<p>I would never say that scores don´t count for much. Of course, they do. It´s just that this thread evolved into a discussion of why some schools would want to see the context of the scores, and why a the test-taking history can give them extra information and show nuances among candidates. And why, IMO, it is not always in the interest of a kid to retake the test even if they can get their score somewhat higher. </p>
<p>Viewing the context is important enough that some schools have opted to reject the new policy. Obviously, for most schools, it is not important enough to disregard Score Choice.</p>
<p>I just realized that the best statistic that would prove or disprove my point, and which we will never have, would be if you could take all those 2300 range applicants to Princeton (74% of which are rejected) and see how their chance of admission correlates to the number of times they sat for the SAT. If my theory held, you would see the kid with a 2350 in a one-shot deal, more likely to be admitted than the kid with that super score after four sittings. If there is no difference in the acceptance rate for either, then I am wrong. Unfortunately, colleges would never release this data.</p>
<p>^^colleges may not even TRACK the data that way – they might, but it is not in their best interests to do so… </p>
<p>One of the books on college admissions reported that a clerk in the admin office would review the test score reports and then write the highest score(s) on the outside of the application folder. Thus, the adcom woulnd’t even see the number of test times unless s/he went digging thru to folder looking for score reports.</p>
<p>I think we´re going to keep going around in circles on this one. While the school cited in the book may have this policy, we know some schools work differently. This is a quote from another poster months ago, so I can´t vouch for it´s accuracy but it seems credible:</p>
<p>"After the new Score Choice policy, some clarity began to develop. Some schools demanded all scores and, when interviewed, chiefs of admissions at Yale and Stanford commented on reasons for this, such as wanting to analyze the pattern of scores, or having a “particular interest” in seeing how many tests it took to reach whatever the highest scores were.</p>
<p>Oh, I just found this from YDN in January:</p>
<p>Brenzel said the Yale admissions office benefits from seeing all scores in order to make a fair assessment about an applicant, adding that standardized testing is part of a holistic process.</p>
<p>When asked whether Yale looks only at a student’s best standardized testing scores, Brenzel said in an e-mail: “We do give primary consideration to the top scores attained. It can be helpful, though, to know how many times it took to achieve those scores.”</p>
<p>It seems as if you have a notion of the 2300+ scorer as single-mindedly focused on the SAT, prepping constantly, taking every available offering of the test, etc. In fact, I’d speculate that this would be a more likely scenario for the applicant struggling to make the mid-range SAT for the target institution. I think that your typical 2300+ scorer is actually usually a student with enough innate ability and focus that they learn material very, very quickly and are able to do well in classes and also spend a lot of time on their outside interests. The ones I’ve known might have an off day and wish to re-test but they are not obsessing over the SAT. Quite frankly, the test is not challenging enough to hold their attention to that degree.</p>
<p>I guess I just feel in my gut that the whole scenario at Stanford and Yale is going to be messy for awhile. There is confusion over their policies and there is a lot of anxiety over whether or not students will even comply with their request for all scores. Harvard and Princeton don’t offer SCEA. We will look for a really good school daughter likes that offers EA and score choice and let her apply there. Then, sure, apply to the others RD.</p>
<p>BTW, there is no advantage to the application to apply SCEA at S or Y. In fact, doing so arguably makes your chances lower.</p>
<p>Of course they do, but the question is Why? Under your hypothesis, the school is seeking and giving benefit to the single high scorer. Under my thesis, they don’t care so much about single-sitting as they do ‘cheating’ on the test. For example, a former Dartmouth adcom freely admitted that she did not care if a student took the test 3+ times, but it had to be “best effort”. She gave as an example, a student who earned a high 700 on CR but ~600 on Math on test 1. On the retake, the M went to 800 (1500+ superscore), but the CR dropped below 600. The student was rejected outright on principal alone since the Math score was now in question, (as was the student’s character). It had nothing to do with a retake.</p>
<p>Sewhappy, of course, not all 2300s are people obsessed with scores and testing. Can´t you see that that has been my point all along? Some people are naturally brilliant and will do well on the tests with little focus on them. But it´s indisputable that studying and preparing the test, which often manifests itself in multiple test-taking, can raise scores substantially. And that´s just what adcoms at SOME schools want to see. As with everything in admissions, it´s a very imperfect measure, but nonetheless these adcoms think they can discern something more about the candidate with that info.</p>
<p>And there may be test-obsessed people all across the spectrum of scorers. But clearly there are some among the highest level of scorers as evidenced on many threads here on CC.</p>
<p>I really don’t think Yale and Stanford are intent on weeding out the serial testers. I think Yale and Stanford see an opportunity to beat Harvard and Princeton in test score rankings by continuing to inflate their reported scores through superscoring. They are basically doing the same thing as they did in keeping SCEA when Harvard and Princeton got out of that game. They saw an opportunity to increase their selectivity and yield. The hypocracy of their claims that these decisions are driven by the interests of the students is really laughable. That said, both are top institutions and I am pretty sure my daughter will apply and be thrilled if accepted at either of them.</p>
<p>I don´t see how this policy could possibly affect the scores that schools report. They ALL superscore and always will. Kids who have their best sections on two or more different tests are still going to choose to send in all those scores anyway to Harvard and everybody else that accepts Score Choice. Schools have said that they count the applicant´s top score in each section for statistical purposes, and I believe that. Do you really think Harvard´s middle 50% stats are going to go down? Because, Yale and Standford´s aren´t going to change by doing what they have always done. The reasons behind the two policies (S.C. and superscoring) have nothing to do with each other.</p>
<p>And Sewhappy, I really don´t understand why applying SCEA or RD has anything to do with Score Choice. The policy is the same for both. </p>
<p>The debate on the arguments for or against early action programs are best left to another thread.</p>
<p>The other thing that bothers me about opting out of score choice is that it affects the subject tests, as well. (or sometimes it does, since who allows what kind of choice is still so convoluted)
Why penalize kids for taking a range of subject tests and then deciding which they would like to submit?
