<p>has been released, showing score distributions for 1,300,599 members of class of 2007 who took the ACT test (table 2.1). Just 314 of the test-takers attained an ACT composite score of 36, the highest standard score. Other figures about 2007 test-takers can be found in other tables of the report. </p>
<p>Once again "perfect scores" are too rare to fill up even one entering class at an Ivy League college. (Caltech could fill up its entering class with perfect ACT scorers, if only they all applied to Caltech.) But of course colleges are looking for more than just perfect scores </p>
<p>Thanks for posting. Maybe most intriguing part of the report is that only 23% of the students who took the ACT are ready for college courses, or more exactly, only 23% reached the ACT's college readiness benchmarks on all four sections of the ACT. These benchmarks were defined as the point where a student has a 50% change of getting a B or higher and a 75% of C or higher in college English Composition, Algebra [not calc!], Social Sciences, and Freshman Bio. The benchmark scores that they use to calculate this are--with the possible exception of Science--not particularly high:</p>
<p>On the one hand, it's a bit discouraging. On the other, it gives some context about the cultuure on CC, where students agonize about whether to take the test again to improve from a 31 or 32.</p>
<p>
[quote]
only 23% reached the ACT's college readiness benchmarks on all four sections of the ACT.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That illustrates why there is some room in SOME college for anyone who makes an honest effort to get ready for college. No one need end up with no acceptances at all, because the number of college-eligible high school seniors in the United States is double the number of college-ready students. </p>
<p>The ACT also acts as a means for students with average or less grades to decide whether they should even consider the 4 year college route. We have to remember that only around 1/4 of adults will have a bachelor's degree, we truly are thinking in the stratosphere on this site.</p>
<p>It is interesting. I think the number of 36's last year was even smaller. And just 238 2400's last year. Makes you wonder why so many people feel a need to denigrate the perfect score achievement, especially in the case of kids who hit it on the SAT, ACT and SAT II's. First of all, there's so FEW out there that it's not as if they're going to hog all the spots at the top schools. Second, that kind of consistant analytical accuracy (and don't forget the essay!) really should count for quite a lot. I wouldn't let it make up for bad grades but I do think our world needs folks who can maintain their poise under sustained pressure and keep figuring out the right answer. I say hats off to these kids and yes I am biased because of my daughter's 36 but it won't even count because it was part of a talent search. I'm not Asian but I can't help but feel much of the perfect score put downs I see all over CC and hear among many parents is subtly anti-Asian. I even saw one poster the other day urge an Asian mom whose son had a very high initial SAT score to not test again in case he got a 2400 and that would make him look bad! Crazy.</p>
Consistency and accuracy are much better achieved through machines and computer programs. Human progress will be - and largely has been in the past - driven by creativity, innovation, leadership, and cooperation - none of which are demonstrated by perfect SAT scores.</p>
<p>Fine. Program a computer to take the SAT and score 2400. Even better, program one to score 36 on the ACT. Sorry I'm just not buying your line of thinking. And don't forget the essay.</p>
<p>Unfortunately these perfect scores frequently bring with them the assumption of hours and hours and hours obsessing over perfection in test scores above all to the detriment of a teenage life lived. The which turns out to be quite important in the development of a person who will have impact in the larger world. Which is, in the end, what all the elite colleges hope for in their matriculants. </p>
<p>I imagine that your 8th grade daughter , mammall, did not sit for hours in her chair studying. However, there is more evidence beyond the story of your daughter that many kids do just that. No one is denigrating the ability she must possess to score so high so young. We are responding to several years of listening to kids and parents discuss.</p>
<p>Believe me, as one of the posters advising against retakes, I was doing so after reading post after post after post on this topic and was NOT doing so in any way whatsoever as an Asian bias. In fact trying to be of help to someone who is Asian and just dipping their toes into American university applications which are quite different from those in Asia.</p>
<p>Humph. I find myself rather insulted by the accusation. Harrumph. Must go do something very WASP-y. Iced tea anyone?</p>
<p>Another point. Taking the SAT or ACT requires the ability to read. So far no software has been produced that can do that. Scan? Sure. Read with comprehension. Nah. And if we ever do see that, my guess is that several 2400s and 36s will be quite involved with the achievement.</p>
You missed my point entirely, which is that "consistent analytical accuracy" is only one small part of being a pioneer in an academic field, and that the SAT does not give any positive indication of the other, in my opinion, more rare and valued traits which I mentioned.</p>
<p>All a perfect scorer indicates over a near-perfect scorer is that former has a bit more "consistent analytical accuracy", in that he or she answered one or two more problems correctly. Now, if the near-perfect scorer has better other qualifications better demonstrating ingenuity, leadership, etc. than the perfect scoring candidate, most would argue (like all college admissions offices) that the near-perfect scorer has a better chance of success in terms of moving his or her desired field forward.</p>
