<p>On the math section, one question can bring the score from an 800 to a 770. Happened to my kid. It was a response question and probably not ranked as hard, but still one question. Can you really say there is a measurable difference in the quality of a student based on one question? My understanding (and of course not based on actually sitting in on admissions meetings), is that past the mid-700s, other factors are much more important. And possibly the low 700s in some cases. </p>
<p>The flaw in what was reported above by the OP in one place is that the data are grouped so that 32-35 are together and 36 ACT separate. In the former group there would be a lot more 32s than 35s (since fewer kids score a 35). </p>
<p>There is a difference in admit rates at the HPYS and similar based on SAT scores, but the difference is only a few percentage points. At MIT the admit rate for 34-36 ACT was 18% while for 30-33 it was 11% (according one source on the web). A 30 corresponds to less than 700 on the SAT reading. But, as pointed out above, the kids with the 36 scores may also have many other desirable traits for admission. And 82% of those 34-36 ACT applicants were denied. </p>
<p>“On the math section, one question can bring the score from an 800 to a 770. Happened to my kid.” Or to 790 or 780 depending on the day you took the test. It’s really splitting hairs to assume any difference because you took the test on a different day and missed one. But that’s a 20 point score difference right there.</p>
<p>I think one year my older son’s 760 was just two questions and the other year it might have been just one. Each time it was really silly mistakes a fourth grade multiplication problem and one where he missed a pesky “not” are the two I remember. He got the “magic 2400” in one sitting on the SAT subject tests though! (And got rejected from half the universities he applied to.) Since it was a reach heavy list, there was no surprise there. This particular kid did much better on the AIME and the Calculus AP and was taking Linear Algebra senior year - we trusted that colleges would realize he was very good at math even if his CR score was higher than his math score.</p>
<p>I am inclined to believe the selective colleges that say they don’t pay that much attention to scores. I think the kids who get 2400s are the ones who dot their i’s and cross their t’s and have stellar applications in general - possibly even better than the one’s of kids who think a 35 is good enough.</p>
<p>@marysidney – the cutoffs are lower – at the elite schools they are something slightly below the 600 level for any SAT test. This can be readily ascertained by looking at the stats for the tail end of who they admit. For example, the Princeton common data set shows this percentage of enrolling students:</p>
<p>SAT Range
600-699 Reading: 21.00% Math: 19.00% Writing: 18.00%</p>
<p>At the 500-599 range, the numbers drop to 3% or less – so I’d see those as outlier. But the bottom line is that 20% of the enrolling students have scores that are well under 700— so obviously the cutoff is set low enough to allow for those admissions. </p>
<p>Again, no one is saying that the colleges don’t value a score of 780 more than a score of 620 – the point is that that they have a more fluid and contextual approach to scores. The students with the weaker test scores have other counter-balancing strengths. </p>
<p>I’m sure you’re right, calmom, but one perennial question on CC is “Should I retake?” which presupposes that there is a cutoff past which a retake isn’t necessary, and I have often seen it written that anything above a 700 is seen as “the same.” So the actual cutoff, as you point out, may be 600, but the perceived one for high-ranked schools (the one, I think it is assumed, for “regular kids,” rather than heavily hooked ones), is often assumed to be 700. As onlookers, we don’t know if that’s so; the question, I think, is not whether one’s chances are appreciably greater at 800 than 700 (which would be tough to establish using only the data we have, and probably does vary according to college), but whether a possibly higher score is “worth” the time and trouble. Clearly, a kid with a 760 obsessing over whether he can get an 800 should get the answer of, don’t bother; but for a kid with a 710, the answer seems more difficult. If he was underprepared for the first test, it’s conceivable that he could pull off a 750–and that might matter. We don’t know, and neither does he. The sane answer is no, but this process is really not sane, in the sense of rationally predictable.</p>
<p>I would like to say, though, for anyone worrying over the question, that I think any attempt to raise your score after two tests is almost undoubtedly a waste of time and money. Try once, and if you’re not sure it was your best shot, try again–but no more. </p>
<p>I believe it’s known as “reversion to the mean.” </p>
<p>For all those who are encouraging students with strong scores to retake, consider that it is more likely a student over 680’s score will go down than go up. No matter how appealing you may think an 800 may be, there is a significant risk that a student who scores over 700 on the first test will fall below 700 on the next. Although the College Board offers super scoring, there are colleges which demand to see the scores from all sittings. </p>
<p>I would say, take the test a second time, if you’re not satisfied with the first test, as apparently there is often a slight score increase for the second sitting. (Then again, that might be for all students overall, not necessarily for those who scored very well the first time.)</p>
