Class of 2010: CB's new SAT score-reporting policy

Test Preparation
21

<p>Regarding Post #20:
The new SAT Score policy gives SAT test takers the same
advantage as the ACT.</p>

<p>I have two questions: </p>

<p>1) Will selective score reporting apply retroactively from that
(3/2009) point onwards to scores predating that time? so if
you reported your scores in Fall 2009 you could selectively choose
to not report 1/2009?</p>

<p>2) I understand CB used to have selective score reporting (roughly 10 yrs back...?)
How much notice did they give students when they would stop having
selctive reporting last time around when they switched back to
no-selective reporting?</p>

22

<p>@aphoticmelody</p>

<p>Taking the SAT/ACT is a graduation requirement at my school. You must take it at their test day. Trust me, I tried to opt out. Furthermore, you are not allowed to take test until before their first test date because our school frowns highly upon taking the test before the spring of junior year. Yes, I could have taken it anyway, but then I would have risked a poor college counselor report for going against the rules.</p>

<p>I unfortunately did not know about SAT subjects until midway through my junior year as very few students at my school take them and no one encouraged me too. Hence, I had to do my retake during July w/o prep as I need to do subject tests in October.</p>

<p>I shouldn't have to explain myself, but I did anyways. Give the benefit of the doubt in the future before you go saying "it's your fault"</p>

<p>The point - wealthy students from affluent backgrounds are bred and groomed for colleges for all four years of college. And if colleges have such a holistic approach to admissions, how come 30+ students from elitist schools, such as Exeter, are accepted to Harvard while not even the valedictorian from most public schools? I'll tell you. There is little to no consideration given to a student's socioeconomic background.</p>

23

<p>How will this affect the UC policy where currently students are only allowed to use the best overall scores from one sitting. Will that still be the policy, or will students now be able to send in a superscore?</p>

24

<p>UGH, so close. I'm '09 and I could really use this new policy. Blahh</p>

25

<p>So let me get this straight. If I take the October 2008 test, the result will appear on my permanent record because the policy doesn't start until the March 2009 test date. Right?</p>

26

<p>
[quote]
So let me get this straight. If I take the October 2008 test, the result will appear on my permanent record because the policy doesn't start until the March 2009 test date. Right?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is how I think the "retroactive" option will work (though it's confusing, and I'm not sure I'm right).</p>

<p>If you take a test in October of 2008 and order scores sent to colleges, then those colleges will see every SAT score (both I and II) that you've received up until that point. So if you tested in the spring of 2008 as well as in October, colleges will see all of those scores.</p>

<p>But let's say that you still haven't finalized your college plans by March, and you decide to apply to two new colleges that have later deadlines. Then, at that point, you can order score reports sent to those two additional schools, and you can tell the College Board which test administrations you want included on those reports. You may want the spring tests on there but not the October test or vice versa.</p>

27

<p>I wasn't aware of this change. I am so glad that I read the post. It will definitely help those students needing the that extra "help".</p>

28

<p>I've got a couple questions too:
In CB's explanation of the new policy, they state that colleges will be able to implement independent guidelines as to which scores applicants need to report. Has anyone heard anything about this? Do you think that some colleges will require full reports?
Also, if you choose to only send one/two scores, will colleges see how many times you've taken the test, even if they don't see the scores from those sittings?
This really blows my plans. I was planning not to retake, but now I think I'm going to have to-- ideally, though, I want to wait and see what scores will be required by universities when I report them.
Any answers would be great.</p>

29

<p>Just called College Board and was told that this new reporting policy applies only to students graduating high school in 2010.</p>

30

<p>Although it might sound like a good idea, not all colleges do the "superscore" thing. In fact, some might just take the highest overall score.</p>

31

<p>Well this helps me, but should I keep testing until I get 2400?
Or should I get 2300s and stop.</p>

32

<p>i dont understand,</p>

<p>does this apply to test that have already been done?</p>

33

<p>I, for one, am not convinced that "superscoring" is all it's cracked up to be. I do not think it went unnoticed by the colleges I applied to - I am an MIT '11 - that I took the SAT I's precisely once, and the SAT II's precisely once. (And my parents certainly had the money to let me retest as many times as I would have wanted to.)</p>

<p>As Sally said, this sounds like a really good idea in theory (giving students more freedom), but it really does seem to benefit only those who can pay for multiple sittings. Yet, will it have a significant effect on admissions? Doubtful.</p>

