“An individual student with a 520 math SAT may be just as smart and capable in math as the student next to him/her with a 750. But a bunch of kids sitting together in the same classroom/lab/lecture hall? Don’t bet on it.”
I completely agree. I don’t know that anyone on the thread disagrees. That’s a difference of more than two standard deviations. A group of 750s is an all-outlier population. Of course you can see the difference.
To the OP. I don’t see a good reason to get into comparing two children in the same family by the exact same criteria, or by whether they got into a common set of colleges. I don’t know how much difference in test scores you’re talking about but if it’s substantial and the schools involved are highly selective then the different admission results are understandable. I think you should also consider that the profiles that your two kids presented might well have appealed differently to those schools – even if they had the same test scores.
Our two kids had very different interests (one is an artist, the other an economist – though these labels don’t strictly describe how their careers have developed), so no college appeared on both of their lists. They both had intellectual ambitions, though not measuring that strictly by which schools they were admitted to. They wanted certain types of colleges, and both ended up attending top-notched colleges that suited their interests (RISD and UChicago). But there was no single common metric on which the two kids could be judged, which was fine with them and fine with their parents.
Hanna said
Yes, I’m sure that’s true. But a student’s ability to “do the work” is one part of the equation for competitive schools. They also are concerned with the creation of the kind of classroom experience all students at the school have. My D, coincidentally, began her college life at UDel. Her classmates were doing the work, but the quality of classroom experiences and interests was in a different place from where she was at, in her expeience of classroom discussion, group work, out of class interactions, etc. She transferred to a top LAC (not Harvard…), and her academic experience changed dramatically. The interest in IDEAS, in learning, in inquiry, was night and day different. I can’t say it was because of test scores, I can only attest that it changed, and I’m sure her UDel classmates had high GPA’s.
How long did your child stay there before making the determination? Was she in an honors program?
I ask because it is my experience that students can be challenged in any environment, but that some students thrive because of their temperament and personality, and not because a school is deficient in any way. Some kids thrive in a LAC and others like a large, diverse environment. Different strokes…but I think we must be very careful to paint with such broad strokes. Some bright students might be very unhappy in the particular school that your child chose to transfer to. So it’s not the school necessarily—it’s the fit.
@garland - the expectations and quality of the professors teaching the classes plays a part as well-- the difference your daughter experienced may have been just as dependent on the differences in LAC environment as the abilities of her fellow students. My DD with the mediocre test scores easily rose to the challenge at an elite college. But it really wasn’t a matter of what the other students in the classroom were doing, it was much more something shaped by the professor – and the professor’s are also shaped by the overall expectation of the institution where they work, and the courseload they are required to carry.
From post #58
Kids don’t need to be athletes or club presidents to do well with more holistic admission standards – but I think this post reflects the kind of situation where ad coms find test scores to sometimes be a useful way of weeding out student who all look relatively the same on paper: same array of high school courses, similar GPA’s, similar clubs or activities. These are kids who do high school at high school – and are very good at the doing high school thing, taking full advantage of whatever their high school offers – most rigorous curriculum, every AP available, etc.
Holistic admissions favors kids who have done something unique or distinguishing, sometimes at their schools, very often outside of schools. It may or may not be academically focused. It’s often related to some sort of passion or interest the student has. It doesn’t have to be something that qualifies the student for awards or recognition – but it does have to be presented and documented in some way on the admissions application.
The problem with the focus on test scores is that there are kids who aren’t athletes or club presidents and who don’t have amazing test scores. Some do have something extra to offer - for example, a compelling arts portfolio, or a record of extensive community service - or an intriguing work or employment history.
For those who don’t, it’s not really that the test scores by themselves give the student an advantage – those students also have the other stats needed (strong GPA, class rank, rigorous curriculum, etc.) – it’s just that a weakness in any area becomes a potential way to weed out a student among an application pool consisting of students with similar arrays of strengths.
