though admittedly anecdotal.</p>
<p>I joined CC over this whole issue of SAT prep and re-taking. Until CC, we naively believed prepping and re-taking was an issue for re-medial students. We only heard late in the Junior year that my son’s peers were prepping seriously for years. So he takes the very first March administration of the new SAT cold and scores 800CR, 710M, 690 (11)WR, 2200. Prior to receiving his scores, he made the decision to sit for the exam twice since he had to register for the May sitting before March scores were even out. </p>
<p>The consensus on CC at the time was that if he re-took and somehow scored lower than his 800CR, it would diminish the impact of the original 800 score. He is a strong math student and felt his score did not indicate his true abilities. He re-took with no additional prep as there was no time because he was sitting for 5 or 6 AP tests at the time. In fact the timing for the May exam was not optimal. It was the Saturday right after AP exams concluded. Exhaustion might be a factor. He scored 800CR, 800M, 710 (11) WR, 2310. He felt he was more familiar with the test the second time. I stress again, that a lot of students do improve on a second sitting.</p>
<p>Then he took his 3 SAT IIs in June and he was done at the end of his Junior year. I cannot emphasize enough how beneficial it is to know that your scores are in range for your target schools so you can begin to focus on apps and researching schools.</p>
<p>mackinaw, my S did not get 2370. Only 2350. Is this also in the stratospheric range that cannot be easily improved on retake? He did not retake.</p>
<p>I don't believe that 750 on Math would hurt at MIT. But adcoms also look at other components of an application. MIT would consider AIME scores, for instance, and other indications of strength in some particular fields, or passion for some subjects in ECs.</p>
<p>marite, I tend to agree with you. I believe at 2350 you are a serious candidate and won't be denied because of scores. At that level, they are probably looking at making fine distinctions. My S had no science/math competitions, school does not do Intel or have facilities for this, small private school, no debate etc. So, he was competing against Asian Indians who are math nerds and he does not have any passion. He is a very bright kid, amazing intellect, but absolutely no passion or particular enthusiasm.</p>
<p>ramaswami, nobody here can tell you. Presumably your son also took Math IIc. In any case, as Marite says, it's the entire package (curriculum & grades, EC's (and awards and achievements), letters, essays, and an element of luck) -- not just the SAT I, not just the SATs I & II -- that determine admission. If my son had earned 2350 and were applying to MIT or another big tech school he wouldn't have repeated the SAT I. As it was, his uncle, who was a faculty member at Caltech was urging him to apply there and set up a meeting with a member of admission on a visit there, but no dice. My son didn't want that kind of school.</p>
<p>3Ks: Yes, some students' scores do improve on another sitting even without prep; we're talking probabilities and averages here, not absolute determinants. As you mention, there can indeed be some learning just in the form of test experience; that might, on balance, suggest the value of repeating exams, even without rigorously applying the "Xiggi method" (which I would recommend to any student whose scores are substantially below what might be implied by their grades). But on average those with already very high scores have a greater chance of having their scores go down than go up.</p>
<p>Most students do not have passions or academic enthusiasms! The most commonly listed intended major is "undecided." And many students change their minds once in college anyway.</p>
<p>That's a good, focused question, and that is a worry of some applicants. I asked Ben Golub, a student member of the admission committee at Caltech, about score trend evidence once, </p>
<p>to that specific question backed up his more general statement earlier in the same thread, "The summary sheet in every folder does list all scores (which the CB reports). Usually I just glanced at all of them and took the best ones as authoritative." </p>
<p>That's what Harvard means, I am completely sure, when it says, "You may take tests more than once; we consider only your highest scores." It doesn't matter if a subsequent score is lower than a previous score; the higher score is the score that counts for admission evaluation.</p>
<p>
[quote]
A third thing that's implied here is that if your scores are not in the top quartile of all the schools you're applying to, then you might well want to retake with some prep in order to raise your scores.
[/quote]
I'd like to point out something that might seem odd or counter-intuitive at first.</p>
<p>The assumption is that it is better to have scores in the top quartile. However, the MAJORITY of admitted students do NOT have scores in that range, obviously... the majority of students are in the lower 75%. </p>
<p>The reason I bring this up is that the score ranges stay fairly consistent from year to year --- if colleges were strongly favoring students with high end, top quartile, scores ... then you would expect to see a sharp upward trend, especially in the most competitive colleges.</p>
<p>I think that the most likely explanation is simply what I've said before: the scores aren't all that important to the colleges, and they are focused more on <em>minimum scores</em> (i.e., "we want students who have scored at least X") - then on comparative score levels. But I'd also like to point out that where colleges feel compelled to second guess student's likelihood of enrolling, then an above-range score could be taken as an indication that the student is merely using the college as a safety and is unlikely to enroll, especially if the score is too far above range.... so I'm not all that sure that aiming for the top quartile is all that effective. Maybe having very strong mid-range scores is better, because those students have scores that seem like the best fit.</p>
<p>Interesting though, calmom.
