<p>I was wondering if the SSAT is the main factor in getting in school such as Taft, Lawernceville, St.Marks, etc. My SSAT score is not that good, but my GPA and EC's are outstanding. So is the SSAT that important?</p>
<p>Overall the SSAT is not that important, but it is still a factor. As long as the rest of your application and stats are good it shouldn't bring you down</p>
<p>The SSAT is not the main factor, but it is a definite factor. It would depend how bad it is, and what you mean by "outstanding". If it is, say, low 80s, high seventies, and you have some ECs and grades that really set you apart, then it wouldn't matter too much. But if you just have excellent grades and ECs that are nonetheless similar to those of other children applying, then it might be make a difference.</p>
<p>It's pretty hard to claim they are not very important when all of the top schools have similar, high SSAT averages. For the unhooked, I think they're very important. Make sure to add some schools where your score is at least their average.</p>
<p>suze, define hooked versus unhooked............do you mean athletes?</p>
<p>Athlets, legacaies, development and kids with a national level achievement. Just like for colleges.</p>
<p>So would competing in the National Spelling Bee, or winning a state academic competition be considered a hook?</p>
<p>SSAT scores are very important, actually. They're the main test to get into high school; your other scores (GPA, averages) are simply dependent on how well you work, but the SSATs test your core skills.</p>
<p>So if you have the chance to take it again and if you're applying to those high-end schools (Exeter, Choate) and don't have scores in mid-eighties to nineties, then prep for it. </p>
<p>What were your scores?</p>
<p>Hmm, I'm not sure I agree. Three years of middle school course work is more important. One test will not outweigh a three years of work. IMO
Would a student with a record of say a B- average over the course of three years with an SSAT score of 94 have a better chance than a student with an A average and a SSAT score of say 80?</p>
<p>Probably not. But a student with a 3.0 who got a 97th-99th percentile might be likely to be viewed as a kid who was underachieving because they were unchallenged in their currant school, but who has great potential. They might beat out a 4.0 student who scored in the 75th-80th percentile, perhaps seen as an simple overachiever who might not bring something as special to the school, especially if their interviews reflected this.
I didn't think it was very important at all, but last night I went to a presentation for Philips Academy and they repeatedly stressed how the SSAT was the "common denominator" and how it gave them a "clearer picture" of how students abilities were in relation to each other, since it was the same test. In some ways, I think that makes sense, as for very bright and gifted children, grades don't measure progress, just performance, but on the other hand, kids have been taught differently, and some are given an advantage or disadvantage on the test that doesn't reflect their true abilities. After the presentation, I'm much more concerned . . . thirteen more days.</p>
<p>I think I posted this a few weeks ago on a similar thread, but we visited 6 schools this fall. We asked admissions rep at all 6 schools how they evaluated all of the factors in admissions. At all 6 we left with the impression (and at two of the schools the admissions rep said this out right) that the SSAT was one of the least important factors. There certainly is a threshhold one's score needs to be over that will have some relationship to the school's average score, but we were told the distribution is pretty wide around that mean. As long as scores are in the ballpark, it seemed like hooks, grades and recommendations a lot more indicative of what the student brings to the school community.</p>
<p>I'll repost an answer from "Rate the Following" (#10) about the relative importance of various applications factors because it fits this question. Personally the SSAT scores tend to validate the GPA and teacher recs and certify that a student has the requisite background to do the work. Nothing more. Nothing less.</p>
<p>My quote....
