<p>token: also only taken during senior year. So if not taken after junior year or earlier it is not reported.</p>
<p>Hi, oldolddad, </p>
<p>Are you seeing what you mentioned in reply to my questions in the document </p>
<p>itself or in some related College Board document? I'll search through the National Report </p>
<p>while I await your kind reply about where I should look for the information. </p>
<p>P.S. I found </p>
<p>"College-Bound Seniors presents data for high school graduates in the year 2006 who participated in the SAT Program. Students are counted only once, no matter how often they tested, and only their latest scores and most recent SAT Questionnaire responses are summarized." </p>
<p>right away on the second page of the National Report. Thanks for pointing that out. I'm so accustomed to looking at the other Web page in isolation that I appreciate the reminder to go back to the National Report. </p>
<p>token: I think if you look at the IVY stats info along with this list, add the ACT takers, the superscoring, those who do not take after junior year, etc you probably get to about 50k who may have Ivy qualifying stats which is what JHS estimated, I think ,and what I ballparked. Probably way more with high gpa's!</p>
<p>About post #161, I do NOT see that point in the College Board report. I read the College Board report to say that last scores are reported for individuals who graduated with class of 2006, no matter grade those scores come from. </p>
<p>I think 50,000 students with "Ivy-qualifying" stats is an overestimate. But please remind me (this may have been said upthread) what the aggregate size of the enrolled class is at the colleges we are talking about. (Are we literally talking about only the Ivy League, or also about colleges such as Caltech, Stanford, and MIT?)</p>
<p>Tokenadult: 23,500 college-bound 2006 seniors had single-test scores of 2250 or better. Over 76,000 scores of over 750 on one component of the test were recorded. Obviously, that number triple-counts everyone who got 2250 or better overall, leaving about 40,000 kids who may have gotten a 750 on their last test. Not all of those will have three highest test scores adding up to 2250 or more, and there is some more double counting for kids who got 750+ on two but not three components. But I have to believe that there are 30-35,000 kids with 2250 or better the way the colleges count them. Then add in the kids who took only the ACT and got 34 or better (or whatever the equivalent is). The way the colleges report, there are a LOT more 2250 kids than CB reports.</p>
<p>Also, remember the college-reported enrolled class data is component-by-component. So if 750 M is the 50% level for a college, there were 33,000 kids who got at least that on their last SAT test, plus a few who went down on their last test, plus the ACT kids, etc. </p>
<p>oldolddad: Where do you see it says only senior year? I don't see that at all. That would exclude a whole bunch of high-scoring kids. I don't know many kids who got 2300+ in their junior years who took the test again (and I know a lot of kids who got 2300+ in their junior years). But I think you are wrong about it.</p>
<p>Anyway, the point is that there are a lot more kids out there near the 75% mark of the Ivy classes than cellardweller suggested.</p>
<p>Ivy frosh enrollment is about 11,000. Stanford MIT Caltech add another 3,000 or so.</p>
<p>JHS: My bad. Latest score only one. Oldold brain can't process. But I still agree with your assessement of increased numbers for reasons you pointed out.</p>
<p>JHS: BTW, isn't this mental gymnastic exercise the most fun you have had all day?</p>
<p>Yes, but it's been a terrible day.</p>
<p>Also, I've said the same thing before. I would love to see some real data, not guesses.</p>
<p>But then we would have fact to deal with . How fun would that be on CC?</p>
<p>JHS, I agree with the analysis, but I think you and others are setting the bar too high with SAT scores. For example, the kid from my daughter's high school (also a CC poster - asian, nonathlete) who was accepted to Harvard, Yale, Columbia & Stanford last year had a 2130 SAT. No one was surprised by his admission -- I think I mentioned elsewhere that every year there is one graduating senior from that high school who ends up in an Ivy, and usually it is pretty obvious who that kid is going to be. </p>
<p>That's not an accident -- 2130 isn't even the bounds of the lower end of Harvard's midrange. (I think its more like 2080). If you drop down just as far as 2140 on the College Board chart (98th percentile), you have picked up roughly another 15,000 students. Drop down to 2100 (still above Harvard's 25th percentile SAT line), and that's an additional 13,000 students. </p>
<p>On CC there are two big myth floating around -- one is the invention of an arbitrarily high cut off, well above the number that the stats show are actually being admitted, and based on the pressure cooker atmosphere of competitive east coast high high schools an not national scoring patterns. </p>
