<p>Is it just me, or do people from competitive high schoosl end up having lower SAT scores than from mediocre high schools?</p>
<p>I keep reading on these boards about people from top tier high school in there state, in which they are in the top 10% or better, yet there SAT scores are usually sub 1400? I have seen this ALOT</p>
<p>I go to a public school on LI called Longwood, we have like a 75% graduation rate and about only 2/3's going to a 4 year college. Yet about 20 students have broken 1400 and about 10 have broken 1500....I've seen similiar stats at other generally bad schools. How come in bad schools, in which they have maybe 30 bright students, yield much higher scores than schools that are made up of all bright students?</p>
<p>Its just something ive noticed alot, of course i have no substantial proof, but its just a normal trend I have seen</p>
<p>Just cause it may be a competitive highschool doesnt mean everyone is bright. The Sat is not a knowledge test, its how well you can take tests. Multiple factos can be the cause, extra curriculars and not enough time to prepare for the Sat's. Even at that competitive highschool im sure more than 40% has over 1300.</p>
<p>im in top 1-2% (was 11/650 after 10th mys chool changed over to deciles this year thou) and i have a 1520, our top 5 all have over a 1500, our valedictorian has a 1600, everyone does great, yet outside of the honor classes, kids basically all drop out. I think that having an isolated group of intelligent people in a normally bad school is actually more beneficial and yield higher test grades than being in a school with all bright kids...I guess in the bad school you have more confidence and **** becuz u know your smarter than most people, sociallly your happier becuz ur with allt he same kids, and always u have a more normal social life because you know how to interact with non nerdy people</p>
<p>I wish there were more not-so-smart people at my school, since it would help my class rank. If I were going to a low-ranking public school, I'd be like top 2%. Instead, I'm top 14%, which is 4% too low for most good merit scholarships.</p>
<p>lol yeah. It's all the administration's fault. They've kicked out like 40 students since freshman year, so now it's all people with decent grades and stuff. But even with those 40 still included in the class rank figure, I'd still only be like top 12%. Oh well. Guess it's my fault for doing stuff like playing with my calculator all through Advanced Algebra class and never doing the homework until the beginning of class each day. (That gave me my only non-PE C. Ahh.)</p>
<p>Well, my school is considered competitive, and most people don't admit their SAT scores unless it's over 1400, or their ACT unless it's over 30. But we have tons who break that, and about 20 NMS a year.</p>
<p>Well, my school is considered competitive and one of the best schools in the state. I don't know about my classmates' SAT scores, but we had the greatest number of National Merit Semi-Finalists in the state (which is determined by PSATs).</p>
<p>Well I'm pretty sure the top-ranking people, like the top 10%, have high SATs. Like, I've broken 1500. I know last year's top 10 all had over 1500.</p>
<p>You are comparing apples to oranges. At highly rated public schools, the scores will never be ultra high (unless they are selective magnet schools) because there will always be a range of students. At top private schools, they have selected students with the same criterian used by top colleges and control the admission of each student. So top private schools often have average SAT scores in the high 1300s. But publics except for rare places like Stuy or Bx Sci will always have a broader range.</p>
<p>People that say they go to competitive high schools use that for an excuse for an unfavorable application, or to try to distinguish themselves. </p>
<p>Hehe this is from before they changed the SAT.</p>
<p>"Competitive" high schools are a sham in a sense. There is no such thing as a competitive school. They are schools with competitive "students". </p>
<p>It's a cycle. School "A" is seen as competitive. Smart kids go to school "A". School "A" becomes competitive in a sense. More smart students are attracted to school "A". </p>
<p>See... Self perpetuating. </p>
<p>Now the problem lies when every parent starts to send their every day Joes to that school, mostly for bragging rights to say "My child attends school A, so he/she must be special". When a high school is full of average people with a few people at the top helping the school shine, that's when the competitiveness of a school is a sham.</p>
<p>I'm kind of confused about this whole competitive thing. Like unless you go to a private or magnet school, I don't see how your school can be competitive, because you're basically forced to go to whatever school based on where you live, right? Or do most people on CC go to magnet or private schools?</p>
<p>^In rural areas, you still have a selection. And I have yet to see a rural area with a school only once every 50 miles. In my rural area there is a school every 5-10 miles, and you can go to any school you want, but you have to get there yourself. Granted, there aren't private schools or magnet schools, but really, how many urban kids go to those? Only the richest ones. And the smart kids at a school aren't necessarily the rich ones.</p>
<p>It's funny what city folk think of rural areas sometimes...even though a lot of it is true...</p>
<p>In the area I live, in the suburbs, there is only one educational park in the district. Therefore, there is no choice. In other nearby areas, all the high schools are virtually the same.</p>