<p>I know it's not always accurate, but my question is about the SAT info listed.
Is it the scores of kids that were accepted (meaning the test was taken during the application process) or is it the scores of current students (meaning the test was taken in prepration for college applications)?</p>
<p>Scores are those of current students. The overwhelming majority of prep school applicants don't take the SAT. They take the SSAT.</p>
<p>Thanks, that's what I thought, but knowing that for admission into 11th grade and above you would have to take the SAT's, I wondered.</p>
<p>But 11th and above still constitues a minority.</p>
<p>BSR is a great resource but it should not be considered authoritative on all fronts. For example, last year, it listed Hotchkiss' acceptance rate at 6% and Deerfield's acceptance rate at 16%, which were by far the lowest acceptance rates of all the schools. However, I think both those schools are around 20% or so. Furthermore, and can anyone explain the omission? the Taft School is not even listed at all. Strange. </p>
<p>That said, I found BSR immensely helpful, and they have those maps which helped me pinpoint schools geographically as we were planning visits.</p>
<p>Taft doesn't pay to keep BSR to keep its page updated. If you do a search, you can still find the aborted Taft page...but it is dated. More dated than the other pages. The other schools may pay to keep their page active, but there's no telling how active the schools are in terms of updating the information.</p>
<p>And, when they do update their data, there's no guarantee that they're using comparable information. The Hotchkiss and Deerfield numbers you cited are cases in point.</p>
<p>Hotchkiss changed its numbers at mid-year to (I believe) reflect a couple of mid-year admits. Those numbers overrode the larger pool of numbers from the previous regular admission track (which was at 20 or 21% until around January when Hotchkiss entered its more recent data). Deerfield's numbers also changed between November '06 (low 20s) to February '07 (the 16% figure) and I suspect it was for that sort of reason: they added additional data from outside the regular admission track.</p>
<p>This is why you've got to look to current and accurate data sets from reputable ranking services, right?</p>
<p>BSR is a great resource but it should not be considered authoritative on all fronts.</p>
<p>I understand that it is just a guide for some basic info.</p>
<p>I find that the BSR info is pretty spotty--particularly their SSAT averages. I don't know whether it is BSR's fault or the school's reporting. But you have to take those numbers with a grain of salt. So funny that a school can report a 50% acceptance rate, yet still be looking for students to fill the class in August. </p>
<p>Also remember that the acceptance rate is about 1% for international kids, so while a school like Hotchkiss might be 20% overall, for a full pay American kid, I'd estimate the acceptance rate closer to 40%. It just depends on what group you fall into.</p>
<p>What I've come to grips with on the SSAT is that it (and your grades) put you in the game. You don't need the 90+. My son had 87 overall. He's in the game everywhere. </p>
<p>One school we are looking at told me (in a completely different context from admissions - I was at a job interview there for a position not admissions related, and at the time my son was about 2 years away from considering schools) - that they take kids based on potential. They might not be the top of the class when they come it, but that they see something in them, a spark, or something special. They then build on that and help them shine and grow. Even, now, I don't read that as "Theraputic" kids (I know more about the school now than I did then). In any case, I was looking at SAT scores to see if that held true. Which is why I was asking what the scores were based on.</p>
<p>Good point edconsult about the overall rate vs. full pay American kid. Same can be said for some day students. I know that some boarding schools, it is significantly harded to get in as a day student - that % is lower than the overall.</p>
<p>I think you are exactly right about being in the game everywhere. They see the 87 and take the time to read the meat of the application. Same as if they saw a 96. It's not as if a 96 means that they expect less from the substantive portions of a student's application than they would expect from an applicant with an 87. Or that an 87 has some extra hurdle to clear in the admissions process.</p>
<p>That's exactly what I'm thinking D'yer.<br>
Same with his grades. A's and B's with a stray C thrown in there just to keep them guessing...(I know the C can hurt him).
So it comes down to recommendations and the interview really. Everyone here talks about EC's but I'm not sure how much they really matter unless you are a recruited athlete or a first chair musician (my son is neither).</p>
<p>Well, since we seem to agree, we must be right!</p>
<p>I agree with you both too! In my experience with SSAT, an 87% and a 96% are basicly the same thing as far as I'm concerned. It puts everyone in the game.</p>
<p>This year I had two 8th grade boys applying to Lawrenceville. One was Chinese American, 96% SSAT, stragith A's, concert violist. The other was Italian-American, neither parent had gone to college, but they have a successful business now; he got a 62% SSAT, also had straight A's, and he was the vocal lead in the school play and in other theater groups. Guess who got in? Kid #2 accepted, kid #1 denied. SSAT isn't everything, but it really helps. Sometimes it's so interesting to see how these things turn out.</p>
<p>^^^
I think what the above example would tell me confirms what many have stated on this board:
1. Asians face more competition
2. Grades matter more than SSAT scores.</p>
<p>I do think Bs and Cs will be a negative for those schools deemed most competitive.</p>
<p>Edconsultant22, all this talk about how competitive it is for Asian students is making me wonder about my son's chances... I'm going to send you a pm. I hope you don't mind.</p>
<p>Here's another one...
The "new" scale for SAT's is 2400 right?<br>
Some schools listed are obviously reported on the old scale. For example, Avon Old Farms is listed as 1220 and Suffield at 1150, yet some "less competitive" schools have highter scores (ie: Proctor at 1650).<br>
Just another reason the BSR info can't be trusted I guess. Really messes up my spreadsheet. :)</p>