<p>The other is the myth of the upper 25th percentile -- that is, the belief that if the students scores are above the top 75% as reported by the CDS, that kid has a radically increased likelihood of admission. While that probably does work for colleges with typically lower score ranges, it is simply not going to work when the lower end of a college's midrange is at the 97% mark. At that level the score distinctions are meaningless, and the Ivies are very well aware of it.</p>
<p>I don't think ildad's son should retake the SAT. First of all, Writing is very subjective so there is no guarantee that the score will be improved. A verbal score of 750 means that he missed only about 5 questions on the entire test. Again, it's difficult not to miss any questions on a test like this. Plus he could make a dumb error or grid in an answer wrong on the math part. One caveat: if he didn't take a Kaplan or Princeton Review course before he took it, I guess it is possible to improve.</p>
<p>Speaking as someone who has been through the process, it is unlikely that your son won't get into Harvard/Yale/Princeton because his score wasn't perfect. I think his time would be better spent elsewhere. It is essential that he have something else to talk about. </p>
<p>Also, HPME will not care at all if you have a perfect score vs. a 2250, especially since the one 700 was in writing. My advice to you is to have your son get a research mentorship somewhere and do medical research. If he could get published, that would make a big difference for HPME. The best case scenario would be if he did research at Northwestern. If your school doesn't have a research program, I might try inquiring directly with NU profs to see if they would let you work there for the summer. You could also enter the Intel contest if you do a lot of work there.</p>
<p>It's almost a cliche' now that it seems everyone is doing it, but he could go to some third world country and do volunteer work (assist doctors providing health care to the underpriveledged.) It may seem extreme, but trust me, the successful people are all doing things like this. This will probably have more of an impact than doing research for Harvard/Yale/Princeton.</p>
<p>I read the original post over and it looks like ildad's son has already done volunteer work at hospitals overseas, although I'm not sure exactly what that means. </p>
<p>BTW, your son has an excellent chance although admissions has become a crapshoot.</p>
<p>To the OP, I live very close to you and also attend a highly rated high school. I am 5th in my class of 700. I received a 2300 on the SAT and a 35 on the ACT. My SAT II scores were 800, 780 and 760. My essays were, in most people's opinion, excellent as were my recs. I have been involved in music (instrumental and voice - state level at both), mock trial and a varsity sport for all 4 years. I have been captain of the sport for two years and hold several other leadership positions. I am in NHS, Mu Aplha Theta, and Big Brother/Big Sisters. My ec's showed passion and longevity. I was named outstanding foreign language senior. I have volunteered at at a local organization for 7 years, yes I started at age 10. Each year I organize a book giving tree in which I colllect over 400 books that are donated to Humanatarian Service Project who then distributes to children at Christmas. I have been on two month long mission trips, one to Guatamala and one to Honduras. I will graduate with 12 AP classes and the rest honors, except for the stupid requirements such as speech. One of my honors courses was a self designed internship at the DuPage County Courthouse where I interned with the Chief of the Felony Division (who also wrote me a rec). I assisted and observed the trial of Michael Cardamone and Billy Lee Warren. I applied to Georgetown, which has always been my dream school, as well as 4 ivies and several top LAC's. I was flat out rejected from Georgetown as well as 3 of the Ivies. I was waitlisted at the 4th. I had great success with the LAC's. </p>
<p>My mom says you should always reach for your dream but it doesn't make the rejection any easier to take after working so hard and accomplishing so much. I am slowly coming to terms with the fact that I will get a great education at the LAC but it is not Georgetown and it is not in D.C.. Certainly have your son apply but also prepare him for the realities. Make sure he has several match schools that he loves. Let him choose his path and make sure your expectations are resonable. I have so many friends whose parents have taken the entire process more seriously then the students. Many parents are so caight up in the prestige that the kid's feelings get lost in the process. Undergrad is not all that important, did you know our illustrious states attorney went to North Central and then Northern Illinois for law school? I would not consider either one prestigious.</p>
<p>Something else you need to consider. We are at a distinct disadvantage being from the metro Chicago area. Elite schools are inundated with apps. from out area and all of the applicants are immensely qualified. Have you read any of the news stories that this is the year of the super applicant and that next year is projected to be even more competitive?</p>
