<p>It’s surprising to me that UCal shows up on CB’s list since UC just made Subject Tests optional. Obviously, if they are optional, kids can pick and choose which to send. Of course, UC does not superscore the SAT and only considers the scores of one sitting.</p>
<p>Colgate’s website is silent on the need to send All scores. George Washington does not say applicants must send all scores. Indeed, they just post that there is no advantage to using Score Choice, since only the highest scores will be submitted. I’m guessing that other colleges on that list are questionable as well. </p>
<p>And, yes, I should have stated a handful of “highly selective” colleges…since some on that list are community colleges.</p>
<p>Without yet knowing whether my D will want to use score choice or not, I can tell you this: here is one topic that I will not go out of my way to research. I am going to have D assume that score choice is an option UNLESS a college goes out of its way to inform her otherwise. I am not going to research obscure and ever-changing lists of colleges and try to read between the lines as to what a college wants sent or not. I think it is up to each college to clearly state their position if they want all scores sent. Too much second guessing and research may put D in the position of not using this option that may be advantageous to her.</p>
<p>bluebayou, I found this on the Colgate website without drilling down too far. I haven’t bothered to verify other college websites against the CollegeBoard list. I agree this new CollegeBoard policy has only muddied the waters and created more, not less, anxiety for many students.</p>
<p>This seems to answer my question about why a consumer would want their choices limited. I can well imagine why colleges want all the test scores, in part, it is so they can pick and choose the numbers they report. But I have never been clear on why a test taker would want LESS choice. </p>
<p>So it seems that if you are a very high scorer the first time out, then, I guess, you don’t like having the same results as some one taking it several times and using score choice?</p>
<p>If it is so admirable to have it be “one and done”, that can be mentioned in the extra info section of the app. Why take away everyone’s choice?
I certainly understand that colleges can ask for all kinds of things and one doesn’t have to apply there, if not okay with the policies. I also think one can object to policies and voice those objections.</p>
<p>So you´re right, broechten, I wanted to just keep my D2 out of any CC discussion, but in the interest of full disclosure, I have to admit that I have a bias against Score Choice for personal reasons. D2 took the SAT in May and did very well, after some prep on her own…all free stuff through the internet. That said, she very probably could raise at least her writing score if she took it again. She said at the time she had no interest in doing so and the GC concurred, expressing the opinion I put forth about what it says to colleges. My daughter has a lot on her plate and could care less about getting her scores higher. Hopefully, the recs from her school will coincide in the fact that she is a kid very much focused on the learning, without a very competitive personality.</p>
<p>Now you could say my personality is more competitive because I want schools to see how that is reflected in her scoring history in contrast to others. I don´t think she should have to offer that info in the extra section of the common app. I think it should be plain to see, and obviously, some colleges agree with this.</p>
<p>I´m sorry I wasn´t upfront about where I was coming from before, but I really feel uncomfortable discussing my daughter without her permission.</p>
<p>I really have to disagree with you there bluebayou. If all top colleges cared about were the SAT stats they publish, then they would just admit a lot more 2400s, or from the 2300s of the many thousands they reject. They take plenty of people in the 2200s and less because they are looking at other things (and no they are not all “hooked”). Sure they superscore, but that doesn´t mean they want kids to keep retaking the test to get the highest possible score in each section. From everything I´ve read and heard, adcoms do look down on repeated testing, and my experienced GC seems to think that once looks good. Obviously, every college will look at things differently, and hence you get the varying policies.</p>
<p>You are believing too much in annecdotal accounts of 2300+ car wrecks. It is mostly myth. Thiink about it a moment. It is in these school’s best interest to promote that notion that exceptional scores are routinely rejected. That foments hope among many students with far lower scores — and that increases the selectivity score of the schools.</p>
<p>While, the probability of admission certainly goes up the higher the SAT score, clearly, there are plenty of high scorers that are rejected in favor of lower scorers:</p>
<p>Many schools don´t give stats in this format but I would take this as indicative of the distribution in selective schools.</p>
<p>Without giving details, I can tell you that it was certainly the case a couple of years ago in my school, when a lower scorer, by more than 100 points, was accepted to all the top schools that declined the 2300+ applicant. I speculate that the difference was the recs and character traits, that favored the “one and done” successful candidate.
