<p>@lauriejgs - a dozen out of 500 or 600, and yeah, just tutoring. You seem to think the SAT measures intelligence or talent or potential or something. It doesn’t. It only tests (like any other test) how good you are at taking it. And it can be taught. ANYONE can get 800 in M and W with enough practice and great instruction. ANYONE can get 650 in CR (even kids who don’t really speak English), and anyone who can read (even a little) can get 700+ in CR.</p>
<p>Actually, that math is wrong. Since a small minority of the students I meet start out as low as the 16-1700s, I’d put the number at more like a dozen out of 200-300. And probably 80% of the kids I meet who start in the 1600s or 1700s end up in the 2100s.</p>
<p>Erm marvin100 with all due respect, there are just some kids who no matter how hard they prep are not going to get a 800s or even 700s on their SAT.</p>
<p>Well, there are kids who aren’t willing to do the work, I guess. Other than that, I stand by what I wrote above. You don’t have to believe me, of course.</p>
<p>@marvin100 I don’t believe that people who can’t do amazing on standardized tests is solely because they’re not willing to do the work at all. As previously mentioned I know people who’ve studied constantly just to receive the exact same average score as previously. Some people just aren’t good at standardized testing, some are unable to focus in such circumstances, and sometimes the student feels too pressured… It’s not all about work ethic. </p>
<p>It would be interesting to run this experiment with a 2100+ SAT and a sample of top 30 colleges.</p>
<p>Hmmm, so it’s not like there’s a financial incentive here to claim you’re able to do what no one else is able to do, but when you fail, that’s not your fault, it’s because the kid won’t work hard enough.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, they do. They say the identified students with SAT scores of at least 1300 (CR + M).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That entirely depends on what you mean by “meaningful.” The article doesn’t purport to examine how many get into the top 10-20 colleges; it purports to examine overall acceptance rates to well-qualified students (SAT >= 1300) at a “good” college (defined as the top 113 colleges and universities in the country, which is the top <4% of tertiary institutions in the U.S.). It doesn’t say reasonable; it says elite. I would say that the top 5% of colleges in the U.S. deserve to be called elite; I would say that Tulane and BC are both elite, and relative to the number of colleges in the U.S. are not all that different from Harvard.</p>
<p>I would personally argue that looking at only the top 10 or 20 schools is actually less meaningful, given that you don’t have to go to a top 20 school to get an excellent education.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is research supporting this. The vast majority of students make their largest score increase from test administration 1 to test administration 2, and that is largely attributable to familiarity with the test. On average, students don’t really make significant jumps in test administration 3 and beyond. The College Board conducts its own research supporting this. This is called test reliability. The SAT wouldn’t be a very reliable test if simply taking it 6 times would increase your score. Are there a relative (statistically speaking) handful of students who can intensively study and go from a 1600 to a 2300 in a single summer? Sure, there probably are. The vast majority of kids are not able to do that. Witnessing something anecdotally doesn’t make it plausible for large enough numbers of people to actually make huge differences in applications. The research does not support the assumption that “anyone” can get a perfect score with enough practice and testing.</p>
<p>In fact, I think the single biggest factor in declining acceptance rates isn’t tiger moms (because those have always existed) or gifted students (there’s no evidence that there are more gifted students now than there were in the 1990s or early 2000s. In fact, that doesn’t make sense, since “gifted” is usually bestowed based upon being in a statistical category, something like 2 standard deviations above the mean, so by definition the percent of gifted kids will stay the same). I think it’s the Internet. Through the Internet, kids who had never heard of Amherst or Swarthmore can go online and get recommendations about where to apply. Kids can apply to 20 different schools by just using the Common App, instead of filling out 20 different paper applications and paying postage to mail them. And kids can use net price calculators to realize that schools like Stanford and Harvard might actually be in their financial reach given the aid that they give.</p>
