<p><a href="http://www.act.org/news/data.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.act.org/news/data.html</a></p>
<p>A quick check shows the following : </p>
<p>Year -test-takers (millions)-36's-35's-34's
2005 - 1.186,193,1617,3729
2006 - 1.206,216,1805,4249
2007 - 1.300,314,2471,5420</p>
<p>Mildly interesting I'd say.</p>
<p>If I had a kid who got a perfect ACT score as a freshman/sophomore, I'd not worry about doing it again. I'd put more effort into encouraging him to pursue some activities that would fulfill his dreams, aspirations, creative urges, need for actualization, social skills, etc. It really doesn't sound like you need to worry about the tests anymore. (Congrats!!! :))</p>
<p>As a point of information, I think a score obtained by a ninth grader on the ACT is perfectly valid for admission purposes. (I am willing to modify this statement if someone can point me to an official college publication that says otherwise.) My son took the ACT as a ninth grader for Talent Search participation too, and he has no intention of ever taking the ACT again. He will take the SAT I once more to coordinate with the year in which takes the PSAT/NMSQT for possible National Merit Scholarship eligibility. All of his previous test scores (mostly for Talent Search, primarily to establish eligibility for distance learning and summer programs) were reported to some subset of colleges he is interested in. I note this year the detail that the national ACT report is based on data from members of class of 2007 who tested in tenth, eleventh, and twelfth grades, but I think a test-taker who aced the test in ninth grade can be done with the ACT, as my son thinks he is, and simply line up an appropriate list of SAT II or ACT tests to bolster a college application.</p>
<p>I, also, think that theres room at many colleges (including Elites) for students without a lot of e.c.s, spectacular e.c.s, etc. A few of those get admitted every year. Marite mentioned that her son was hardly overflowing with e.c.s. He had other things to offer; perhaps mammalls children will, too, in a similar category not related to e.c.s. A long history of accomplishment in one e.c. merely makes it easier for a college to evaluate another dimension of an individual, validating academic potential. </p>
<p>Beyond college, the Elites have tracked the success of their graduates, & have determined an overall (probably not universal) pattern of correlation between pre-college non-academic accomplishment and career success. (An indicator of sustained interest, of independent motivation, of persistence, etc.) Its also been shown that participation in athletics can prepare one well for the workday world, in building tolerance for setbacks, in teaching the values of cooperation along with competition. (I do not have children in sports; Im just noting the research.) Again, Im sure there are many exceptions, in which classic nerds make it without such supplements. HYPSM hardly have a monopoly on great minds. Many future millionaires graduate even from obscure colleges, no college, and public colleges. </p>
<p>Backtracking to the end of my first paragraph, what Ill say about e.c.s in general is that it can be difficult for an admissions committee to guess about the value to their college of a 36/2400/4.0 student if thats all that the student presents. It makes it hard to stand out in a crowd of hundreds of applicants, because I can guarantee you that there will be other applicants to the same Elites, with those stats AND with at least one impressive e.c. Thats just the reality of it. A 36 or a 2400 may be rare, but it is not unique not for any applicant round at any Elite. An interest is valid, but in the competitive pool, the reality is that those whose interests have tangible equivalents (prizes, awards, levels of progress) will be the ones who may be remembered & compared more positively than the ones who are proud that they have no E.C.s. </p>
<p>But in support of the high scores & scorers, I do not necessarily see a problem. If the student is believed to be accurately anayltical, or whatever the phrase was (I forget), then surely that ability will be evident in the classwork for the next 4 years. The people with the worst admissions results at <em>Elites</em> are the ones with perfect scores, much less perfect grades, and no e.c.s. Further, if that student is applying to private colleges, such accurate analysis will be noted by at least one teacher recommender, if not several. Thirdly, the early scores themselves will qualify the student for a variety of off-campus programs for exceptional students which depend mostly or solely on such scores for admission. (Mammall mentioned that the test was taken for that very reason.) Often these early scores are valid for quite some time, without a need for a retake (for later qualifications for diff. programs).</p>
<p>And there still are non-e.c. students who only score high, get great grades. Many of those end up with full-ride merit scholarships at smaller or less visible colleges which highly value that capital in their student body. </p>
<p>Depends on what a student wants. We have a family friend who graduated from such a competitive high school that only the academic maniacs, shall we say, end up with a 4.0. (Grading is curved.)But she herself is quite gifted, scored high, & happens also to be immensely talented in the arts, esp. dance. She swore off the whole admissions frenzy, loathing especially the level of competition & the repetition of essays, lengthy apps, yadayada. This is although she herself, on the strength of even one of her e.c.s (combined with strong academics) could have been admitted to at least one Ivy, if not more than one. Rejecting the U.S admissions scene, she chose the Canadian system instead, graduating from a premier institution, after a simple two-page undergraduate application.</p>
<p>Authors such as Greene (The Hidden Ivies), Loren Pope, and others have written about non-Ivies which recognize promise, focus on intellect, & promote the development of elite minds. Theres a long way to go between 8th grade and December of a students senior year in h.school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There is a world of difference between denigrating perfect scores and NOT dropping to the ground in worship or offering demonstrative genuflections.</p>
<p>There is a world of difference between recognizing the remarkable feat of scoring in the absolute top and endorsing the idea that this performance would mean ... automatic admissions in the most selective schools.</p>
<p>The reality is that 100% of those perfect scorers will have PLENTY of choices among the most selective schools, but not necessarily at ALL of them. </p>
<p>The simple fact that a perfect score does not make ALL schools good choices and good matches is what seems to bug the few who view a perfect score as a substitute for all the elements of an application.</p>
<p>Well, that does seem absurd to expect a 2400 or 36 to open the gates at every elite school. Surely, we all know by now it takes more than that. And we've all met the baby boomer 1600 who can't resist telling us about his SAT score 30 years ago. Really lame. When my daughter got her 36 and I lost all dignity and screamed for a solid hour she was truly disgusted with me. "It's just a number mom. It shows I have an aptitiude for showing aptitude." I just don't think we need to keep insisting that 2300=2400 or 34=36. My kid will never be a varsity athlete or elected to student office. But she does have that 36 such as it is and we do hope it counts for something.</p>
<p>
[quote]
My kid will never be a varsity athlete or elected to student office.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't know the person mentioned here, nor do I know the varsity teams or school politics of the school she attends, but what I like to say to my children is, "If you are interested in something, commit yourself to it and see what happens." The results of any endeavor are always contingent, but I like to make sure my children keep a growth mindset. </p>
<p>
As most see it (for</a> example), they may not be equal, but the difference doesn't matter.</p>
<p>"My kid will never be a varsity athlete or elected to student office."