I'd caution this approach might depend on state or region though. I suspect some good schools are willing to offer some merit money for those students with scores who appear to be strong candidates elsewhere.
I don't think all schools would write those students off as not being serious candidates.
But that might depend on the school, and how confident it feels from past experience in competing for top students (and how much merit money it has). Examining trends in SAT scores over recent years might be a good way to gauge that, as you suggested.</p>
<p>Replying to post #70, the reason a prudent applicant might desire to have scores in the top quartile, rather than the bottom quartile, of the scores of students who eventually enroll in the college is simply that that is where the higher admission probabilities are. A study </p>
<p>(figure 1, page 7) shows that in one data set from a few years ago, probability of admission rose sharply with higher SAT I scores at MIT (and, to a lesser degree, at Harvard). As the authors themselves point out, maybe that just means that the colleges were selecting on the basis of factors that correlate strongly with SAT scores rather than on the basis of the scores as such, but anyway the observation is that the MANY applicants who come forward with with scores at the low end of a college's score range have a lower probability of admission than the fewer applicants who are at the high end. </p>
<p>Preference for high scores does very sharply distinguish one college from another. Most colleges admit quite a few students with high scores--unless those colleges are practicing strategic yield management--but not all colleges gain the same number of high scorers after students with more than one offer of admission decide where to enroll.</p>
<p>Thanks Mackinaw and Tokenadult. We’re well beyond this now as our son just finished his freshman year. I just know I would have been very uncomfortable telling my son what to do. I think jym626 has the right idea when she left the decision to her son. </p>
<p>The decision to re-take should really reflect an applicant’s satisfaction with each aspect of the application. Second guessing the statistics or how admissions might view additional attempts is the lesser concern in my opinion. </p>
<p>As for the revealed preference study, we noted the SAT admission trend as well. My husband would remind my son whenever Stanford or other admissions officers would go on about how they deny over half the 1600 scorers—they also admit close to half.</p>
<p>Yes, I think so too. It should be the applicant's call, and as long as the applicant is aware of the actual policy of colleges--taking the highest score as authoritative--it is perfectly possible that two applicants with the "same" initial position as to scores will reach different decisions about whether or not to retake.</p>
<p>I am a high school Junior and I was doing some research as to how many times was good to take the ACT (I live in the Western US). To be honest this board has just left me even more confused. To give a little bit more background information about myself, I’m the oldest child, and I am looking at being first generation, not for college, but for out of state. My parents, aunts, uncles, even grandparents went to the local college where we live. My parents can not offer financial support.
The high school I go to is an Early College high school, which means that juniors and seniors are able to take up to two college class on campus (at the local college), these aren’t AP or CE classes, I’m currently in a Bio 1610 class with 400 other college freshman. To be able to do this I had to take the ACT late winter my Sophomore year, I decided to take it again a few months later in the summer, I didn’t study much more, but I improved from my original score of a 26 to a 28.
I was not aware that one could take the ACT too many times. I will be supporting myself once I go to college, and my goal was to study, take lots of practice tests so that I could get my score high enough to qualify for some decent merit based scholarships (32-34). I know things like my math and writing, science etc. have improved a lot since the last times I have taken it just because I learned more. I am planning on taking the December test, and my school will be offering a free one in March for all the Juniors.
Is this overkill? I am smart, but not brilliant and I know if I study I can achieve better scores. Is taking the test so many times really going to hurt me? Especially if I improve each time?</p>
<p>Don’t worry. Take it in December and March and see how you do. The important thing is to make sure that your transcript doesn’t keep the old scores. </p>
<p>There are only a few elite schools that frown on multiple tests. As a parent, I think it is good practice to take it a few times. If you are having an off morning, so be it and just register again. </p>
<p>My son took it 4 times and by the last one he had the format down and felt great with his score. My daughter just took it in Oct for the 3rdsame time, however she was sick on the day of the test. She will probably register again for the february test which is fine. I just want her to not have to worry about testing during senior year.</p>
<p>That’s how I feel, I want to be all done with it by my Senior year so that I can worry about applications and scholarships, it seems like there’s not many opportunities to take it during your Senior year anyway because most colleges are wanting your stuff early winter.</p>
<p>This summer I went to an information session at Harvard and here’s how the guy put it. I don’t remember verbatim but you get the gist.</p>
<p>“If you take it once, take it twice, even thrice, good for you. When we see you took it 16 times, we wonder why you didn’t list it as an extracurricular activity”.</p>
<p>^^But H takes Score Choice, so they only see the times you want it counted for your Superscore. Y on the other had does not allow SC and tends to have a different POV:</p>