<p>My final point, I believe that many colleges feel that there is significant grade inflation at our schools. Parents expect their kids to do well and complain if they don't. The schools have given into the pressure. I do not find getting straight A' to be particularly difficult with the exception of a few classes. I think the opportunity for extra credit should be outlawed. </p>
<p>Sure, your son has a chance but the truth is that nobody is a guaranteed admit in the Ivy League - unless maybe you can afford to build them a new science center :)</p>
<p><a href="%5Bb%5Dcalmom%5B/b%5D%20wrote:">quote</a> myth of the upper 25th percentile -- that is, the belief that if the students scores are above the top 75% as reported by the CDS, that kid has a radically increased likelihood of admission. While that probably does work for colleges with typically lower score ranges, it is simply not going to work when the lower end of a college's midrange is at the 97% mark. At that level the score distinctions are meaningless, and the Ivies are very well aware of it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Data of course say otherwise.</p>
<p>On page 7 or so of the Revealed Preferences rankings article, cited constantly on CC, you can see that as SAT scores climb from the 97th to the 100th percentile, admission rate rises rapidly at Harvard, MIT, Yale, and Princeton. </p>
<p>On Brown's web page, we find admissions data per 50-point SAT tranche, with the admissions rate declining more or less linearly from the top, until one hits athlete/legacy/URM territory.</p>
<p>Verbal applied admits rate enroll
750-800 4,014 1,022 25.5% 513
700-740 3,945 658 16.7% 386
650-690 3,944 375 9.5% 245
600-640 2,648 209 7.9% 148
550-590 1,226 87 7.1% 75
500-540 627 39 6.2% 32
450-490 303 8 2.6% 6
< 450 144 2 1.4% 2</p>
<p>Math<br>
750-800 4,268 1,049 24.6% 541
700-740 4,531 732 16.2% 453
650-690 3,803 315 8.3% 219
600-640 2,299 187 8.1% 131
550-590 1,072 83 7.7% 61
500-540 561 26 4.6% 24
450-490 219 6 2.7% 6</p>
<p>Yes, but I have pointed out already, you are mistaking correlation for causation. </p>
<p>The data is incomplete. It doesn't show the other attributes of the high test scorers. There is probably a much larger correlation of class rank to admission -- if the college selects primarily by class rank and GPA, and students with higher rank & GPA also tend to have higher SAT scores, then it could be very possible to produce a similar chart even if the admissions committee completely disregarded SAT scores.</p>
<p>We know that SAT scores correlate directly to family income, so I could easily take that same chart and substitute the associated income levels of each strata, with the same results. Would that prove that the key to getting into an Ivy would be to have richer parents? How does that reconcile with the Ivy's claims to follow need-blind admission policies. </p>
<p>If I were in charge of enrollment management for Brown, the first thing I would notice would be that the highest yield came from students in the with scores below 690. So I would tell the admission committee that they could maximize yield by selecting for students who had at one score in that range, but preserve their ranking by making sure that the student's other score was in the higher range. In other words -- the kid with a 620 M, 760 CR seems far more likely to enroll than the kid with a 800M, 790CR -- so I would encourage the committee to look for lopsided candidates with disparate scores - unless they also had other, objective factors indicating that the student was likely to enroll.</p>
<p>You are continuing to flunk statistics. Brown's web page, which gives the class rank data as well, shows clearly that there is a separate effect of SAT distinct from its correlation with class rank. You can, if you like, assume the strongest possible correlation between SAT and class rank --- that they give the same ordering of the applicant pool -- and reach the same conclusion.</p>
<p>Siserune, you are the one who continues to "flunk" both logic and critical thinking. You cannot impute a causal relationship from a table showing correlations. At most it is evidence of a trend for which there may be multiple explanations and multiple results, and you would need far more evidence in order to draw any conclusion about what the statistics "mean". As presented on the Brown web site, it is mostly a matter p.r. -- and I've already pointed out the admissions practices that would best serve the strategic goals of Brown to maximize yield while at the same time enhance ranking. </p>