<p>@medkid: Yes, this will apply retroactively to old tests, though it seems high schoolers who will graduate in 2010 or later will really benefit. (Sorry, '09s.)</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>While I see where you're coming from, you're sort of contradicting yourself. I feel that the ideal situation is for no consideration to be given to socioeconomic background, and to consider everyone simply based on merit. Yet it is also true that everyone has different opportunities offered to them; I think, in actual fact, most colleges are very good at evaluating applicants in the context of how well they took advantage of the opportunities available to them.</p>

34

<p>^ Well said.</p>

35

<p>
[quote]
The new policy does indeed benefit advantaged applicants who can afford multiple sittings.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
So, although I applaud the concept of "score choice" in theory, I feel that it does need amendment. In my perfect world, students should only be permitted two attempts per test, and then they should also be allowed submit to colleges whichever scores they choose (even if from different sittings ... e.g., an April Math score and an October Critical Reading Score).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>There is only one problem with *that *theory: it's worse than the alternative!</p>

<p>Let's change the proposal a bit: from now on, there will be ONE PSAT and one SAT. Whom would be the biggest beneficiaries of such changes? The wealthiest people who can afford prep classes and expensive tutors. A one shot only simply would render the private preparation EVEN MORE valuable, and increases the differences between the well-prepared and the ill-prepared.</p>

<p>In the SAT world, the cost of taking the test is dwarfed by the cost of classes or preparation. </p>

<p>The issue of multiple sittings is a canard that simply refuses to die. The reason why the College Board will implement this policy is because the colleges do NOT care how many times one takes the SAT ... just like you they only want to see the highest score. In years past, they dropped the SATII score choice ... for the same reason. </p>

<p>Here's one reality: among all the elements of college application, the College Board offers the BEST equalizer for lower income people. A trip to the library to check out the "blue book" (or a few bucks at Wal*Mart) is al that is needed. The resulting scores ARE evaluated by adcoms within their context. A 1900 score from a minority student in an impoverished or rural area might weigh more than a 2400 from a student who lives in an area known for its SAT "storefronts" and SAT Sunday Classes. </p>

<p>This change does not amount to much of anything.</p>

36

<p>The collegeboard is All about making money. Period.</p>

37

<p>
[quote]
While I see where you're coming from, you're sort of contradicting yourself. I feel that the ideal situation is for no consideration to be given to socioeconomic background, and to consider everyone simply based on merit. Yet it is also true that everyone has different opportunities offered to them; I think, in actual fact, most colleges are very good at evaluating applicants in the context of how well they took advantage of the opportunities available to them.

[/quote]

Apologies. I guess you could call accepting the legacy kid whose family has contributed to the school for generations a socioeconomic consideration.</p>

<p>While many students at the top private schools may top other students based on merit, you're hard-pressed to tell me that half the school tops the valedictorians of other schools (add up all the entries into ivys, top 25, elite LAC's, etc. and you get over half the school). And if it so happened that this were true in a nonexistent universe far far away, then it still ought to be noted how the student took advantage of the opportunities afforded he/she.</p>

38

<p>Brendan, I agree with some of what you're saying, but I don't like how you're saying it. If you're trying to point out flaws in the current admissions process - and I'm not saying it's perfect - I think you should be a little more direct and a lot less sarcastic.</p>

<p>However, since you seem very focused on the whole "elite private school" vs. "public school" thing, I'll talk about that for a minute and tell you why I think you're coming at this from the wrong angle.</p>

<p>First off, many public schools send a decent number of students to elite schools every year.</p>

<p>Secondly, some of the US's best high schools are public: Thomas Jefferson, Stuyvesant, etc.</p>

<p>Thirdly, just because someone comes from an elite school and has been, as you say, "groomed" for an elite school throughout HS does not in fact mean that they do not deserve that Ivy League spot.</p>

<p>Fourthly, why do you seem to claim that being a high-school valedictorian, ab initio, makes someone qualified for an elite school? Certainly, being a valedictorian is almost always an impressive feat of dedication and/or brainpower; but as admissions "hooks" go, I'd say it's highly over-valued.</p>

<p>Finally, lest it seems that I am defending the "rich kids" too much, I will conclude that - despite what I've said in my third point - it is unfortunate that money sometimes can (seem to) serve as a major boost, as smarter kids with fewer resources get stranded on the proverbial wayside. But either way, college admissions is a very torturous process, with few hard truths and almost no easy answers.</p>

39

<p>I agree with a lot that's been stated about the score-reporting policy. College Board, despite being a "not-for-profit" organization, is going to see profits skyrocket after wealthy kids take the SAT 5-6 times, when previously there was not this incentive.</p>

40

<p>^^--^^</p>

<p>That is just silly!</p>