<p>Personally, I think more borderline or below-stats kids are throwing their hats in the ring for Stanford and Harvard and Amherst and Swarthmore because it’s easy now, through the Common App and electronic applications.</p>
<p>There’s also the problem with lack of statistical literacy. Stanford’s 5% acceptance rate does not mean that you, the individual applicant, have a 5% chance of getting admitted.</p>
<p>@juillet</p>
<p>I am in agreement that the internet allows a lot of people to apply to universities they would have never considered before and to a large extent I think this is true for international students. In terms of domestic applicants I think the root cause is the No Child Left Behind Act. </p>
<p>That act put education in the spotlight and suddenly education was a national issue. Schools started focusing more on test scores. People started caring a lot more people cared about grades. And the end result of all of k-12 prep is college admissions. In other words a lot more people are brining their A game now. </p>
<p>Furthermore the raising cost of tuition put a burden on students & parents to make college ‘worth it’ and that resulted in again more applications to the top tier universities. </p>
<p>The internet accelerated the increased difficulty in applications but I do not believe it was the root cause. </p>
<p>As for the percentage of gifted students, because of the increased number of internationals applying it means there is proportionally a greater percentage of gifted students applying to American university today then if it was purely domestic applicants. </p>
<p>Ivy schools aren’t even that good. </p>
<p>@juillet Great post. @NASA depends what your looking for.</p>
<p>I partially understand where the author of the article is coming from. I know of a girl applying to Harvard RD who more than likely won’t get in. Not that she isn’t smart, just that by hearing what her extra curriculars and GPA, her application will easily blend in unless she writes an essay that will blow the AdComs out of Cambridge. </p>
<p>@MrMom62 - like I said, feel free not to believe me. I stand by this, though: the <em>vast</em> majority of students (barring learning disabilities, reading disorders, or diagnosable panic attacks), with enough work and proper instruction (the latter, I believe, is the harder to come by), can score 2200+. I’m not at all arguing with CB data, but I have my own 12 years of data as well.</p>
<p>You don’t have to believe me, and I’m fine if you choose not to, but your implications about what I do are out of line and my long and honorable posting history on this site should protect me from such scurrilous accusations. Please apologize for that uncalled-for personal attack.</p>
<p>Honestly, though, I find your fatalism even more off-putting, @MrMom62. The alternative is to just throw your hands up in the air and give up–that is the <em>opposite</em> of what this site is for. This very site, and the thousands of people helping each other in the SAT and ACT forums deserve better than your jaded “it’ll never work” attitude.</p>
<p>I’ve seen it with my own two eyes as have many of the people on this site. The adults among us should be trying to help them, not telling them “eh, you’ll never make it.” Really disheartening thing to hear from someone I assume is a parent.</p>
<p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>Sorry, but you started it. If you can’t take it, don’t dish it out.</p>
<p>@marvin100 would you say Critical Reading is the most “untutorable”? As in it is very difficult to score 750+ unless you read on a regular basis, outside of practice</p>
<p>Not true. Not that there are not many good schools besides Ivies, but one can acknowledge that without tearing Ivies down.</p>
<p>I would, @Jarjarbinks23. I believe that vocab mastery alone can get all but the most extremely low-fluency kids up to 650, but 750+ requires some actual reading skills. That said, 700+ is terrific and will get a kid into a lot of very selective colleges!</p>
<p>@MrMom62 - Okay, I have a better understanding of what kind of persona you wish to have on this site now and will cease expecting better from you. Let it be known, though, that I would <em>never</em>, <em>never ever</em> put business before students’ needs. Never have, never would, never will. Business is a necessary evil; education is my passion and my life’s work. I wash my hands of you.</p>
<p>@MrMom62 </p>
<p>Pffft. That’s quite easy to say when you’re just a spectator looking at the numbers isn’t it? Because if you’ve taken the test you’d know that it’s a matter of how much time you put into it. The SAT measures your knowledge of the SAT, nothing else.</p>