How Many Sittings For SATs?

Colleges and Universities A-Z Harvard University
61

<p>


</p>

<p>The answer I can find on Harvard Web pages that is most on point to your question is "We consider a student's best test scores." That statement doesn't address the issue of whether "best" means "best single-sitting" score (which would be the rule in the U of California system) or "best section-by-section" score. But I know from hearing a Harvard admission officer answering the specific question at a public meeting </p>

<p><a href="http://www.admissions.college.harvard.edu/utilities/travel_schedule/index.cgi%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.admissions.college.harvard.edu/utilities/travel_schedule/index.cgi&lt;/a> </p>

<p>that Harvard's practice is to consider a student's best scores section by section, as has been reported by several admitted students in this thread. </p>

<p>The regional information sessions </p>

<p><a href="http://www.admissions.college.harvard.edu/utilities/travel_schedule/index.cgi%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.admissions.college.harvard.edu/utilities/travel_schedule/index.cgi&lt;/a> </p>

<p>are a really good resource for high school students in class of 2008 to attend to ask specific questions like this. Applicants from high school class of 2007 will know their admission results from Harvard and from other colleges by the end of this month or so. My best wishes go out to all of you to gain helpful information about how to make a strong application, and to find a great fit for your college career.</p>

62

<p>
[quote]
I know from hearing a Harvard admission officer answering the specific question at a public meeting that Harvard's practice is to consider a student's best scores section by section,

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Ask a different question, get a different answer. </p>

<p>"She asked [Harvard admissions office during a visit] at one point if they look at SAT subscores from a single sitting or if they'll consider combined scores from multiple sittings. The response was "we'll consider everything you provide us". " ---- from CC discussion at:</p>

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=2594121&postcount=4%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=2594121&postcount=4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>It is also a bit misleading to quote statements (that every university will make) to the effect that any applicant can have a bad day on the SAT. Not all low scores are explainable in this way, such as a low subscore together with a very high one on the same day. What is more, there is a certain allowance for "bad days" in general in the application, so that (for example) one bad grade, one low SAT-II, one low AP, etc will not necessarily sink an application. But the more "bad day allowances" you need in one part of the application such as the SAT-I, the harder they will be to come by in the rest of the application.</p>

63

<p>Looking at their FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions) that has to do with test scores, this is what I got:</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
1. Does Harvard consider scores from previous administrations of the SAT I, ACT, or SAT II?</p>

<p>Yes.</p>

<ol>
<li>If a student takes the required tests more than once, which results does Harvard consider?</li>
</ol>

<p>We consider a student's best test scores, but it is generally our experience that taking tests more than twice offers diminishing returns.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>Therefore, though Harvard won't hold it against you if you take the SAT I more than twice, there should be a quantifiable reason why you are spending more time and energy taking the exam again.</p>

<p>Furthermore, as can be teased out from the first question, admissions officers do see ALL scores.</p>

64

<p>


</p>

<p>Thanks for joining the thread, xjayz. Do you read this as indicating any difference between taking the SAT I exactly once and taking it twice? I was kind of surprised, upthread, to see students reporting that they had taken the SAT I five times and still got into Harvard. But leaving their examples aside, I think the OP's concern was that there was a risk in taking the SAT I again at all, having taken it once. Does that sound risky to you, based on what you know of current Harvard practice?</p>

65

<p>
[quote]
the OP's concern was that there was a risk in taking the SAT I again at all, having taken it once.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The OP asked: "if applicant A and applicant B are [otherwise identical]... and both got 2350 on their SATs. But if A took it three times and the 2350 is the composite of the highest score from multiple sittings and B got 2350 in one sitting, even though it was the third time that B took it. Who would look better? Would either look better?" </p>

<p>See posting 41 of this discussion, among others above:
<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=3731526&postcount=41%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=3731526&postcount=41&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
Do you read this as ..... Does that sound risky to you, based on what you know of current Harvard practice?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Unless XJ works for the admissions office or has current access to information from inside it, that's a request for speculation rather than data.</p>

<p>Rather than fishing for agreement, why not add some data? Here is a quotation from former Harvard admissions officer Chuck Hughes' book (p.39):</p>

<p>"*TIP: * Never take the SAT I more than three times. Scores are
unlikely to improve significantly after two attempts, and since admissions offices receive all test scores, they could view students with more than three SAT scores negatively, wondering perhaps whether applicants are too test-focused."</p>