Relax, neither were many children of CC parents, and they do just fine. My son, without an athletic bone in his body, and way too shy in HS to try for any student office, but with excellent, but not perfect SAT scores and grades, and relatively unique outside interests, was accepted at most colleges and universities he applied to, including 2 Ivy's.</p>
<p>Mammal, maybe the following would explain, in part, why adcoms feel that a 1600 is not significantly different from a 1600:</p>
<p>My son was good at math. He got an 800 on the SAT 1 math section, an 800 on the SatII Math 2 test, a 5 on his AP calculus exam. (B in the class, though. Slacker...) Good at math. But when he retook the SATs, he missed one question on the math part - which dropped his SAT1 math score to 770 - 1 question, 30 points. (It's true. The curve really was that harsh on the SAT1 that time.) Obviously my son was just as good at math the second time he took the SAT's as he was the first. The tests are kind of tricky; it's easy to be fooled on one or two questions - on any section - no matter how well you know the subject matter. </p>
<p>In fact, my son's math knowledge was miles ahead of the level tested for the SAT1, as anyone familiar with the tests would know from his performance on the Math2 SAT2 and the AP calculus exam. But still - he didn't have that "magic" 800 on that test. What does it all mean? Not a lot, just that the difference between 1600 and 1500 and even 1400 probably isn't actually significant in any meaningful way, as the MIT admissions guy noted. Cool for bragging rights, probably not really important beyond that.</p>
<p>kluge,
and additional perspective on test scores... my son missed one question on SATI and scored a 790. He took the AP Calc and scored a 5, but on the SAT II only a 650! :eek: Of course, he showed up for the test without a calculator but that's neither here nor there. There is so much more to reality than a test score....</p>
<p>
[quote]
"I just don't think we need to keep insisting that 2300=2400 or 34=36."</p>
<p>As most see it (for example [MIT adcom blog]), they may not be equal, but the difference doesn't matter.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If two candidates have that level of separation not on one test, but as a consistent pattern on five or ten standard metrics (SAT I subtests, SAT-II, ACT scores, AP/IB results), what then? Is the difference still easy to dismiss, or does it reveal a distinct increment?</p>
<p>I do think mammall's daughter shows a strong aptitude for the kind of analytical reasoning measured by these standardized tests. To score perfects on SAT's and ACT certainly shows that it's more than a fluke, and writing ability accompanies this analytical ability. She certainly shows aptitude for college work, and schools will take notice. </p>
<p>However, each school will evaluate the importance of these credentials differently. There was a poster on CC who was accepted to Harvard and rejected from Sarah Lawrence which was her first choice school. Certainly, Juilliard would not find these scores are interesting as Harvard would. </p>
<p>I think the consistency of this young woman's performance also indicates that she does not experience test anxiety and has many attributers that lead to success. Certainly she will be accepted into some schools that please her. There should be no cause for anxiety. </p>
<p>A dear friend's son scored 1600 on the old SAT in seventh grade after a night out at the video arcade. He went to Duke and was rejected from MIT when he applied for his PhD. He attended Carnegie Mellon and was made a professor upon graduation. His starting salary was $90,000, a handsome salary for a professor, but not remarkable for a young corporate lawyer, a successful sports figure or Keira Knightly. </p>
<p>My point? Exceptional achievement in the form of truly remarkable standardized test scores is fun, but nothing helps us escape the human condition which is full of successes and disappointments.</p>
<p>That said, mammall, I'm sure your daughter has wonderful things toi look forward to. Trust the process. (Easy to say, hard to do.)</p>
<p>
I was actually just specifically talking about the SAT I (though the ACT would be similar). My argument doesn't extend to SAT IIs or AP/IB exams.</p>
<p>For example, I definitely think that for the SAT Math II subject test a score of 800 is measurably and significantly better than a score of 750, because of the nature of the curve on that exam (one can miss around 6 questions and still get an 800). Similarly, I think a 5 on an AP can be significantly different than a 4, or a 7 on an IB exam can be significantly different from 5 or 6. </p>
<p>I'm not trying to advocate some fuzzy position that devalues actual ability and knowledge. I am only arguing that perfection specifically on the SAT I or ACT doesn't provide any gauge of quality over a student with a near-perfect score. </p>
<p>So more directly to your question, adcoms can definitely build up an idea of the academic prowness of applicants by looking at GPA/SAT II scores/IB exams/AP exams, but they should really not count minor point differences on the SAT I subtests since they provide very little useful information near the high end of the spectrum (compared to those other metrics). I believe most admissions offices work roughly alone those lines.</p>