<p>I had a 27 on my first ACT practice test. After 10 more, I got a 35 on the real thing.</p>
<p>I’m also stupid, and my IQ was 80.</p>
<p>I think this demonstrates the absurdity of standardized testing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think this is a valuable insight. From the graph that the Harvard Crimson published of incoming freshmen’s self-reported GPA and SAT, it’s pretty clear that unless you’re a recruited athlete or URM, you pretty much have a 0% chance of getting in with a GPA below 3.7 and SAT under 2200. And then - if Harvard were ever willing to share its data, which it never will be - you could probably chart a fairly significant progression for acceptance rates as you went up the scale of GPA and SAT. So, yes, Harvard does reject several hundred kids with 2400 SATs every year. We all hear that. What we don’t hear is what percentage they do accept.</p>
<p>But I’m guessing it’s much closer to 50% than 5%.</p>
<p>I don’t think it’s 50%, but I do think it’s a lot closer to that number than 5%.</p>
<p>This author obviously doesn’t know that good grades and SAT scores are not the only things that go into admissions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>@myyalieboy:</p>
<p>In case you were not aware, Yale is leading the charge when it comes to tearing ivies down. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“Yale fights the war on ivy - Yale Daily News”>http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2009/10/02/yale-fights-the-war-on-ivy/</a> </p>
<p>@mrmom62: @baltimoreguy:</p>
<p>If one looks at the (non-random) sample set represented by the population of students applying to Harvard (in one particular year) using Parchment, they have the following stats:</p>
<p>Average ACT: 30
Average SAT: 2033
Average GPA: 3.7</p>
<p>With an acceptance rate of 25%</p>
<p><a href=“Parchment Exchange - Leader in eTranscript Exchange”>https://www.parchment.com/u/college/544-Harvard-University/profile</a></p>
<p>Parchment can be notoriously unreliable and that is a very misleading set of stats. Those test scores don’t even reach the 25th percentile from every other reputable source I’ve seen.</p>
<p>so not ture about getting extra time. My gifted daughter suffered from 2 concussions over the past year. She could only go to school for 3-4 hours at a time. She still managed as a junior, in 6 AP classes to get straight As, except for one B in Calc. She has had had memory loss and suffers from slower processing. She can not finish any test in the alloted time. She has had extensive neuropsychological testing done and the results demonstrate this. However, she was not alloted any extra time in school, college board or ACT even with the testing because" she is gifted and is still in the top of her class". She has dreamed of attending Princeton since 6th grade and has worked so hard but can not finish a SAT or an ACT. You have wrong information about extended time.</p>
<p>My friend went from an 18 to a 31 ACT score after a summer of studying. How? No clue. Maybe he just needed to learn better about how the test was formatted. But it can be done.</p>
<p>MrMom is a tiger mom if I’ve ever seen one. I’ll assume, by the fact that she’s a frequent poster on here, that her kids/kid did well on the SAT, and she likes to think that her kids are genetically superior to everyone else because of that.</p>
<p>I went from a 1770 to a 2180 with hackneyed blue book studying. And that was with only one actual testing post-studying, and doing poorly compared to my practice tests. Even in CR, the supposed impossible-to-improve section, I went from 630 to 760, my highest increase. ANYONE can score 2100+, maybe even 2200+. </p>
<p>@BassGuitar just cause you did it does not mean “ANYONE” can do it… To get a 2100 you need approximately 700 in each subject (give or take depending on how well you do on other sections) however, for every subject a 700 is still above the 90 percentile. I guarantee that more than 10% of the people taking the SAT care about what they get on it, so then with your theory that ANYONE can do it - why isn’t the percentage of those students receiving a 700 higher than 10%?</p>
<p>Psh. A “good college” is local to the many extremely qualified students that decide that it’s better to pay much more for the prestige. Perhaps it’s a cakewalk for those in the local area that meet the pretty low minimum GPA requirements :/</p>
<p>joblue notes,"
Extra time will. Way more kids are getting extra time</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>Response: I remember when I took the SAT many years ago I did just under 1400 (M and CR) and got 650 out of 800 on the LSAT. The point, however, is that I never finished more than 80-85% of the test! Had I been given extra time, I can’t imagine how much more I would have increased my score. I really think that perfect scores would have been possible for me.</p>