66

<p>
[quote]
Furthermore, as can be teased out from the first question, admissions officers do see ALL scores.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This has been confirmed more specifically by Harvard admissions reps and others. I posted a link above to a CC discussion where the admissions folk stated that "we will consider everything you provide", and there was a thread some time ago on CC (that I unfortunately can't locate) where somebody quoted a Harvard representative's description of the handling of SATs pre-committee and at the committee as being essentially the same as what Yale has publicly described. From MSN interview with Margit Dahl (Yale admissions director):</p>

<p>Margit Dahl: "Someone reading your file sees all
scores sent by the College Board. But the computer
program used to print reports for the admissions
committee selects, and prints, the highest of any
individual test type--SAT verbal, SAT math, subject
tests (SAT IIs)--even if they were from different
test dates. This year we will print both old and
new, highest by each test type."</p>

<p>Harvard did not mention any computer program at the time. The CC discussion of this was some time ago and things may have changed.
(Note that processing by a computer program does not imply mechanically
"superscoring" every application; exceptions can certainly be flagged in
cases of large score discrepancies or any other defined situation of interest.)</p>

<p>Several books written by ex-Ivy League admissions officers also confirm that universities see all scores --- Chuck Hughes is quoted above, and other books are more specific about the implications of this.</p>

67

<p>But it's the logical fallacy of petitio principii to assume that ONE additional SAT I score, beyond the first, is negative information. It could just as well be construed as positive information that </p>

<p>a) the applicant recognizes and makes use of opportunities to improve the admission profile before the final deadline, </p>

<p>b) the lower score (whether first or second) was influenced by matters not important to the applicant's overall admissibility, </p>

<p>and so on. There is no statement from any admission officer anywhere that a score difference between one set of scores and another will always be construed negatively. Rather, there is the explicit statement, "We consider a student's best test scores" on the Harvard Web site. </p>

<p>The applicant, of course, has ample opportunity to write into the application an explanation of anything that is unusual about the scoring pattern. The Harvard admission officers say, in an authorized statement on their Web site, "We consider a student's best test scores," and I don't read that as indicating that it is disadvantageous to submit two sets of test scores (or three) rather than one set.</p>

68

<p>I don't think there is any disadvantage at all in taking SATs two or three times. I've heard several Ivy (but not Harvard) ad coms say in public that more than that and a little voice whispers to them why doesn't this kid have anything better to do on Sat. morning? I am sure plenty of kids have taken the test four or five times and gotten in however.</p>

69

<p>
[QUOTE]
The OP asked: "if applicant A and applicant B are [otherwise identical]... and both got 2350 on their SATs. But if A took it three times and the 2350 is the composite of the highest score from multiple sittings and B got 2350 in one sitting, even though it was the third time that B took it. Who would look better? Would either look better?"

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>If this is the case, then obviously the person who got a 2350 in one sitting would be more impressive than the 2350 out of three sittings.</p>

70

<p>
[quote]
obviously the person who got a 2350 in one sitting would be more impressive than the 2350 out of three sittings.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Does that reflect any shareable statements by admissions folk or is it your own logical surmise? I also think that it's "obvious", but personal opinions are not as interesting as the possibility of moving information from the private to the public domain.</p>

71

<p>
[quote]
But it's the logical fallacy of petitio principii to assume that ONE additional SAT I score, beyond the first, is negative information.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Has anybody claimed that the information a second SAT is inherently and exclusively negative? I'm aware of claims that the additional information is (depending on the actual scores and other information in the application) potentially negative. You appear to be arguing with imaginary un-posted statements.</p>

<p>
[quote]
It could just as well be construed as positive information

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Absolutely, just as it can be construed as negative information, or a combination of the two (e.g. the applicant's scores show both visible weaknesses and attempts to overcome same). What doesn't make sense is wishful over-interpretation of nonspecific statements such as "consider the highest scores".</p>

<p>
[quote]
There is no statement from any admission officer anywhere that a score difference between one set of scores and another will always be construed negatively.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Which is evidence that "always negative" is a nonsensical strawman, not that "always neutral or positive" is the admissions practice. Statements of admissions officers have been posted indicating situations whether the effect of multiple-SAT patterns would be negative. </p>

