If the “certain religious schools” means BYU (Provo, UT), then perhaps that is not a huge surprise, since it is the church flagship university that is likely the first choice of most church members wanting to attend a religious college, and therefore relatively competitive in admission (BYU does have two “directionals” in HI and ID, but they are presumably the first choices of a much smaller percentage of church members).
3 Likes
My understanding is that Caltech used to use math scores holistically to filter out applicants with relatively low math scores (by Caltech standard) without evidences in other areas to indicate that their lower math scores were inadvertent. It didn’t use verbal scores in the same way, So I don’t think it ever “selected” applicants based on scores because too many of them had “perfect” math scores and verbal scores were never part of the equation. Rather, the higher overall scores were probably the result of its greater emphasis on academics as @ucbalumnus said.
It’s entirely possible, but if Caltech did not also care about Verbal scores, they wouldn’t be higher than HYP year after year after year.
As an aspect to consider, math scores, in general, are positively correlated with verbal scores.
1 Like
My own supposition, which may not be correct, is that more mathematically inclined students tend to be better with logic than the less inclined on average, and more logical thinking help students score better in the critical reading part of SAT.
Looking at a released SAT from the 2004-2016 period (that would apply to the 2015 SAT score listings in the linked page), it looks like the CR section includes questions on English vocabulary, grammar, and reading comprehension.
But it would not be surprising that someone with academic strength off-the-top-of-the-normal-scale (that Caltech presumably looks for) in math-and-science-related things is still likely to be at least near the top of the normal scale in English-related things (at least language, perhaps less so literature). After all, learning about math and science requires reading about it. The logical thinking that you mention requires careful reading of whatever is to be interpreted.
3 Likes
Reading comprehension is what I meant. Prior to 2005, there was also the Analogies section, which some logical thinking would also help.
That’s probably also part of it. In math (e.g. in a word problem), every single word matters, unlike in literature.
This is a current ranking from U.S. News based on SAT scores: https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/slideshows/colleges-with-the-highest-sat-scores?slide=34. However, it extends to only 31 schools and has too many omissions and flaws to be especially interesting.
If I were to go by those rankings, my D would appear to be in the wrong school for her score. As well as many of her friends.
Not everyone is accepted for their SAT results, for example, a school that values other qualities, for example sports, might accept poor scores but exceptional sporting ability. Then, that school might have lowered their score average in comparison to a small school that only values the score.
These tests (SAT, ACT) are scaled accurately enough and to a high enough degree to detect differences in 98th-100th percentile in math vs. verbal. I don’t have access to the data, but I wouldn’t be surprised to find that Caltech and like schools have lower average verbal scores to math scores, but still both high scores. Perfect scores, by definition, would be rarer still in the population. The way the tests are standardized would control for this.
I also don’t think that prep programs have the weight you are assigning them in moving scores. Educational quality leading up to the prep program would have a much bigger influence here than a simple short-term prep program. Those programs aren’t so effective that they can mask school quality or lack of long term educational preparation. I think that’s the real value of SAT and ACT scores.
1 Like
The article is from 2015.
1 Like
Why don’t many college administrators and enrollment professionals seemingly agree with this?
Not a loaded question, I don’t know the answer and would have to guess.
I have often wondered that. I am not one.
I’ve noticed that as I’ve researched high schools for my children and have pulled school profiles to evaluate school quality. I’ve taken tours of the schools, spoken with parents of current students, etc. I would bet it’s simply that AOs don’t do all of this, so they don’t get as full of a picture of the school as I do as a parent. That’s obvious- they don’t have the time.
But as a parent paying attention, it’s obvious.
I can even tell you which schools in my area are not following the testing instructions given by the testing agencies (re: cheating, at least to me) based on these sorts of exposures. I don’t think AOs notice, or if some do, they look away.
Average verbal scores are typically lower than average math scores at STEM schools as you would expect, but not by much, considering a portion of their students are international students likely with lower verbal scores. For example, I just pulled up the numbers from Caltech for the year 2015 that we’re discussing:
| 25%ile | 75%ile | |
|---|---|---|
| SAT Math | 770 | 800 |
| SAT CR | 730 | 800 |
Notice also that “perfect” scores weren’t that rare either. At least 25% of the freshman students had “perfect” verbal scores. JHU CTY program used to release SAT scores for 7th/8th graders who took the test in order to participate in the program, and every year there were a dozen or so 7th/8th graders who had “perfect” scores (including verbal scores).
While I think it is helpful to see the band in which scores for a particular college fall, I think that many parents and students ascribe much more meaning to those scores than is warranted. I base my beliefs on my observation of my kids and their friends (and also my experiences when I used to teach in a secondary school).
I am not sure if the colleges were super-scoring in the 2015 chart you posted, but that practice makes me even more skeptical about the importance of scores. So far, two of my kids have taken the SAT (twice each). Both kids’ super-score jumped because of the second try. For example, one of D22’s subtests jumped quite a bit on the second try while the other dropped a little, resulting in a fantastic super-score.
In an even more radical change, D24 took the test in last December and then again this March. On one of the subtests, her score jumped 80 points while her other subtest dropped almost as much. Now, apparently (based on her super-score), she is one of the “smartest” kids in the country and she will submit her test scores everywhere --she was probably always going to submit, but post-second sitting, it is a no-brainer given as far as I can tell, her super-score meets or exceeds the average scores everywhere even post-covid. The only possible exception AFAIK is Caltech (where she’d never apply, never be admitted, and I believe might be test-blind now anyway)
I am sorry, but I call BS. She is a bright kid, but she did not become that much smarter between December 2022 and March 2023. I also doubt that she learned much new material or mastered new skills in 3 months. I think she is a good test-taker but also she just got lucky on the second try. Or maybe she got unlucky on the first try. Or maybe she studied very hard. 
I don’t know and I don’r care, though I am glad it worked out for her. My bottom line is that while I believe that SAT scores mean something, I don’t think that differences of 10 or 50 or even 80 points mean much.
Similarly, I’ve taught good students with not so good scores and lousy students with outstanding scores. I think standardized test can be a useful ballpark measure of some things, but not a precise measure and certainly not a good way to make a decisive determination about whether or not a particular student belongs at a particular school.
3 Likes
For an individual, SAT score may be affected by a number of idiosyncratic elements. However, collectively on an aggregate basis, SAT score distribution for a school is probably a good indicator for the quality of its student body. I think that’s OP’s intention in starting this thread.
2 Likes
I found interesting how low Barnard ( number 60) was compared to Columbia ( number 8). Quite a difference.
4 Likes
This can be true even for a college that doesn’t especially value standardized scoring. More specifically, after selecting students based on a range of substantive criteria, a high standardized scoring profile may nonetheless surface. Reed, especially historically, appears to offer an example of this.
Yes, BYU Provo is a pretty competitive admission. The tuition is super cheap for LDS members, which increases its appeal amongst that group.
2 Likes
Those who haven’t seen this Life article may find it interesting. It placed selective colleges in five SAT tiers circa 1960:
The descriptions of individual schools should be of interest as well.
6 Likes