<p>Sorry to have implied that. It may be that my perspective is somewhat skewed because my daughter absolutely did not spend time at all preparing for the ACT beyond reading through the brochure that came once she registered and acquainting herself witht the question structure. So maybe I really don't understand what goes on out there in some houses. Maybe some parents really do enslave their kids to prepping. But does that really ever produce a perfect score? Somehow I doubt it. And maybe we should instead educate parents to how impossible it is to "prepare" to get a perfect score. The whole idea really is sad. If that goes on, then I'm with you. But I still think we are awfully cynical if we assume that every perfect ACT or SAT score is the product of insane prepping. My cousin got a perfect SAT score years and years ago and please believe me, he didn't prep. He also had terrible grades and went to the public U where he was just fine and eventually made some nice contributions in his field. I don't understand what they were but they must be pretty good because he's a prof at a pretty elite school now and does lots of consulting and has several really pretty horses and brews his own beer.</p>
<p>As I think we've already established, the perfect scorer is not going to take away many spots whatsoever from other deserving candidates. The 309 perfect ACT scorers in 2007 most likely included some kids with lousy gpa's. I say fine, weed them out of the selection process and if their essays and recs are creepy throw them out as well. But beyond that I think these kids have earned the right to have their applications viewed at a true premium among the pack.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Believe me, as one of the posters advising against retakes...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Fortunately, I'm a dad, so mammall couldn't have been speaking to me. :D</p>
<p>But, I too, recommended against the retake based on a story an Ivy adcom shared: applicant had a 2300+ (which is good enough for government work and admission anywhere), but yet retook the SAT three more times in search of the "true premium among the pack." The adcom commented that the final, 2380 was "very nice...but I also had to wonder if this kid did not have anything better to do on a Saturday morning..."</p>
<p>btw: I have NEVER read anyone on cc denigrate a 1600/2400/36.....perhaps I'm reading the wrong threads. :)</p>
<p>Fine fine. Mammall you sure are persistent. I, who have no impact on anything, I give you that some percentage of the total perfect scorers is wildly brilliant and should be absolutely at the top of the academic pack they evaluate. And it's probably a somewhat higher percentage than you can find amongst the 600 scorers. (I will get flamed for that....) But, hmm, I just can't believe it's that much different than the percentage amongst those who scored 750-800 on everything. I really can't. Unless backed up by other evidence of brilliance like recs or something....</p>
<p>Heck, I guess I should just hope that those who score 35 on the ACT, all 2000+ of them, are also looked at as deserving of a premium. Even if they are juniors in high school and um haven't cured cancer and um have a few A-s on the ol' transcript let's just say:). Hehe. Personal interest there, sorry.</p>
But why? What does a 2400 SAT score indicate about a student's potential that a 2300 score does not? The two things you mentioned before were (a) rarity and (b) "consistent analytical accuracy". Rarity does not imply quality (few people win the lottery, but that doesn't mean lottery winners are any more "skilled" than anyone else), and I've mentioned that consistency is not as important as other attributes in innovating academic fields.</p>
<p>So why, besides being a nice round number, does a 2400 deserve significantly more consideration for acceptance than a 2300?</p>
<p>Alumother -- when it's about our kids it's always personal. I'm not saying the 36's and 2400s should be idolized. And Marite's son blows me away with his achievements. It would feel absurd to inquire how he scored on the SAT! But isn't there room at the table for ability manifesting in all ways, including testing? At least it's pretty objective unlike grades. And as we all can see, the 36s and 2400s are very unlikely to grab a spot away from another kid at HYP. There's just too few of them. And I think a 35 is awesome and dearly hope my girl can get that when she takes the test for real in two years. I'm also going to try to get her cultivating ECs (I do pay attention to the wise counselors on CC) but I'm just not that good at telling her what to do. Flute was a disaster. The less said about athletics the better. Leadership? Nope. But she's good at quilt making! Maybe I should enter her in a contest?</p>
<p>Heck, Alumother, if you're going to get all sloppy like that, there why not go slumming and bring along the kids who only scored 34's and 2300's and maybe even have a few <gasp> * **B's* on their transcripts ? We can still fit them all into Ivy's without having to worry about MIT, Duke, Stanford, Caltech, etc., or we could spread them all around and have plenty of room left over for quarterbacks, point guards, and a handful of valedictorians, eh? :)</gasp></p>
<p>I think we're all in the same boat, really. I'm worried about my kid who got a 36 too early (what if she doesn't get it her junior year???) and has not only weak ECs but really NO ECs, and proud of it! Others worry about their kids scores. No one is really secure here except maybe the parents of D1 athletes, Intel winners, Olympiad kids, ???? film stars, olympic figure skaters, ???, novelists (oh yea - that turned out kind of badly for Yale, was it?). </p>
<p>New idea for a thread: Parents of kids who did NOT attend HYPSM and did fantastically well in life. Bring it on, guys! That's the therapy we all need.</p>
<p>You know, we are all in the same boat, we just have different life preservers on:). One concept helps us all on the board survive without virtually killing eachother, at least not too often except of course May can get a little edgy. That concept is - we are all parents who adore our children and wish the best for them and want to advocate that their particular set of charms ought to be the benchmark charms for the golden key.</p>
<p>Hehe. Let's hear it for the B's. WTH. </p>
<p>And really, truly, HYPSM IS NOT NECESSARY to do well in life. It isn't a golden key. There is absolutely nothing anywhere in the universe that can refute that statement. And I am even one who has placed a lot of value on education at highly selective institutions so there you go. Onward and upward....</p>
<p>Only get your girl to cultivate herself. The ECs will follow if that is who she is. Sure, urge a little, noodge a little in time-honored parental tradition. But the ones who eat high school alive are born that way. And trying to make the others do it just burns them out. Others have zero of what you can call ECs, but, they have a rich internal life and a set of committed interests. </p>
<p>It's OK. Join hands. Say OM. We are starting the admissions season.....</p>