<p>There is also no statement from any admissions officer or any (superscoring) university relevant to this discussion, that any pattern of SAT scores (up to, say, 2 or 3 scores, much less a higher number) in an application will always be treated identically to a single sitting equal to the superscore of those results.<br>
Note that this is a much stronger statement than the usual litany that applicants are not penalized for submitting 2-3 SAT's, schools are not SAT-centric, and so on. </p>

<p>
[quote]
there is the explicit statement, "We consider a student's best test scores" on the Harvard Web site.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Notice that they don't promise to not consider the other scores, and that there is nothing explicit about Harvard's statement (compare it to the much more detailed but still incomplete description from Yale's admission director, above). </p>

<p>
[quote]
The applicant, of course, has ample opportunity to write into the application an explanation of anything that is unusual about the scoring pattern.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And if it's unexplainable? Even where there is an explanation, the budget of excuses has still been reduced where it might be stretched further by a low grade here or there in the transcript, or other problems.</p>

72

<p>
[QUOTE]
Does that reflect any shareable statements by admissions folk or is it your own logical surmise? I also think that it's "obvious", but personal opinions are not as interesting as the possibility of moving information from the private to the public domain.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>I believe it is logical. As someone upthread suggested, focusing on different sections while still maintaining a 700+ on each section is definitely possible, whereas truly getting a 2350 in one sitting is impressive. But what won't happen is a situation in which the admissions committee will select the 2350 in one sitting over the 2350 in three sittings. That just will not happen.</p>

73

<p>


</p>

<p>That's a very interesting statement.</p>

74

<p>(re: xjayz)</p>

<p>Right, but for purposes of understanding admissions office practices the question would be more as follows: suppose A and B have identical highest scores per section, let's say 720 on each section; A is one-sitting, and B is 3-4 sittings where all the non-highest scores are around 500 (so patterns like 510-720-500, 720-500-500, 500-510-700). Each of B's sittings would have been hundreds of points below the admissible level without the superscoring. Imagine an additional sitting of 500-500-500 if it makes a difference.</p>

<p>Question: does the first admissions reader or computer program make some note of this when processing the score report? Or does it blindly go to the committee even though the super-score is a total distortion of B's SAT pattern, which is consistently weak with some erratic peaks.</p>

75

<p>I knew there was some reason why I have changed my nuance on this issue in the last year or so (besides reading hundreds of CC threads), and I think I just found part of what helped me change my mind. (I formerly thought it would be risky to submit more than one SAT I score to a highly desired college. As I hope this thread makes clear, in reply to post #6, I no longer think so.) The recent second edition of a [url=<a href="http://www.amazon.com/How-Get-Into-Top-Colleges/dp/0735204098/%5Dbook%5B/url"&gt;http://www.amazon.com/How-Get-Into-Top-Colleges/dp/0735204098/]book[/url&lt;/a&gt;] first recommended to me some years ago by Jon Reider, Ph. D. (then an admission officer at Stanford, now a college counselor at a university high school) includes a specific answer to the question "How do you regard applicants who take tests many times?" From the keyboard of Director of Admissions Daniel J. Saracino of Notre Dame, the answer is "We see nothing wrong with students retaking a standardized test. We will take the highest combination." </p>

<p>Harvard, as far as I know, has no admission officer who has been quite that explicit in print on quite the same point, but that was certainly the tenor of the spoken comments I heard at the last Exploring College Options joint program with Harvard I attended in my town.</p>

76

<p>
[quote]
That's a very interesting statement

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What I find more interesting is that if you believe xjayz that 2350-A is better than 2350-B, you have conceded the point that for other values of 2350 and in other circumstances, this could be decisive (for example, in an application that is otherwise on the cusp with the SAT scores being just at the edge of reasonable). I don't think anybody has argued that Harvard admission is exclusively SAT-based, but if you find that revelation "very interesting", more power to you.</p>

<p>re: Notre Dame, we were discussing schools where SATs matter a great deal. Schools with much lower SAT ranges obviously won't care all that much where your 700's came from, as just the ability to do this at all is good within their pool.</p>

77

<p>It seems to be helpful to look up recent books about this subject of retakes on the SAT, as they are tending away from the former advice (which once heavily influenced my thinking, before I changed my mind) to minimize retakes. Retakes are commonplace now, and as one recent</a> book quotes an Ivy League admission officer, "Note that more than half of all SAT takers sit for the exam more than once and admissions officers don't penalize students for multiple tries." I used to have a different impression, an impression that perhaps I formed before I learned how pervasive Talent Search testing by middle-school-age students is </p>