<p>Bottom line: extra time can really help,but it does depend on the the student’s ability.</p>
<p>While this article is just wrong, it also forgets how blacks are discriminated against in the admissions process. It’s not as easy to get into a top school when you’re black, even if you have top scores and are more qualified than other candidates.</p>
<p>OP not sure that reaching a good college isn’t as hard as it seems is accurate. Having to apply to 10 top schools and getting into 1 is not my idea of “not hard”. Thirty years ago, if a student applied to 10 top schools, she would have been accepted to 3 to 5.</p>
<p>Bassguitar The reality is that everyone can not get a top 10%+ score even with over the top studying. Even for you, you scored 201 on PSAT but I doubt a student with a 170 PSAT could get a 2100+ SAT with any frequency. The average SAT gain is about 40 points, not much more than the expected variance of taking the SAT.</p>
<p>taxguy “Time” is an element of the SAT test just as much as the actual questions. I agree with you the more time would result in better scoring for some but not all. Not sure when the LSAT was scored out of 800 since in my day over twenty years ago it was out of 50 and today it is out of 180. </p>
<p>This article is so true when it comes to high profile schools. I have seen this with my own eyes. I think what is driving it is the ability to easily and electronically apply to lots of schools PLUS the inability of some parents to accept their children are average plus or minus. I was blessed to have two very smart boys that are also stellar athletes, and this parenting flaw is seen in athletics the most. Every kid according to parents is a top recruit and a genius. Parents need to be much more realistic in the college application process. </p>
<p>Schools located in less than desirable places have much more representative admissions statistics than schools located around attractive cosmopolitan areas. As a group, NESCAC schools have more accurate admissions statistics because of lack of name recognition in some circles and location, along with the fact they don’t appear as much fun as other schools. If you took all those schools plus Colgate, Hamilton, Union & Washingon & Lee and moved them to 25 miles to a major city, they would have the same admissions statistics as Stanford and Harvard.</p>
<p>So parents, for kids on the cusp use geography to you advantage. Let me give you an example, For an A- to A student, St. Lawrence will all but give you a key to the vault and it is a much better school than most close to cities with bigger names, Villanova for example.</p>
<p>Voice of reason , the 200-800 score was changed many years ago to the 20-180 score. However, it is almost the same. Just subtract the third digit and add a “0.” </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>MrMom is a he, not a she. (So much for your reading comprehension.) And my kid never broke a 30 on any single ACT, despite extensive test prep - she did go from a 27 to a 29, 30 superscored, however, which is realisitic. She also suffers from general anxiety - in an ideal world, she’d probably score about a 31 based on other tests.</p>
<p>FWIW, yes, I believe test ability is genetically based - that’s no secret, nor is it widely disputed in the field among experts. Also, the ability to make great leaps in test scores often says much more about how badly you did your first time taking the test rather than saying anything about the ability of test prep to raise your test score. Note that even with test prep, my kid never got to what I estimated her ceiling was based on her IQ. I suspect most people who end up doing very well were always smart - they just scored poorly initially due to some other factor. Find someone who is certified 100 IQ and no amount of test prep is going to get them to 2100+. Sorry, but they just won’t.</p>
<p>@trx1150
This isn’t hard to believe (for me, at least). I myself managed to improve my ACT score from an abysmal 24 (June 2014) to a 34 (September 2014), although I will admit that I am an outlier in that respect—I guess my recently improved LD management skills didn’t hurt me all that much either.</p>
<p>Oh and BTW, I self studied if that means anything.</p>
<p>Bottom Line: A drastic improvement is possible.</p>
<p>@MrMom62
Indeed you seem to have hit all the points. I did so badly my first sitting because of an untreated sleep disorder combines with a relative unfamiliarity with my LD in terms of coping mechanisms.</p>