But I´m sorry to be getting away from the topic of Score Choice in this thread. I think I’ve said all I can to express my opinion so I respectfully withdraw from this discussion.</p>
<p>I was not disputing the value of a 2200+, nor was I trying to suggest that it is more important than gpa, bcos its not. I was trying to point out that colleges don’t care if you score high on one sitting or three, superscored (as alluded to in your post #51). IMO, there is a misconception that acing the test the first time is better than a the same total superscored. I have seen no evidence to support that theory. And, the reason I think colleges don’t much care is that test scores are not used for admissions – they are used for rejections; low scores must be overcome by superlatives on everything else. Once you pass a threshold of ~700 for selective colleges – perhaps 750 for Ivies – the adcom knows you can do the work…</p>
<p>bluebayou, of course, i have no proof that the number of sittings influences admissions, but, as you say, nor do you have data to show the contrary, as these stats are not published. As so much with college admissions, we go on conjecture and anecdotal evidence. My best guess is that someone with a 2230 (like the girl I mentioned above now attending Harvard) is more likely to be admitted if that score was achieved in one sitting than in three. My GC, although she would never come out and say it directly, seems to imply the same. And what other reasons could schools have for rejecting Score Choice? (i don´t believe it´s for superscoring as that applicant would send in all their results anyway). It is only speculation, so we can agree to disagree. </p>
<p>The links were in answer to sewhappy’s suggestion that it was a myth that many 2300+s get rejected (74% at Princeton).</p>
<p>And, yes, I know I said I was withdrawing from the debate but I couldn´t resist responding. :P</p>
<p>Rampant cheating. As I alluded to earlier, under the prior score choice with Subject Tests, kids could cheat, easily. For example, sign up and pay for two ST’s, but essentially only take one. Since a proctor doesn’t really know what section of the test the student is taking, that cheater could spend nearly two hours on one subject test, and then randomly fill in bubbles for test #2 during the last five minutes of hour 2. And, of course, the student does not report test 2. (With score choice, Math 1 & 2 become a LOT easier with time.) </p>
<p>While it may be more difficult to cheat on the SAT, it’s still doable: focus on math sections one test day and take a nap during the CR. Reverse on test day #2. With score choice, the student is rested for each alternating section.</p>
<p>I just read through this old thread from April in which all these issues are discussed and some good links provided. Also has quotes from some schools explaining why they want to see all scores. Now I´m feeling that this discussion was redundant. There are quite a range of points of view there, as well.</p>
<p>Is it true that colleges that require all scores don’t know whether or not score choice has been used? I read some posts about this on cc and a personal counselor recommended it to me.</p>
<p>Regarding 2400s - there are way too few each year to even fill half of one of the elites.</p>
<p>Regarding 2300+ scores - the links Wildwood posted really surprised me in light of what I’ve witnessed at our high school. Then I studied the Princeton link for awhile and realized that the chart showing SAT ranges and acceptance rates might be quite misleading. It reads: “Percent of Applicants accepted by SAT Range” and then sets down 24% for those scoring 2300-2400. This could very well simply mean that of Princeton’s accepted class, 24% percent scored in that range. It does not necessarilly mean that 24% of kids applying to Princeton with that score range got accepted.</p>
<p>I think if you look at the mid-50 percentil range it makes more sense that there were in fact probably relatively few applicants with 2300+ scores and they, in fact, had an extremely high acceptance rate.</p>
<p>sewhappy, because the percentages don’t add up to 100% in the Princeton data you are referencing, I think it does indeed mean that only 24% of the students in that score range were accepted.</p>
<p>Sewhappy, According to the CB, there are nearly 6,000 people who score between 2300 and 2400, and that´s just in one sitting. If you include all those with superscores in this range there would be thousands more, I suspect.</p>
<p>Of course, not all these people apply to Ivies, but I´m sure a good many of them do. Given this, it is not a stretch to think that any of the top Ivies must be rejecting a lot of kids in that score range.</p>
<p>Hmmm . . . yes the percents given don’t add up to 100% so I concede my theory has holes!</p>
<p>However, just on face value it would seem that scoring at the 2300+ level more than doubles your chance of acceptance over students scoring in the next rung down. Nothing to sneeze at.</p>
<p>Also, I am fascinated by the mid-50 percentile ranges given. If you extrapolate that 25 percent of the accepted students were scoring in the 790 to 800 range on at least one of the three sections then the sceneario gets very interesting. There were jsut 553 kids last year who scored 2380+. If every single one of them applied to Princeton - then they might very well have enjoyed an astounding 70 percent acceptance rate. Of course, the mid-range percentiles are given by section so we don’t really know about composites at this extremely high score range.</p>
<p>When my older child went through this a few years back, the bar was lower - a 2300 basically opened the floodgates of acceptances, at least at our high school which is very competitive and well regarded by top colleges. The ground has shifted, apparently. Applicants have to score perfectly or near-perfectly now to get that sort of boost.</p>
<p>As you say, sewhappy, the middle 50-percentile ranges published are all for just sections. Considering that there are more than 8,800 800s in CR and over 10,000 800s in math, I think it´s not possible to extrapolate where the top 25% for composite scores would be at any particular school. I´m sure there are many accepted students with some imbalance in their scores. You can browse all the data tables here:</p>
<p>What is clear, is the higher the composite, the greater the chance, but it does not increase all that drastically if you consider the second range given by Princeton includes from 2100 to 2290 (obviously the probablities for acceptance at the higher end of the range are greater than at the lower end).</p>
<p>My original point was that if colleges were just interested in reporting the highest possible scores for their freshman class, then they could choose all their (unhooked) admits from the highest ranges. But they don´t because the best way to promote themselves is through happy students and alums. And to have a happier student body, you have to fill it with kids with great personal qualities, who will get along well with fellow students. On the several Ivy tours I´ve been on, the guide always made the point that the atmosphere is not competitive, that people cooperate to learn and are not worried about each other’s grades. True or not, the schools seem to think it’s important to try to achieve this environment. That is why I think they may question the priorities of some repeat testers. In any case, I´m sure it´s a minimal factor one way or the other in admissions.</p>
<p>Well, sure personal qualities count. But it’s better to have those personal qualities with a super high composite. That starts to make the application quite formidable.</p>
<p>I think we are looking at this from different perspectives. You think the fact that an exceptional score does not guarantee admission means that scores don’t count that much. I think that the fact that a super high score greatly increases the chance of admission means that scores count enormously.</p>