<p>I guess I'm kinda reflecting on the PSAT scores of my peers and I... Sophomore year I'd had the highest score at my school (of 400), at about a 199 or 200 I think. Knowing this, I felt pressured to get national merit this year, so I would say my confidence wasn't that high. This one kid, however, took a Princeton Review SAT course over the summer, and a Princeton Review PSAT "cram session" or whatever the weekend before the exam. I'm not sure that his score improved at all. I think this is bad.</p>
<p>Sophomore year, the average score throughout my school was about a 150, and I don't think his deviated from that trend at all. Yet he came in on test day prepared with all of the critical reading "tricks" he'd boasted about the week before that he learned at his prep courses, and still made about a 150.</p>
<p>How does this happen? I didn't prep at all between my freshman, sophomore, and junior years, like many other people, and yet I improved by about 25 points per year just because of my increased exposure to math and vocabulary, and my improved writing skills from having to write essays for English. And I'm not bragging; a ton of people on CC do the same...</p>
<p>I guess what baffles me is the fact that he was so confident, learned all of those tricks to isolate the section that the question asked about and such, and finished both CR sections with like 5-10 minutes to spare, and still lacked improvement. Did Princeton Review make him worse? Can it make up <em>at all</em> for a general lack of aptitude in any of the sections? That is to say, must a kid have some unrecognized, unharnessed talent in a subject for prep courses to help, or can any kid benefit from knowing the ins and outs of the test?</p>
<p>What do you guys think? Because I was literally shocked by the scores of a few of my peers who I had thought were pretty smart/well prepared.</p>