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=40823%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=40823&lt;/a> </p>

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=78732%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=78732&lt;/a> </p>

<p>The impression I had earlier was formed in large part by some of the older books that have been cited in this thread, but I find on closer reading of those books that even they never said that one should not retest at all (to respond to the OP's question in post #6), but only expressed an opinion, perhaps now old-fashioned, that testing more than three times is testing too often. This thread includes reports from enrolled Harvard students that they tested as many as FIVE times, which is not something I would have guessed before I saw how the thread developed. </p>

<p>The OP should hear admission results by the end of this month. I wish all of this year's Harvard applicants well, but I know that not all of them, regrettably, will be admitted to Harvard. My advice to applicants next year, when Harvard begins its single-deadline system, would be to consider a retake or not on the SAT I in light of Harvard's stated policy "We consider a student's best test scores." That policy isn't posted in those terms on the Harvard Web site to scare off applicants from taking a second (or third) SAT I test if the applicants think that is a good use of their time and effort. </p>

<p>I appreciate the efforts made in this thread to identify sources and to consider various hypothetical cases, and I especially appreciate hearing from current Harvard students who recently went through the undergraduate admission process there.</p>

78

<p>
[quote]
about this subject of retakes on the SAT [books] are tending away from the former advice

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I looked at most of the old and new books and saw no such trend. Every single book written by an Ivy League admissions officer, with publication dates ranging from 1997 to 2006, echoes the warning against too many tests, the consensus apparently being that more than three is potentially harmful.
The Montauk book that you cited (2006 edition) is not written by an admissions officer, but contains a hodgepodge of quotations from admissions officers showing that many AOs were consulted, and flatly states "Do not take the SAT more than 3 times". Eva Ostrum's book (2006, ex-Yale AO) quotes the current admissions director at Rice stating that three to five tests in the last two years of high school is questionable judgement. These is all current year 2006-7 advice and it is the same as the 1997, 2000, 2003 and 2004 advice from the same population of advisors.</p>

<p>The older books already deal with the question of multiple SATs, which was a common practice in the 1990's, at least among Ivy applicants. While it would not be surprising if retaking has become somewhat more frequent, I have not seen any evidence so far of an enormous increase in the amount of SAT-taking, and the contents of college admissions books over the past decade do not reflect any such shift. I do not claim that no evidence exists, but I see no basis for considering 1997 and 2007 as fundamentally different as far as the risks and benefits of taking any given amount of SAT.</p>

<p>
[quote]
"admissions officers don't penalize students for multiple tries."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>These statements are commonplace and almost meaningless for this discussion, since they just refer to the lack of a specific policy punishing multiple attempts, and do not address the fact that a person sees the entire score report. If there has indeed been a sea change in the numbers of SAT's taken or a shift to "superscore" policies, admissions officers are certainly capable of adapting; it is no longer valid to assume a 30-40 point range of variation for scores if everyone is taking the test multiple times and the scores are maximized per section. Thus a given "superscore" end result might be viewed less generously than a single-SAT result of the old days, as there is a systematic positive bias to correct for. Admissions officers know that ACT results are artificially higher than SAT results for the same reason. </p>

<p>
[quote]
This thread includes reports from enrolled Harvard students that they tested as many as FIVE times, which is not something I would have guessed before I saw how the thread developed.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That fallacy has been refuted many times by now. We know for a fact that over 800 students per year are admitted to Harvard with SAT's below the school's median, and many could post that to CC as a "refutation" of the importance of SAT to admission. So it is with the 5-time SAT takers; it proves only that such people are not automatically rejected.</p>

79

<p>i along with others have retaken the sats although we had high scores in order to meet silly scholarship requirements, (some will not consider you unless you have aboe a 1500 on the first 2 sections.) so i had to retake a 720 CR 760 M 790W because the first two added up to "only" 1480 .... not 1500 yeah its rediculous because 2270/3 = 757 per test, so 757 + 757 = 1514, but evidently that wasnt good enough to beconsidered for a top scholarship</p>

80

<p>Hi, icsmatt, </p>

<p>That's a good point about external incentives to test more than once, resulting in an applicant having more than one submitted test score. You're waiting for some decisions right now yourself, right? Good luck.</p>