My kids gets this often in many classes, AP physics, Math and even English. A school with a strong curriculum isn’t going to have kids memorizing all the info, it will have to be put into practice.
My kid said AP physics is 25% formulaic. The rest is taking what you have learned and applying it. Most kids get a 5 on the test. Classes are very small and very difficult. Keeps the level high for those who want to stretch.
Yes, the common app has made things crazy.
But the number of people scoring very highly was very different (apples and oranges). I went to an Ivy ( I think mainly based on my high SAT scores). I looked up old ( as in decades old) test scores once. They were vastly different. I’m not sure I would ever use them to compare to anything done today. So yes, a 1300-1400 then was a top score ( or whatever the exact numbers were based on the year you applied). It’s not going to do the same thing for a student today.
I don’t think it’s only a matter of people studying, I think it’s a matter that tests were NOT available online and lots of material wasn’t covered. And remember only about 25% of people went to college back in the 80’s ( when I applied). So those going were stronger students. In any case, I’ve always looked at the % rather than the scores. That tells you what the entire nation is doing so incorporates the whole picture.
There seems to be a lot of anecdotal evidence of keeps raising scores by prepping. That’s great. But are they going from 1100 to 1400 or are they raising scores slightly to improve their chances slightly? I have no idea. But if it was so easy to get a 1600 or even a 1500 there would be a lot more kids doing it. IMO.
No, it’s still really hard to get a perfect SAT score. Always was, always has been. But the underlying % have changed as to what a top score is. The test has been revised many times.
Yes, absolutely the nature of the SAT has changed over time. Obscure words and trick questions were real challenges in the past. I remember one of the big things we taught at Kaplan was breaking down and analyzing the question because there often was a wrong answer that that was “right” if you misread the question. I had a chance to look at 25-75 percentile scores for the late 70’s to 80’s for Yale prior to re-centering. Verbal low 600’s/low 700’s; Math low-mid 600’s/mid 700’s. After re-centering 90’s scores: Verbal high 600’s/high 700’s; Math high 600’s/high 700’s. https://oir.yale.edu/sites/default/files/pierson_update_1976-2000.pdf Bunch of other interesting data points in the link on changes in demographics (geography, minority, legacy) and costs over time.
1 Like
From table D8 of that document, the SAT median in 1995 was 670V 720M, while in 1996 (after recentering), it was 730V 720M. The SAT scores did show an upward trend from 1975 to 1995.
Tables D4 and D5 show a reduction in legacies starting in the late 1980s.
Table E3 shows the distribution of majors; history was the most popular major through the time period covered.
These are not stats, as your posts tend to denigrate, this is transcript and rigor and equalizing gpas without scores, the single most important factor.
this is a really interesting thread, as some have noted.
“This is the first time I heard that a teacher can be persuaded to assign a different letter grade from the school’s established correspondences between percentages and letter grades.”
Maybe it’s a private school thing, but public schools I know in upstate NY and bay area, the teacher has complete say in the grading process, there are no school-wide or even dept-wide grading scales. The teacher publishes their own grading scale and if a 85 is an A, it’s an A, similarly if a 93 is an A, it’s an A.
“I don’t know if this is accurate, but I read recently that prior to 1995, only 10 or so people in the entire U.S. scored 1600 on the SAT each year.”
Probably true, one year in the early 80s when I was applying, I think 3 scored a 1600 and we knew about it because the scorers were featured in a Time magazine article.
“Again, this misses the “more” an elite looks for. Much more. Affluent kids are not necessarily more intriguing.”
They may not be more intriguing agree, but their wealth is. No way a college like Harvard randomly has average family income of $200K. The reason we have projects like the social mobility one that Chetty is leading and others on income gaps, poverty is because of the advantages affluent families have, in society and in college admission.
1 Like
Since you replied to me:
I don’t see how you say I denigrate stats. I said an A is an A.
Nor do I see how one can “equalize” gpa. If the hs shows grade ranges in the School Report, maybe. But without a numeric value, you don’t know if it’s a 99, 92, (or your example, an 85.) Nor how difficult a teacher made a course.
One can’t 2nd guess. What one can do is view a top grade as a top grade. Perfect? No. It is what it is. Elite adcoms aren’t there to verify the grading schemes of a thousand high schools.
And, when you’ve got a pool of 10k or more kids (past first cut) who do have the stats and rigor, “the rest” is what becomes critical, what distinguishes. It’s not as simple as having the courses and grades, then just filling out the app/supp any old way.
This GPA is so bizarre to me at some schools. I honestly don’t understand how any Bs can they transfer to 4.0. My son has all A’s never a B many AP and honors classes, even a few 100s in AP classes. His school does not do weighted GPA therefore he has the old fashion 3.97. I really hope this doesn’t reflect badly on him in the applying process. It is making me very nervous.