<p>After that, though, one does have to consider the best use of time. Worse grades and a more carelessly completed application is not a trade-off to make lightly for a chance of slightly higher scores. </p>
<p>Right, the bottom 20% by test scores admitted to the Ivies/equivalents usually have hooks (or applied ED and killed it on the essays and that was their only weak area). Probably the bottom 20% by GPA as well.</p>
<p>I do think that that, to the colleges, there may be a difference when the threshold for different bands are crossed. </p>
<p>That is, if you look back at that Princeton CDS - then any student who has a score above 700 on any subtest represents added statistical value. That’s probably one reason colleges superscore - they could have a student who takes the test 3 times, and comes up with some variation of 630/630/710 on each test – but manages to break above 700 for a different subtest each administration – and that student is now going to show up in the 75%+ who are reported to have above 700 scores. </p>
<p>The problem is that that the college meeting its broad goals for scores (presumably for ranking purposes) does not necessarily filter down to an individual level. Just because the college would like to admit more students with high range Math scores doesn’t mean that they will give an admissions boost to particular candidate. The test scores are simply one factor among many.</p>
<p>And again, it’s hard for me to see how the college benefits from “within band” preferences – the institutional benefit comes when scores will impact the reported score ranges – and to do that, the scores need to be tied to students who actually enroll in the fall. So along with the scores, yield factors become very important. There’s no benefit for Columbia to admit a student who ends up matriculating to Harvard. </p>
<p>The curve varies. When my daughter took the SAT, the curve was brutal and unforgiving (or the test was “easy”, depends how you look at it. She had one wrong in CR and got a 770 (zero wrong=800, 1 skipped = 780). She had 2 wrongs in Math and got a 750. From prior tests, the CR could have been 800.</p>
<p>“take the test a second time, if you’re not satisfied with the first test, as apparently there is often a slight score increase for the second sitting” It’s difficult to know what to make of this because it’s a mixed population. Perhaps many students do benefit from being more experienced at taking the test. I suspect that many of them didn’t study the first time because they had this idea they should get a “baseline”, or didn’t study much and were more serious about the retake. A student who already studied to the point that they reached a plateau on practice tests will probably not see much change, assuming they also have good test-taking skills.</p>
<p>No kid should believe that just because they have one element which happens to be part of a school’s institutional mission that this will trump all the other elements. I see this with kids who learn that Yale is pouring resources into the sciences. Oh yippee the kid thinks- I’m a science kid. Well sure- but the profile of the typical Yale admit is somewhat obvious from who gets in year after year. Yale doesn’t need to dig down very far into the applicant pool to admit kids who love science but who are below the bar on all the other academic criteria-that’s what it means to have an admit rate as low as Yale’s. You get to have your cake and eat it too.</p>
<p>A high score for a college which is trying to nudge up its scores is a good thing. But not the only thing. And like Cal mom said- for schools which are yield sensitive (I would not put Columbia in that category BTW), be wary of pinning all your hopes on a high score in the absence of the rest of the goods. Where do I think it matters? Wash U, Vanderbilt, Emory, Northeastern, Drexel, Franklin and Marshall, GW, stop me before I hurt someone… I think at schools like this, if you are counting on your scores alone to get you in, make sure you show them the love so they realize you are a serious applicant and not just throwing in another safety school application.</p>
<p>I think it goes something like this. What kind of GPA does this applicant have … 3.7, 3.8,9, 4.0… Pretty good GPA. what sort of course load were they taking? 5,6…12 AP/IB strong curriculum!. How did they do on their standardized tests so we can compare them with their peers at other HSs… 26? That doesn’t jive… 33, that makes sense. Let’s read their essays and find out what’s up with this student, we’ll check their references, wow a captain at the debate club we need an addition… I’m just guessing but I can imagine this kind of sorting going on at the elite universities. I’m guessing some similar occurs at less selective universities as well just at different levels.</p>
<p>If the OP had submitted his conclusions to a scholarly journal, they would be rejected. Why? Because he is claiming that correlation equals causation, and in this case he has not demonstrated that in the least. It can be equally true that people with a 36 ACT got in at twice the rate of those with a 34-35 and that the admissions people truly put no more weight on getting a 36 than a 34-35. That is because, as a few have said, there are numerous other variables that have to be taken into account and controlled before such a claim can be made. The OP says that he believes the fact that the rate was doubled means that these variables cannot possibly account for such a large disparity. That is absolutely unsupportable by fact at this point. Sorry, OP, but your simplistic analysis of the statistics is just that, “dangerously” oversimplified.</p>
