<p>Quick question: what do people think about the 700/700/700 magic formula which is supposedly a starting point for really competitive schools? This is the impression which I took from the Forbes article Three Biggest Lies in CollegeAdmission posted on CC.</p>
<p>The thing which disturbed me was the seemingly cold cut-off, I mean, that a kid with a 680/690/690 will be automatically discounted.</p>
<p>Obviously this is for pretty competitive schools...but geez every school is getting more competitive these days! </p>
<p>First, it’s just an article and one guy’s opinion. Would an 800, 790, 680 person be passed over because they didn’t have that 7 in front of the writing score? Doubt it. They might be preferred over the straight 700,700,700 student.</p>
<p>I have,however, heard admissions people say that 750s are almost expected in the reading and math at the tippy top schools these days for regular, unhooked students. Yes,it is getting tougher.</p>
<p>I think there may be truth in it for the ivies. My daughters had a great SAT score but one of the components was 690 and I think that might have tossed out her chances at Brown and Columbia (she did not get into either). Surprisingly, I think it also knocked her out of the big bucks scholarships at Delaware (they gave her very little money - when all the other honors acceptances got her big bucks).</p>
<p>I was told a couple years ago by a Vassar admissions officer that they expected their competitive applicants to have at least a 700 across the board. Are there exceptions? Sure. But she was very insistent on the need for high standardized test scores.</p>
<p>First, there’s no automatic cut-off at 700-700-700. There may be some colleges that don’t have a lot of admissions resources that use automatic cut-off, but they aren’t in the most-selective group and their cut-offs will be far lower. Some colleges don’t even look at the writing portion of the SAT I, and others discount it, so what a kid gets on that may not even matter.</p>
<p>Admissions officers at top colleges say time and again that, while they do use standardized test scores in their evaluations, the test scores are much less important than people think. There was a great blog entry a few years ago from one of the MIT admissions staff saying, as clearly as possible, that getting 800s on everything didn’t matter more than getting 100 or more points less across the three test segments. Applicants with very high test scores seem to do better in admissions than applicants with slightly lower test scores, but that seems to be because applicants with very high test scores tend to have lots of other very positive academic qualities the colleges look at.</p>
<p>Second, if there WERE some bright line standardized test score to separate the most competitive applicants from those whose chances are no better than average – and for the most selective colleges “average” means less than 1 in 10 – that line would be a lot higher than 700-700-700 / 32. More like 2250 / 34. I think people feel that’s the level where colleges will conclude that there’s no question a kid can function on the highest academic level in any field, so no need to worry about that.</p>
<p>Alloutforivy, I like your “777” reference. It is the new “999”!</p>
<p>Must say, we are hoping this particular rule turns out to be true… D2 has stellar test scores (lowest is 780), but only a 3.7 unweighted GPA and no leadership in her ECs. She is not aiming for Ivies, but has a couple in the next tier down that she would dearly love to attend. </p>
<p>It would be interesting to see some statistical analysis on this to see how true to it for each schools (unhooked students only), but we sure won’t ever be given access to THAT data. Maybe in a high school’s Naviance if the school showed the breakdown (ours only shows the 1600 and 2400 totals). Although we all know how reliable Naviance data is (or isn’t) based on some other recent threads on CC.</p>
<p>For the super-selectives, there is probably no “bright line” at any given test score limit. But the chances presumably do fade from small (probably close to 800 each section) to miniscule (probably around 700 each section) to none as the scores get lower.</p>
<p>Brown provides admission rates for SAT score ranges, which are interesting. There is a strong correlation with test score, but not an absolute cliff. Hard to know how many of those admitted with lower scores are hooked.</p>
<p>I doubt if there is an exact cutoff point at the most elite schools, but there most likely is some degree of triage taking place during the initial phase by the least experienced members of the admissions team. </p>
<p>If, for example, a student doesn’t have the Magic 777 AND is not in the top 10% of his class AND does not have some rare and remarkable EC, THEN it becomes clear that said student cannot be competitive with the finalists. At that point, why spend more time on him, since the admissions team is already working day and night during applications season to get all their apps processed?</p>
