<p>Obviously, the higher the better, but I think that SATII scores that break 700 are acceptable at both Vassar and Tufts. I don''t know about UVA or William & Mary, but I would assume scores of 700+ to be quite acceptable there, too.</p>
<p>I attended information sessions at both Vassar and Tufts this summer and parents/students in attendance asked questions about SAT II's at both information sessions.
Tufts: The admissions officer leading the information session that day said that, generally speaking, Tufts looks for SAT II's in the high-600's to low 700's range. Obviously, the higher the score, the better, but students with lower SAT II scores also are accepted.
Vassar: The admissions officer said that Vassar likes to see SAT II's that are in the same range as the SAT I. I can't recall what Vassar's mid-range SAT I's are (check their website), but, for example - if the mid-ranges for math and verbal are 670-730, then they'd be looking to see SAT II scores in the 670-730 range.
Hope this helps.</p>
<p>"That they say you got grade-inflated A's because you did as good as you could in that district is a put-down to every student who doesn't go to a rich public or private school."</p>
<p>Grade inflation is clearly not the student's fault, and I don't think colleges blame prospects for it - but it does draw into question how much information has been conveyed to / picked up by the student - wherever he or she may be attending school. </p>
<p>In addition, some SAT II's seem to be more prone to differences in school curricula than others. Take world history - my son's school is in a relatively rural, predominately white district (expenditure per pupil 7870, as compared to over 13,000 for Shaker and 17,000 for Beachwood). He took the course, got the highest average. Took the test in the Real SAT II's (from the mid nineties) to see if there were any holes in his knowledge - got a 790. Took the real thing - got a 710; lots of questions on Africa ( a continent that is ignored in his district). Oops. In this case, we get a good but not through the roof score due to prejudice in the district and an out of date test in the college board publication. </p>
<p>The thing that I find highly unfair about the ball of wax is that if you know about SAT II's early enough they can be handled in a reasonable fashion. The fact that my son took his chemistry and world tests in June meant that he has this fall to concentrate on math IIC and writing. I feel badly for the seniors who are in a position of taking 3 SAT II's in November and a last SAT I retake in December because their guidance departments didn't provide this information for them soon enough.</p>
<p>"Grade inflation is clearly not the student's fault". I'm sorry, but I still don't see grade inflation here. The term grade-inflation refers to a school where everyone gets high grades, no matter the quality of their work. As in many lower level districts, A's and B's are difficult to come by in our high school. They might not cover the material that an SAT 2 covers, but that doesn't mean that a student did not work for his/her grades. I still feel it's insulting to the student to say otherwise.</p>
<p>Oh, I agree that A's and B's are valued highly in many districts - yours and ours alike, I believe. But that's that not true everywhere. If the HS profile shows rampant grade inflation, or the college has never had an applicant from that district - what is the college supposed supposed to make their evaluation on? A 1500+ SAT shows great potential, and implies the ability to make up for areas that were not covered in HS. My kid - most kids - don't have that. The point I am trying to get across is that the II's seem to be amenable to study - a way of showing preparation for college if not brilliancy.</p>
<p>I can agree with that--I think I took umbrage to the idea that if the SAT 2s do not live up to the SAT 1 (in your first post), then that says something negative about the student. Overall, I think Jamimom had it right (as usual!)--the SAT 2s should show a basic ballpark level of achievement; they don't have to be stratospheric.</p>
<p>I guess they are "amenable to studying for", but does studying for a test like that really add to the intrinsic knowledge level of a student? Are they really better informed, better educated from that kind of study? My gut feeling is no, they're not, and neither of my kids would do that kind of study. But maybe for other kids the answer would be different; i'm honestly not sure.</p>
<p>I think that the Math IIC was not a bad review of earlier concepts, and certainly didn't do him any harm. If he had prepped for world history, he would know more about Africa, and that would be a good thing, IMO. Chemistry - didn't need prep - great teacher - hard class. </p>
<p>Now, writing. It has given us some bonding moments of shared frustration. I don't think I can come up with much in the defense of that test.</p>