[quote]
Grades (plus rigor of courses) and test scores tell admissions whether a student can handle the work at a school. Beyond a certain threshold (each school has their own), only adds a small portion to an applicant's overall score. </p>
<p>I know that when I went to Berkeley, I heard stories from the engineering school about how many 4.0 students were turned down and how many perfect SATs (1600 in my day as they didn't have the writing test) were turned down, while several friends in the school had GPAs between 3.5 and 3.8 and test scores from 1350 to 1450 and were admitted. Clearly perfection wasn't required in academics.</p>
<p>Teacher recs serve to validate the grades and test scores, but more importantly give a feel for how the student fits into the classroom - is s/he a leader, a poser, or invisible. Is s/he high maintenance or a contributor? Need a certain level of comfort that the student will add to the flavor of the classroom without being a disruption. This is more of a pass/fail test most of the time.</p>
<p>Essay is all about a student's motivation - what makes him/her tick and where the passion is. Yes, there is a bit of intellectual measurement here for the truly high level institutions (how well can s/he communicate an idea), but more importantly it shows how self-aware the student is of where he/she is, where the student wants to go, and how s/he is going to get there. Lots of bonus points available here for the student who needs a boost from lack of academic achievement. Lots of opportunity for the pretentious to lose points.</p>
<p>Extra Curriculars and Awards - Very similar to the essay. It shows the passion of the student and committment to achieve over time. This is where a lot of students fool themselves thinking more is better. A school doesn't care if you were a member or officer in 12 different school clubs. What did you achieve from those clubs? Did the chess club go to a big tournament. Did your ranking improve? </p>
<p>Quality and committment are what count in extra curriculars. You do need a certain number of items to show that you are not a total recluse (a big turnoff to schools). That is a minimum requirement. But being a member of 6 clubs at school is no better than being a member of 2 clubs, if membership is all that you achieve.</p>
<p>A multi-year, 6 hour or more per week activity is probably a requirement to get into any of the top schools, whether it be a sport, music, church, or volunteer activity. Some sort of achievement or recognition related to that activity is a good validation of that activity. It shows a passion for something and confirms that a student is driven to achieve over time.</p>
<p>A bunch of 2 or 3 hour a week activities generally is regarded as having a schedule well managed by the parents. They are busy and well rounded, but no passion points are awarded for being highly-motivated.</p>
<p>The Interview - Mostly a tool to validate the passion and drive as exhibited in the extracurriculars and essay. Lots of trap doors to fall through. Also a tool to see where the school lands on an applicant's list. For a candidate who looks generic enough to go to a lot of different schools, this is the opportunity to show committment to that particular school. I'd say this is mostly a pass/fail test.</p>
<p>Money - Yes, I brought up that dirty word! And yes, not needing FA does help, despite the "need blind" claims of some schools. If you meet a certain threshold (some places higher than others) passing all the pass/fail tests, and you are full paying (and even better legacy who have donated money), you are in. All schools need full-pay students. Some need more than others, hence different thresholds at different schools. </p>
<p>The good news is that this is a relatively small percentage of overall applicants who get in this way at most of the competitive schools, because they are usually well endowed and are willing to spend the money for better candidates.</p>
<p>I don't think they look at ranking in these areas. I think they look at minimum scores in each area, then at the number of bonus points beyond the minimum collected from all of the areas to determine admission.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>prettyckitty, I would think schools would steer clear of an underachiever. Your point is well taken but, if someone is not challenged in their particular school, they better shine with what they have. IMO prep schools and colleges do not look kindly on underachievers.</p>
<p>We attended a Middlesex open house where they stressed the importance of not taking the SSAT without preparation. Still I believe grades, the interview recs and ec's are more important in the totality of things.
Blunders such as arrogance, not making eye contact, etc. can kill any SSAT score.
One bad rec can sink you! For those of us that have been on the prep school threads for 2-3 years or longer, can attest to students getting rejected not because of SSAT's but rather bad rec's.
Closing note......I actually witnessed a young man at an open house speaking to an adcom lady about his math prowess while he played his gameboy never once making eye contact. I was stunned. Thank god you wonderful students on CC will never make such a blunder. I wish you all well</p>
<p>
[quote]
Closing note......I actually witnessed a young man at an open house speaking to an adcom lady about his math prowess while he played his gameboy never once making eye contact...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Where were this kid's parents??? On the cellphone? Doh!</p>
<p>goaliedad, His dad was sitting right next to him on the sofa. I remember like it was yesterday, the Dad's torso was twisted on the sofa toward his son.The Dad did not appear to be annoyed or embarrassed. Of course he may have been. I felt so uncomfortable for him, his dad and the adcom person.</p>
<p>If your SSAT score is in the mid 80's or better, it's not important. If your SSAT score is less than 70-75, it's very important.</p>
<p>Loophole, that sounds reasonable for schools with higher SSAT averages.</p>
<p>
[quote]
His dad was sitting right next to him on the sofa. I remember like it was yesterday, the Dad's torso was twisted on the sofa toward his son.The Dad did not appear to be annoyed or embarrassed. Of course he may have been. I felt so uncomfortable for him, his dad and the adcom person.
[/quote]
I guess it made the adcom's decision easy...</p>
<p>Prepparent, That's my point. </p>
<p>For what it's worth I have a good friend who interviews local students for an Ivy league school, a requirement for their application. She interviews both kids who attend school in a low performing school as well as kids who attend school in a high performing school district. The kids that she has interviewed from the low performing school district have included valedictorians and salutatorians with 4.0 GPA. However, their SAT scores have been in the 1100 range. None of these kids has ever been admitted. On the other hand the high performing school has had kids admitted. Their test scores are higher. My point is that schools (both colleges and prep schools) cannot rely on GPA. Their are too many variables. The SSAT and SAT normalize the difference between different levels of education.</p>