Curious what the community thinks on this one. It almost seems that the default response to a middle/upper middle class/wealthy suburban white kid scoring high on a standardized test is that he/she had outside assistance via tutors or test prep classes.
Does a student have any possible advantage in terms of acceptance or awards if he/she scored very high through self study only? If so, how would a student even share that fact?
Case in point, in our community many students with means take SAT classes offered at the local school on the weekends. Another student opted to take the ACT (not as common here) and scored a 34 on his 2nd try (32 on 1st test) and did so through self study only. Curious if this all matters or is a score just a score.
Some do not study or prep beyond reviewing the PSAT problems they missed. No advantages beyond saving $, saving time and assurance that your student will be very academically successful at top tier school or get merit at selective schools. For some students these tests are just another puzzle to solve.
Standardized test cycle will end eventually but probably not until they take GRE, MCAT or LSAT.
It means that they are good at taking standardized tests. Really, nothing more.
In terms of admissions, no there is no ‘bump’ for not needing tutoring or multiple tries to get a good score.
Imo, the thing about kids from affluent families having high test scores isn’t exactly that there is an assumption that they specifically got tutoring/test prep: it’s that a student who has had educational advantages all the way through, and who could have test prep if they needed/wanted it is expected to have good scores.
It helps to realize that scores are scores. What adcom sits around asking him/herself the probability a kid got tutoring? Or studied umpteen hours on his own? Or not at all?
And plenty of poor kids in certain areas get mentoring or other test support, too.
My admissison “tip” is to learn more about what does matter, straight from the sources: the colleges. Not others’ opinions or hearsay.
(Another assumption is that tutoring makes better scores. Not necessarily.)
I don’t know how you would ever determine who had prep and who didn’t for college acceptance. I mean, someone could just say they had no prep despite a private tutor 5 nights a week for months.
Your post makes sense except that I recently read The Gatekeepers (based on a rec from this very website) that suggested that admissions officers DO have conversations just like what you describe here and make assumptions about all kinds of circumstances AND sometimes factor those assumptions into admission decisions.
It is an interesting read but left me feeling there is less science in the admissions game versus “feel.”
I think students who take rigorous high school courses are prepping for these exams just by going to class and completing the honework. Some may not use additional prep, but I don’t believe they’re going into the tests with no prep.
No, self-studying is not any more impressive than classes or tutors. Colleges can’t tell who did what, and excellent prep is available for free to everyone anyway via Khan Academy. Often schools or libraries offer prep sessions free of charge too.
If one feels that self-studying is superior to hired educational assistance, s/he might be missing the point of going to college in the first place.
This particular student did take ACT twice. That by itself, is a type of prep.
One and done is slightly more impressive, slightly, if done without $$$ prep.
I wondered the same thing when S19 got a high score on the SAT in August of his junior year. He was one and done. I think the AOs see the test date and he only sent that one SAT. But, those AOs have so little time to look at an app, I doubt they spend much time looking at the date of his test. He also only self studied.
How can an AO tell if it’s one and done, unless it’s a school that requires all test scores? All of the sections could be higher on the second or third+ sitting and you’d also only send one.
Also, one of my kids took 4 proctored mock tests before the real sitting, which was one and done, but not really.
A score is just a score. But what does it matter? If the score is good, the score is good. Different people have different learning styles and studying preferences. There is nothing more virtuous about self-study, making it more award-worthy.
My own kid used only the free Khan Academy studying and practice tests to prepare for the test.
He did not see any point to paying money for a tutor when he could practice on his own for free. There was no “content” that he did not know, in which he would require “teaching.” He just needed to familiarize himself with the test format. He preferred to study on his own.
He took the SAT only once, in December of his junior year. He had planned to take it more than once if his scores on the first test were not at least average for the elite colleges he liked. But they were good enough to pass the threshold score he had identified beforehand, so he only took it that once, choosing to spend his time on his schoolwork and the activities he enjoyed doing instead of on additional test prep to try for an even higher score.
I would recommend a tutor if:
There is content of which you are unsure and need some reteaching, or
You know yourself and realize you won’t practice enough on your own without the imposed schedule of tutoring sessions.
Those are legitimate reasons. I don’t think my kid is morally superior or more worthy of admission than his friends who studied with a tutor. It was just a different choice, based on his personality and preferred method of study.
The Gatekeepers dates back to freaking 2002. An ice age ago. Things change pretty fast. The author, a journalist, no doubt had plenty of contacts, but only saw the pieces he saw
One thing you can count on is that adcoms do not guess. Not that you’re smarter than your essay or grades, not that if they just accept you, you’ll be fine.
And not that you did or didn’t get outside test prep. That doesn’t stop a kid from prepping on his own.
Or, given the current trend of mass applications, admissions staffs have to guess more than they ever have. If the staff at a small lib arts school couldn’t work through the application volume without many challenges in 2002 (books is actually quite interesting) what are they doing now?