<p>This isn’t all that surprising, although they get a little too close to saying that admissions is like buying a lottery ticket. However, if you pick your colleges well, the odds are much greater than they appear. I’ve calculated based on our HS Naviance data that even Harvard has an acceptance rate of 15-20% for very well-qualified US applicants, which I think I defined as ACT 32+ and UWGPA of 3.8+.</p>
<p>I would also guess that the 20% who don’t get in shoot way to high for their stats. If they aimed a little lower, they’d get in as well.</p>
<p>BS. Never defines well qualified. Also top 113? Schools with 40% acceptance rates don’t help explain. If we want any meaningful data it would be top 10, or top 20, tops. And it never takes into account that internationals apply more and are accepted more than every before. Umpf.</p>
<p>I agree with slights32. The article says the obvious: that if you have good grades you’ll get into at least one “reasonable” college. The article equates all “very selective colleges” as defined in a Barrons college guide as equal. So Princeton, Boston College, Tulane, etc. are viewed as “equal”. In practice you will get a good education at any of these. But they are very different colleges and not really equal for very top students</p>
<p>Top 10 or 20 is way too narrow a definition of “top school”. By the time you add together just the Top 10 National and LACs, you’re at 20 and have already left off WashU, Northwestern, JHU, UCB, UVa, Georgetown, 3 Ivies, CMU, Michigan, UNC-CH, Vassar, all the military academies, Harvey Mudd, Smith, and a ton of others. </p>
<p>Those are schools anyone should kill for a chance to go to and not turn their nose up as not good enough. Top 113 is probably about right, and I could add of a few more even. That’s still something like only the Top 3% of all the colleges in the country.</p>
<p>Circular logic. They argue that admissions selectivity hasn’t gone down by citing all modern data. The standards have been raised, because now gifted kids are competing with non-gifted children of tiger moms who sign them up for tutoring, SAT prep, mission trips ect. in order to close the gap. 30 years ago, the non-gifted kids went to schools they could get into with minimal to reasonable effort because people simply cared less, and that was perfectly fine. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Contrary to popular belief, those things rarely move the needle for non-gifted children. All the tutoring and SAT prep in the world will not produce a 2200+ SAT score in a student of average ability.</p>
<p>Extra time will. Way more kids are getting extra time.</p>
<p>So will taking ADHD drugs, but both are still of limited worth. They produce gains along the margins, which may get borderline cases over the threshold, and sometimes at a terrible cost. None of those will take a 27 ACT and turn it into a 34.</p>
<p>Honestly, I think it could. But the article is really messed up</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is no evidence to support this claim. A student who would score 1600 on a normally timed SAT would have virtually no chance of scoring 2200+ with extra time.</p>
<p>@Joblue
The problem for many is not not knowing the material, but the timing of the test itself. Once you have the timing down and are ok with spending 45 seconds on a problem without being stressed, your scores will go up. I would honestly guess that given an extra hour of testing time, most people’s scores would raise by 3 points or more.</p>
<p>…I didn’t say that a kid with a 1600 would, but it definitely increases scores. </p>
<p>“Contrary to popular belief, those things rarely move the needle for non-gifted children. All the tutoring and SAT prep in the world will not produce a 2200+ SAT score in a student of average ability.”</p>
<p>Hahahahahahahahah.</p>
<p>Oh, wait–you’re serious?</p>
<p>Yes, I am. The average SAT is about 1500. If you took 10 of them, unlimited funds, and a year, I seriously doubt you could get one 2200+ out of them. The tests just don’t work that way. </p>
<p>I’ve seen at least a dozen students go from 1600s to 2300s in a single summer.</p>
<p>@marvin100, how exactly? That’s an almost unfathomable jump that all the tiger tutoring, ADHD drugs, and cheating cannot explain.</p>
<p>You also need to say out of how many students. A dozen out of 10,000 may be possible, but we’d have to know their particulars. Twelve out of a hundred would be beyond belief. I’d call BS.</p>
<p>I went from PSAT in 170s to 2200+ SAT without any prep classes so I have no doubt in my mind that a 1600 kid can go to 2200 with unlimited funds and a summer. There are many stories on CC similar to mine and the example.</p>
<p>I know multiple people who have taken the act and their first time they got 25/26 then the next time got above 31. Granted the ACT is easier, however I also know people who have taken it numerous times yet stayed at 23/24 even after having tutors. It’s really just based on the student. </p>