That was the original deal with the subject tests.</p>
<p>I will easily grant you that colleges want ALL information, so THEY can pick and choose what THEY want to use for admissions; of course, that has absolutely NOTHING to do to benefit the applicant. As I questioned earlier, WHY does Yale want all scores? To what benefit is it for THEM? (Assumes that Score Choice is sole benefit of applicant.) And, no, I don’t buy the “holistic” review argument. It makes little sense on its face since again, it ONLY benefits Yale.</p>
<p>For example, prep school candidate from Beverly Hills took three times – hmmmm, not good. Hooked candidate took test two dozen times – we don’t care.</p>
<p>I don´t think colleges that reject Score Choice claimed that it was to benefit applicants at all. What they say is that it helps them in making the best decisions…which means by the nature of the process, it is going benefit some applicants and hurt others. Of course, it “ONLY benefits Yale”. It benefits its eventual freshman class and student body based on their own criteria. </p>
<p>Harvard makes this wonderful statement in defense of SC but at the end it says:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Harvard recognizes that all scores are not created equal, so it uses other factors to weight the differences in testing. I think you guys are being a little cynical about the goals of the admissions people. Yes, they want to promote their status and reputation…but by admitting the best possible candidates so attendees will have a great experience and spread their admiration for the school. Scores play an important role but getting the highest possible scorers is obviously not their greatest concern.</p>
<p>Broetchen, please explain how rejecting SC increases selectivity and yield? Their is no reason to think that MORE people are going to apply to these schools or that MORE people with higher scores are going to be admitted or decide to attend. How on earth is their a connection?</p>
<p>Someone please show me where any of these non-SC schools claim it is in the best interest of the applicants. What they say is that it is in the best interest of their admissions process. Where is the hypocrisy?</p>
<p>Colleges want ALL the scores, in part, so they can cherry-pick the scores that they report/release. There has been a lot of documented game-playing in this department. The admissions process is deliberately opaque and I think it is naive to accept everything the colleges put out on face value. Not calling anyone in particular naive – just saying there is reason to be cynical.</p>
<p>The hypocrisy is in the “holistic, we are doing this for you blah blah” … Let the student decide which scores to send. The colleges claim that by requiring all scores that keep the student from missing out on the chance to be favorably superscored by not sending in multiple scores. If the student is smart enough to attend one of the ueberselective schools, they can figure out which scores best represent them.</p>
<p>I think the whole score selection thing is dumb. I also think the superscoring thing is dumb. Colleges should see and take into consideration every single SAT / ACT score received. That way we wouldn’t have kids taking these tests 20 times to make themselves look better than they are.</p>
<p>A bit of hyperbole, but then again if you’re taking the test more than once and only showing your better scores, you’re sort of being dishonest… with yourself, and with admissions. Standardized tests are part of the reason that 99% of people are more concerned with their grades than with what they actually know and can do.</p>
<p>I’ve heard this “cherry-picking” argument before and don´t get it. All colleges report the highest score for each section obtained by the members of the freshman class. There is nothing opaque about that reporting, unless you want to claim there is fraud involved at some schools. Those numbers are not going to change one way or the other because of Score Choice–give me a logical argument as to why they would, instead of just a general feeling.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is not a claim that the Score Choice schools make. This is the argument of Harvard, and I suppose other SC schools, and the College Board. So your accusation of hypocrisy would refer to the CB and SC schools. And in the first case, I will join the cynics club, because I think that this reasoning is disingenuous on their part. As I said before, SC schools argue they can pick better candidates if students can´t manipulate the score history (my word, not theirs).</p>
<p>And I agree with the AuburnMathTutor´s sentiment.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Bluebayou, I don´t think the number of tests is a factor when comparing the Beverly Hills candidate to the hooked one, but rather when comparing a Bev. Hills (or similar) applicant to another, and one hooked to another. And I´m not saying that multiple test takers don’t get in, just that it is another small factor that some schools want to consider.</p>
<p>Okay, now a reversal. After years of Penn’s reps answering the question, if taking the test multiple times would be frowned upon, with the same answer:
“No, we don’t care unless it starts to look like an extracurricular activity or it seems like the student doesn’t have anything else to do on a Saturday morning…” (literally every admissions event, campus info session I have attended and there have been many, then the statement is always followed by some awkward laughter in the room)</p>