<p>I'm an international student applying for PA, PEA, and Lawrenceville for junior year. how many times is it acceptable to retake the SSAT and how many times is too much/will hurt your chances?</p>
<p>It won’t hurt you, but usually you won’t improve beyond the third time, so 3 maximum, twice probably, and once if you’re lucky.</p>
<p>Most schools simply take the highest of your individual scores (Superscore). I’ve never heard any of the Admissions people mention an upper limit. I agree that 3 times seems reasonable</p>
<p>Honestly, I think twice is reasonable (in cases where you totally bonk the first or if you just want to see if the first time was an fluke). I also do not believe in A) Excessive prep for these (or any standardized) test; B) Chasing some threshold that you have in your head as a target.</p>
<p>Having gone through this with two kids (who are now both at BS), I think an applicant’s scores are, for the most part, going to be what they are. If you are a 85% test taker, you are an 85% test taker (plus or minus a few percentage points either way).</p>
<p>What I’ve seen with some frequency on the forum over the years are people who think they “should” be applying to the most selective schools…but then they take the SSAT and have scores well below the average for those schools. To me, this is a message that perhaps you should not be applying to those schools — not that you should cram and prep to try and get your scores into the ballpark.</p>
<p>ALSO, I see a bunch of “I got a 92%-ile, but am taking it again so I can get a 99%-ile score.” This is, IMO, a big waste of your parents’ time and money. I was told point blank by more than one “CHADES” AO something like “Anything above mid 85% and the scores won’t be the reason the kid doesn’t get in.” Again, maybe you are a 92% test taker.</p>
<hr>
<p>Note that I am not trying to talk anyone out of applying to any school. And of course, some kids do get in with lower than average scores (that’s why they are called "average " scores!). But if it was my kid? I would use the test scores to help shape the apply-to list… </p>
<ol>
<li><p>Yes, retake at least once if you are not really happy with your scores. You will benefit from the prior experience.</p></li>
<li><p>Yes, take a prep course. This is really not up for debate anymore, particularly as these are graded on a curve and prep courses are ubiquitous online. It doesn’t have to be Kaplan’s 4-month prep course, but do something to help you prepare.</p></li>
<li><p>AO’s look at everything, including but not limited to test scores. If all your scores are in the 85-95% range, you’re probably in the top of the bell curve for the qualified students applying and so it probably won’t move the needle other than to check off that box on their list. But if you have a 96-99%, or if you have a couple of 9 stanines on the ISEE, it will make a very positive impression.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>So I disagree with SevenDad’s comment that taking it again to get a very high score is a waste of time and money. If you have the time and money, then it’s worth a shot. So little separates applicants from each other that it’s not a waste of time to attempt to stand out.</p>
<p>I do agree it’s not worth it to take it more than twice. After that, seriously diminishing returns.</p>
<p>I will only add that I’ve been told by more than one AO that they reject plenty of 99% kids year after year.</p>
<p>Including, one year, my older daughter, by Choate…and she was 1 wrong answer away from the highest possible score.*</p>
<p>*Note that due to how SSAT adjusts for different test forms, for some test dates, a 2400 “scaled score” is impossible to achieve. Yes, I have correspondence with SSAT that supports this.</p>
<p>Yes, I’m sure they do, but that fact doesn’t really support your advice not to retake the SSAT to get a higher score. You’re committing a basic logical fallacy - “AO’s don’t admit all applicants with 99% scores; therefore, applicants with 99% scores are no more likely to be admitted than those with lower scores.”</p>
<p>Doesn’t follow. </p>
<p>@Newbdad: Pick, pick, pick… ;-P</p>
<p>I don’t advise against taking the SSAT to get a higher score in my post #3. I advise against chasing a meaningless improvement in your score. I think we do differ on whether a 99% is meaningless (vs. a 95%) or not…and that’s fine.</p>
<p>It is my opinion that an applicant is no likelier to get into one of the super selective schools with a 99% than a 95% (or possibly even a 89%).</p>
<p>You will probably be quick to point out that the following anecdote is from the college process, but I’ll share it regardless (from the MIT Admissions Blogs):</p>
<p>‘The GC makes a big deal of the student’s “scoring the magic 1600 on the SAT.” Now, when I started the case, I mentally noted to myself, “Okay, this student has scores that are fine, let’s move on,” but it didn’t really make an impact on me that the student had “the magic 1600.” Yes, scoring a 1600 is something that you, your school, your parents, and your guidance counselor can be very proud of. But it’s not something I’m going to bust out my highlighter for, circle in big red pen, make it the focus of your case. In fact, I don’t think I have ever in my summary of a student used high standardized scores as an argument to admit that student.’</p>
<p>The last sentence is all the argument I need to advise folks to not chase a 99%.</p>
<p>Probably should have included this snippet, too (from same MIT blog):</p>
<p>‘I wanted to share this with you because this case was one concrete example of just how little we care about the small differences in competitive test scores. A student with “the magic 1600” is not implicitly better to us than a student with “the spellbinding 1400.”’</p>
<p>Link if anyone cares to read:
<a href=“What’s the big deal about 40^2? | MIT Admissions”>http://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/whats_the_big_deal_about_402</a></p>
<p>I think those MIT blogs are full of generally useful information, but looking at MIT’s numbers, they certainly admit a higher percentage of students with very high scores. Perhaps that is merely accidental and those kids with 1600s have other qualities that kids with 1400s don’t and they are actually going after the other qualities, but the odds are stacked against those with scores in the bottom half of their 25-75 range. Based on the numbers, they are rejecting <em>huge</em> numbers of kids with perfect scores in at least subtests of the SAT, but they are still rejecting a bigger percentage of kids with lower numbers. For prep schools with average SSATs in the 90s, I’m guessing the admit rates are higher for those coming in at 99 or 97 than they are for 85 or 87. Still lots of 99s get rejected. Still very competitive, but you can’t fill a class with a mid 90s average SSAT without taking a lot of 99 scoring kids and far fewer 85 and lower scoring kids. </p>