Every time I read a thread on grades, I cannot believe it. Then someone adds something that adds to my incredulity. I cannot imagine a school where every teacher has their own rubric for how grades are assigned. That is beyond me. Public, private, charter or other. That makes zero sense. Means that each student is going to have to figure out the rubric and then get a random grade from each teacher for each class. It’s no wonder there are some kids on CC who complain about kids not going to top schools.
The AO’s cannot possibly tell which kids are outstanding if the teachers are making it up as they go. Again, no interest in debating anyone. I am just beyond amazed ( and thankful my kids don’t have to put up with that).
I think that one of the reasons that there were no prep materials for SATs back in the day was that the SAT was being advertised as an “IQ” test, rather than a test of mastery of academic material. So, by definition, you cannot prepare for a test which supposedly measured your innate intellectual capabilities.
So the company which produced the SAT had a vested interest in not having efficient test prep available. After all, if people demonstrated that a six month course resulted in an increase of 100 points, that would indicate that these tests were measuring something which was not innate, but could be changed. That would mean that either they didn’t measure IQ, but rather something not that different from GPA, which was already on the application, or that IQ was not some immutable innate character, but something that could be improved (or lost), and therefore, again, did not add anything to the information provided by the GPA.
Eventually SATs dropped the claim of measuring IQ, and the tactic was changed to claiming that SAT tests were better at measuring mastery than GPAs were. In that case, the increases in scores that are the result of test prep do not contradict the basic claims of the SAT, and there was no longer a need to fight against test prep. Of course, these claims raise a whole new list of issues, but that is another story for a another time.
2 Likes
I remember reading an article where some school system in the DC area was trying to reduce grade inflation so they switch from a 90 being an A to a 93 or some such. Within a year teachers just made their tests easier, changed the essay grading etc so that exactly the same percentage of kids were getting A’s.
I think people on CC spend way too much time worrying about grading systems. Colleges read transcripts. You know what will really make a difference? The teacher who says, “I gave this kid a B+ because he kept running out of time on tests as he had to derive from scratch formulas other kids had memorized. But he had the best mathematical mind of any kid in my class.” I’m paraphrasing, but that was the gist of the recommendation which the teacher showed my son. This kid got into U of Chicago, Tufts and Vassar. He didn’t need a 4.0.
3 Likes
Back in the day, decades ago, I had test prep. It existed. And you can see Kaplan started prepping for the SAT before 1950.
What’s changed, in part, is the mania about testing. And the idea every smart kid “needs” a tippy top. Back in the day, we were satisfied to let the obvious cream rise, the few. Nor was there the proliferation of APs, that rat race.
Even this fuss about who’s really and truly got a 4.0 shows this competitive attitude about education.
2 Likes
Society and economy in general have become more competitive. Since the gains from economic growth these days mostly accrue to the top 10% or so, many people feel that they have to climb over everyone else to get into (or stay in) the top 10%. College (including graduate or professional school) is often seen as a stepping stone in this competition, whether it is chasing prestige for prestige-focused jobs (consulting, Wall Street, law) or a major or academic path associated with well paid jobs and careers (engineering, CS, health care).
3 Likes
WE let it get that way and we can take back some sense. I don’t buy into this dog eat dog mentality. Nor that only some 10% top earnings level is the way to go. Have we forgotten a great life is possible without a Google, medicine or law career? What are our values?
3 Likes
We humans like to think we as a speices would get close to each other and our differences become gradually smaller, if left on our own. Unfortunately, the nature works in exactly the opposite way. One example of this is the social media. Instead of us growing closer to each other, we grew apart. @ucbalumnus is correct. We became more competitive in every way, economically, socially, etc. due to fewer external constraints in recent decades.
2 Likes
Totally agree. Most of the wealth is in the top 10%. So kids and parents want to reach that comfort level.
While a hypercompetitive dog-eat-dog society where economic growth mostly goes to the top 10% may not be the most desirable kind of society (especially for the 90%), it appears to be the society that the US has become. Consider the perilous state of household finances of very large numbers of American families (including middle and upper middle income ones), where so many are one medical bill away from bankruptcy. Consider that (as posted on these forums) even high income families often have heavy financial limits on their kids’ college choices. Would the median household income in the US be a livable income for most posters on these forums?
2 Likes
All these posts about the recentering of the SAT are making me feel so much better about my own SAT score back in the 80s!
The grading discussion is also consoling. My two oldest kids both had/have near perfect test scores but not 4.0s at their private school. Seeing all the 4.0s on cc can be disheartening. I’ve had to remind myself that a 4.0 is not the same everywhere.
4 Likes
My kid’s school does the same thing - the transcript shows both % and letter grades.
Each teacher has a unique way of teaching and a unique way of grading, they’re not robots. And the classes are too different to have the same rubric, and no school is going to say a physics class should be graded the same as a history class.
Figuring out the rubric is not hard, it’s in the syllabus and the teacher goes over it in class and the grades are not random. If A is a 89.5 and you get a 89.4, that’s a B.
1 Like