<p>^ Exactly. I’ve always heard it explained that test scores are a sorting mechanism for reading apps, not a bright line cutting tool except at the bottom of the heap. And that makes sense. Because your SAT/ACT score is the only standardized, objective, data-driven fact in your app, it’s easy for the schools to configure their application management program to import the electronic score reports from College Board/ACT and then filter by their custom presets. So, whether it’s 700/700/700 or 670/740/680, in a matter of seconds, a computer can spit out a subset of apps that will go in the “top test score” pile. Of course, any number of other filters are applied to prioritize/categorize application review, e.g., hooks, GPA, etc., but most require some degree of human review and judgment. For example, after a human conforms GPA, rank, rigor, etc. to the college’s rubric and inputs a certain value in the corresponding field(s), another machine sort can be performed on the “top test score” pile to produce a “FULL READ BY ADMISSIONS” subset comprised of unhooked “top stats” applicants. If your app doesn’t meet any filters for priority review, it doesn’t mean it won’t be “read” (every school insists “we read every app”); but the meaning of “read” can range from “fully read by admissions” to “fully scanned by a contract reader to see if there’s anything that triggers a full read by admissions” and any number of variations thereon down to “machine read and filtered out as objectively ineligible,” the latter being the only time a test score alone could actually serve as a cutting tool. It occurs to me that “666” is probably the rock bottom minimum at some schools… :eek:</p>
<p>It’s not hard to guesstimate where a school stands on the “777” approach. The Common Data Set is revealing–in addition to publishing the 25/75 range, it also reflects the percentage of scorers by score band 700-800 (and 600-700, et seq.).</p>
<p>At Duke’s Q&A several years ago, a student asked if it would look better to take an AP or IB course and get a “B” or a less advanced course and get an “A”. The admissions rep said "if you want to get into Duke, take the most rigorous courses…and get an “A”.</p>
<p>That about sums it up in my mind for the unhooked BWRK shooting for the elites and it obviously applies to SATs as well as grades. The 777 bare minimum doesn’t surprise me at all.</p>
<p>You can get a good idea of a school’s bottom line by looking at the common data stats. It is well below the 25% mark. Probably around 600 on each test for the elite schools. (That doesn’t mean that 600/600/600 would be enough – just that kid with a score combination like 620/710/680 would not be out of the running). </p>
<p>The Forbes article really misses the boat, IMHO. It is clearly written by someone who knows absolutely nothing about the college admissions process. So you get the claim that only athletes and URM students get in with the lower scores – which simply is not true. There are plenty of athletes & URM’s applying with excellent test scores.</p>
<p>Colleges look at the whole package, and they consider test score “in context”. The “context” part includes looking at the type of high school, region of the country, etc. That is, they don’t expect a student coming from a public high school in Mississippi to have the same scores as an applicant from a private prep school in Maryland. They know that the school environments and degree of test prep is different.</p>
<p>Obviously, high test scores can’t hurt. But there definitely is not a 700 cut off. A kid who is a very strong student academically and has an application that is impressive in other ways is going to be seriously considered even if the test scores fall short of the 2100 mark. </p>
<p>I think that the biggest mistake parents & kids make is assuming that high scores, by themselves, are enough to get the kid accepted. The B+ student with the 2360 score is probably at a disadvantage as compared to the A+ student with the 2030 – though GPA alone is probably not enough. But assuming that the A+ student also has great recs & some particular accomplishments or EC’s to discuss – the ad com might be very happy to have that kid.</p>
<p>I had heard of the 700/700/700 “magic formula” before reading the Forbes article. The way I heard it was, that if you have those scores, you are a threshold competitive candidate for any college in the country. It doesn’t mean you will get in; it just means it is reasonable for you to apply anywhere.</p>
<p>There is a segment of the student population that shoots for 750s on each section of the SAT and each Subject Test. The rationale seems to be that the students believe that if you have a 750 or higher on everything, no college is going to reject you on the grounds of your test scores. They’re going to say “Test scores are not a problem for this applicant” and go on and look at other parts of your application. </p>
<p>Therefore, these kids will retake a test to try to bring up a 680 or a 720 but not a 760. </p>
<p>I don’t know whether their reasoning is valid.</p>
<p>how exhausting for these kids! What about real learning?! I wonder if the colleges are even thinking about this anymore? Do they want kids who are either just brilliant (ie 750 + across the board in one sitting) and/or kids who will just keep testing till they get that grade, or do they want kids who are really bright as well, but just not so great at test taking, and really don’t want to keep taking it over and over again just to show they eventually can do it? there is something wrong with our system. and yet, we all play it, right?</p>
<p>Well… I think they want the ones that get it in one sitting if they can get it. So if a student can’t do that… they keep testing, or apply without those stats, or just don’t apply to those colleges. I don’t think that strong SAT scores are evidence that a kid does not have “real learning”.</p>
It is the new “999”!</p>