<p>It may be that the time spent prepping for the test and repeating the SSAT could be time better spent on some other aspect of the application, but I think it’s inaccurate to say that 85 and 99 are the same to an AO, despite the claim. At least the equivalent claim at MIT is certainly inaccurate, despite the blogs. <a href=“Admissions statistics | MIT Admissions”>http://mitadmissions.org/apply/process/stats</a></p>
<p>“It may be that the time spent prepping for the test and repeating the SSAT could be time better spent on some other aspect of the application…”</p>
<p>This is the point I’m trying to make for current and future applicants. Thank you for stating it more clearly and concisely than I have (despite a number of attempts).</p>
<p>I mean, is it better to have a 99 than a 89? Of course. But if it was my kid, I’d check the “good enough” box and move on…I think too many people think getting a 99% is some guarantee. </p>
<p>SevenDad, I have to say I’m surprised by your dismissal of efforts to improve even high SSAT scores in order to stand out as much as possible, considering your prior, very extensive, statements on this same topic in which you came out 180 degrees the other way, and apparently yourselves followed:</p>
<p>"Tests & Test Prep
SevenDaughter did very well on the SSAT, taking it twice and having scores above 2350 both times.</p>
<p>Why did she take it twice if she did so well the first time? Because when I scheduled her for the October test, I didnt know that her school would administer it to her entire grade in October (I think for merit scholarship selection). I signed her up for the October test largely to get it out of the way early in the application process as well as to give us enough of a safety net in terms of time should her scores not be where we wanted them to be. Note that we were told by a few AOs that anything in the high 80s and above would not adversely affect her candidacy."</p>
<p>And…</p>
<p>“Ive read some variation on the statement SSAT scores dont matter multiple times over the course of my time on CC. And I disagree. Heres why: The SSAT is the only objective apples to apples comparison that AOs have. It (or the ISEE) is the only thing every app has in common. So why are people so quick to discard it as a tool for gauging a candidate? Im not saying that you have to get a 99th percentile score to get into very selective schools, but it cant hurt.”</p>
<p>Seems like this is exactly what I’ve been saying here. But maybe your view has changed over the last few years.</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/prep-school-parents/1174214-one-familys-bs-search-and-application-process--start-to-finish.html#latest”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/prep-school-parents/1174214-one-familys-bs-search-and-application-process--start-to-finish.html#latest</a></p>
<p>(Sorry for the long delay. I had actually lost interest in this discussion but when I came across your old post (to which you linked just recently), I couldn’t resist. </p>
<p>I’m somewhat of two minds about it. My impression is that beyond a little bump from initial, “reasonable” preparation, most kids don’t get material improvement with extension preparation while some smaller percentage see a material improvement. Given a miserly improvement, really pouring time into it for some kids could be torture.</p>
<p>You can’t “lose interest” in a discussion that you were partially responsible for stirring up! ;-P</p>
<p>When I read those posts from my older daughter’s process, I only see one sentence that echoes what you’ve been saying. One among many. And that’s the final one you cite: “Im not saying that you have to get a 99th percentile score to get into very selective schools, but it cant hurt”.</p>
<p>The entire first paragraph is just me explaining WHY she took it twice. SEE the last sentence of that block? “Note that we were told by a few AOs that anything in the high 80s and above would not adversely affect her candidacy.”</p>
<p>This statement, which was made in some form to me by AOs at SPS and Choate, has really stuck with me over the years. I don’t want to see kids chew themselves up with test prep to go from an 89% to some higher number they think will increase their chances at the uberselectives. And I offer my older daughter’s 2350+ leading to a Choate rejection as cautionary tale not to put too much faith in having near perfect scores as a “shoe in” for admission.</p>
<p>To assure you that we do in fact “practice what we preach”, my younger daughter got a mid-80s score on her first and only sitting for the SSAT. We did not push her to try to take it again to try and score higher. We saw no point, considering her standardized test taking history, and especially because her scores were in line for the schools she was considering…and she had a hook that her sister did not have.</p>
<p>No, but you can reach a point of diminishing returns in the exchanges. </p>
<p>Thanks for the clarifications.</p>
<p>Surely the goal is to have your kid attend a school that is in his/her academic “sweet spot” - that point where they are challenged academically but can still do well on report cards. If too much focus is put on raising scores (artificially maybe?), then the child runs the risk of being accepted to a school that will potentially swamp them. Grades are only one part of high school - especially boarding school. If the child has to spend 100% of his/her time keeping grades up, they will miss out in other, dare I say, equally valuable lessons. </p>
<p>I am not saying that trying to get the best score you can is wrong, but after 2 times it seems reasonable to accept that the score is representative. In fact, if all your child has going for it is a 99th percentile score on the SSAT, you may find that you lose out to athletes/actors/etc. - some of whom actually have a lower SSAT score…</p>
<p>@london203: CC won’t let me both “like” and “star as helpful” your post #15, otherwise I would.</p>
<p>I think the best argument for taking the test twice is that the second time you are more acclimated to the actual test taking environment so you will be more comfortable during the process. I agree with all who say that after you get a decent score - one that fits with what you know of your own abilities - it is not productive to chase diminishing returns. I really do not think AO’s draw that much of a distinction between a few, or even 8 or 10 percentile points. The more interesting kid overall will trump scores that are a bit higher but in the same ballpark. </p>
<p>So many kids retake the test that I think it will only get noticed if you retake it more than twice. I don’t think taking it three times will jump out as absurd to an AO, as they more than anyone know the pressure kids and their families are under. </p>