<p>But I have to say that your arguments do illustrate why I am so skeptical of the use of standardized testing as a measure of ability -- it undermines the ability to think either critically or creatively, and favors those with a close minded, one right answer /pick the best out of five mentality. Students who spend their high school lives drilling and prepping for repeat administrations of the test enhance their memorization skills and may very well undermine their capacity for complex reasoning, as they learn to distill each problem into its simplest terms and are rewarded for rushed decisions. Your hostile attitude toward one who disagrees with you exemplifies this sort of limitation: rather than curious eagerness to explore different possibilities, you express anger at the challenge to your dogged acceptance of numbers on a graph as being evidence of what you want them to prove. So it is very likely that a class selected largely based on SAT scores will also be a class filled with students who are expert at memorizing facts and regurgitating them back in proper order on midterms and final exams, but flounder when it comes to the generation of new ideas. </p>
<p>I am not the only one who has expressed this concern -- this is why MIT's admissions dean, Marilee Jones, has said that she would like to make SATs optional for admission; and why MIT's writing program director, Les Perelman, has condemnet the SAT writing test for rewarding "formulaic writing that views the world as black and white, isn’t based on any facts, and values a few fancy vocabulary words over sincerity".</p>
<p>Both of your posts are irrelevant because siserune cites admission statistics for verbal and math at only 50 point intervals.</p>
<p>The original poster got 800 on math and 750 on verbal. So while there is a positive correlation between admission and moving from the 700-750 range to the 750-800 range, that doesn't say whether moving from 750 to 780 would make any difference.</p>
<p>I still see no problem with the OP's son taking the SAT one more time. I have seen the writing score jump from 700 to 800 many times. If he improves, the super score might look a bit better. I would not put much time into it nor would I recommend continued sittings.(Having said that I agree with the others as far as his presnt score being good)
Cubsfan points out the realities of living in the suburbs of Chicago. Lot's of good kids. New Trier, Glenbrook, Adlai, IMSA, etc etc. D had a friend from Glenbrook. She and a ton of very qualified kids did not get into WashU a few years ago (only a couple did). At my D's school and the neighboring school, (we are out west) it was 7/8 acceptances. The geographic concentration issue is a probelm. Standing out among the local peers is tougher and maybe more important if one wants to improve the odds. Unfortunately, the reality of coming form an underepresented state being an advantage is true for the top schools. The candidates are still qualified but concentration effect that cubfan has felt is not so huge.
I just heard from a couple of kids and S has informed me on others. One kid, virtually no EC's, just high grades, AP's, no summer anything, and not super test scores got into Duke and Brown. Another, no EC's pretty good scores, Caltech,Rice. S's friends- Columbia, Princeton, Dartmouth, Penn, Cornell ,Wash U etc ---none anywhere near what cubfan did. I think the whole odds thing has to be put into a local context. Sounds like in the Chicago burbs (where I went to high school) it is more of a crapshoot. I attended a school not far from the OP son's school. Maybe one of the top in the country. The rejections received by amazing kids ther are mind boggling. As a teacher there told me --good thing you chose not to raise your kids around here! BTW it was kids like cubsfan who my kids looked at, back in 6th grade, to determine the viabilty of considering even applying to the top school when they got older. That is why they felt it would be tough to get in but also why in retrospect the odds were good-at least where we are.</p>
<p>calmom: I think you and I agree. I wasn't trying to set the bar, I was trying to show that the bar lots of people think is important isn't as important as all that.</p>
<p>There are two sides to the analysis: (1) Very high test scores are not as unusual as people think. (2) The majority of kids accepted at the most selective colleges don't have very high test scores. The second point is true not because the colleges can't find enough kids with very high test scores, but because they don't care enough about very high test scores relative to other admissions factors to select more kids who have them. If you imagine a meeting between Drew Gilpin and the Harvard College admissions dean, she isn't going to be asking "Why don't we have more 2400 kids?" If anything, she would ask, "How did we lose the kid whose paper was published in Science to Penn?" </p>
<p>It's not that the colleges don't care at all, of course. A college may admit the same number of 2300 kids and 2100 kids, but there are a lot more of the latter than the former in the application pool. The 2300 kids will have better theoretical odds than the 2100 kids, even though there will be plenty of 2100 kids who "win", and plenty of 2300 kids who "lose" at any particular college. It's other application elements that make the difference, among kids with similar or dissimilar test scores.</p>