<p>@Matmaven I feel your pain and frustration. The data you present clearly evidences that students with higher scores get accepted to elite schools at higher rates. My guess is that this also holds true with HSGPA. </p>
<p>It is difficult for many to see the relationship that is provided by the data because it goes against their preconceived beliefs about “holistic” admissions. Many have somehow convinced themselves that once a student achieves a certain level of achievement on the SAT/ACT that the student has satisfied the basic requirement to be put in the mix to get an acceptance and the student’s chances are just as good as anyone else who has met the basic requirements.</p>
<p>The data you present clearly shows that based solely upon ACT scores that those students with perfect ACT scores are more likely to be accepted to top schools than those with slightly lower scores.</p>
<p>Now as to all the possible factors that might contribute to the qualities of a student who manages to obtain a perfect ACT score is not readily determinable from the ACT score, but that is not what you are seeking to show. </p>
<p>You are showing that those students who have a 36 ACT get accepted at top colleges at a substantially higher rate of acceptance than those who don’t score as high. Which is what the data clearly shows. If the data is accurate then students might benefit from trying to improve their already high test scores. I find this sad, but it is what it is based upon your data.</p>
<p>Notice many are talking 700 vs 800 and not specifying which test and how it relates to the possible major or even the pattern of classes in hs. No, 700 M won’t be terribly impressive for a STEM kid applying to a tippy top. And so on. It’s part of the contextual look Calmom mentions. And as some said, we know- we know from real life and CC examples- that no matter how high the scores, if the rest of the story isn’t there, the case becomes less compelling. They’ve got thousand and thousands of other kids they can look at. </p>
<p>As for preconceived notions about holistic, you can’t back your way into this, based on some figures you think prove something. Naysayers are working with preconceptions, as well. Holistic asks for more than stats. It’s not that hard to do and I don’t understand why we fuss, instead of encouraging kids to widen their vision.</p>
<p>And going back to the comment that, for MIT, the admit rate for 34-36 ACT was 18%, try to remember that leaves 82% with unwanted news. Still not great odds.</p>
<p>No, as @fallenchemist pointed out in the post immediately before yours, that conclusion is confusing correlation with causation. There isn’t enough data to come to that conclusion, because there may be - and likely are - other confounding variables. We know that colleges also value class rank and GPA – but what we don’t know is the degree to which those factors are also correlated with higher test scores. </p>
<p>There is no question that an applicant who who has a strong package all around has a better chance of admission than an applicant with a weaker set of stats (and holistic factors)- but we don’t know how the admission chances of a student with a 4.0 GPA and 32 ACT compare to the chances of a student with a 3.7 GPA and a 35 ACT. </p>
<p>Most students who apply to elite schools are ambitious and driven, and there is a very strong incentive for those students to spend time prepping for exams and repeating the exams until they get a score they subjectively believe will give them an admissions advantage. If highly motivated students believe that they need higher scores to be admitted, they will work to get those higher scores – but that doesn’t mean that the scores are what got them in. </p>
<p>To come to any conclusion you’d need more data, and you also need to explore why students with high scores are rejected. That is, if MIT admits 18% of applicants with 34-36 ACT’s… what are the reasons for rejecting the other 82%? You could very well discover some other distinguishing factor, separate and apart from the scores themselves. </p>
<p>The data suggests a possibility-- but it doesn’t “show” anything because there is not enough data to draw a conclusion. </p>
<p>voiceofreason66: “What the data clearly shows” is that there is a positive correlation between high test scores and admission chances, but that the correlation is relatively weak. If only a quarter of the students with the highest possible test scores get admitted, that means there are a number of other factors that are far more important than test scores in the decision process, and it may mean that the test scores themselves are kinda-sorta-maybe related to the “real” factors determining yes-no-maybe outcomes. If that’s the case, taking the tests again and again and raising your score isn’t likely to improve your admission chances at all, except in the few cases of people with really compelling applications whose initial scores were really entirely below the acceptable range.</p>
<p>I don’t think anyone would seriously argue that test scores are completely irrelevant, or that it doesn’t matter how well you do if you get at least 700 per test. Test scores clearly reflect, however imperfectly, some of the intellectual qualities that colleges are looking for, and colleges use them in the admission process to some extent. (In some cases, mainly public institutions a little down the foodchain, test scores may really be determinative.) But there’s no clear case that simply improving your scores by a few units – without changing the more substantive elements of your application – creates a meaningful improvement in your chance of admission. </p>