In other words, the focus of OP’s frustration is on the test scores – but what if she had 2 kids with great test scores, but one kid had a somewhat lower GPA and class rank – let’s say kid #1 has a 4.0 and and kid #2 has a 3.7 – then kid #2 would be at a similar disadvantage.
IIRC alos, Ops first kids was a girl in STEM/tech schools? I think my DS was the same grad year and it seemed gender really made a difference in some majors for acceptances and scholarships. I think our kids had similar stats. He got no love from reaches, and either no money at matches, or very little.
I think when talking about how standardized test scores correlate to different results in college admissions it would be beneficial to actually name the scores. For example, I noticed that someone above mentioned “mediorce” test scores. But how do we distinguish between bad, mediorce, good, and great test scores in this conversation? Is a 27 ACT mediocre or is a 31 mediocre? I know this is college confidentioal, so these are defined quite differently by different
people.
I’ve been an SAT/ACT tutor for the past 10 years and have worked with hundreds of students. One thing I’ve noticed is that there is a discernible difference between the 2300+/35+ scorers and the the 2100/30 scorers. The 2300 students are better readers with better vocabulary and better understanding of nuance in texts than the 2100 scorers. For my students, I don’t believe that these skills were acquired through test prep. For my students, these skills were largely developed through years of reading during childhood. I always ask my students if they read a lot when they were younger and the extremely high scorers all indicated that they were avid readers.
Depends on the college and whether state residence is relevant. UNC-Chapel Hill and UVa, for example, are extremely difficult for OOS students, so test scores for such kids need to be very high for admissions.
One of the MIT reps recently said here that anything with a 7 in front shows the kid is clearly capable of doing the work there.
Good enough to make it through final decision with an admit? Maybe not. You have to believe how fierce the competition is.
Brown, Princeton, Stanford show applicant score ranges and how many of those accepted, and it’s no gimmie to be in the top ranges. 12.8% of 2300-2400 got accepted (this is separate from who matriculated.) Imo, it’s not that they’re driven to get top scorers. But that when you pool all the kids P thinks meet their full wants, (much fewer than apply with the stats strength and “great ECs,”) it’s easy to lean toward the top of that group. They can. And then remember how geo diversity, balance in majors, etc, also plays.
@Zblue17 – when I referred to my D’s tests scores as mediocre I am referring to a 27 ACT.
When I refer to my daughter’s test scores as terrible I mean a 24 act, 25 composite. :))
I think 24, 25, and 27 are all good ACT scores. I worked with a student last year with a 28 ACT (not a URM) who got into UCB, so presumably, schools of a similar, but perhaps a little “lower”, caliber would be willing to consider students with a 25-27 ACT.
OP, you got me thinking about how many of the same schools my two boys applied to since I never really thought about it. MIT, Vanderbilt, UPenn, UT Dallas were the only crossovers. They had very different lists because of different levels of achievements (DS #1 was way more accomplished in STEM and overall, with better scores, awards, etc) and major of interest (DS #2 was interested in game design, animation, industrial design, and a few easier-to-get-into schools for engineering).
Perhaps the difference was that DS #2 still tested decently well, but not near as good as DS #1 except in the writing portion of the SAT (DS #1 had 2320 with 800M, 790CR, 730W; DS#2 had 2230 with 750M, 730CR, 750W). DS #2’s SAT IIs were much lower (730, 710, 610 vs. 800. 800. 730).
I definitely did not expect the same stellar results that DS #1 had (got into all colleges), but I have to say we were incredibly happy and surprised at all his acceptances (16 out of 23 with 4 waitlists), but the majority of his schools weren’t reaches. He applied to 8 high reaches, and got into one (Penn), very surprisingly.
But unlike your DS #2, my son has disabilities, and would have done much better at one of the safety schools like UTD or UAH rather than at Penn. Your son will rock it wherever he goes! And listen-he can always try to transfer into one of the schools that didn’t accept him this year. I know several students who transferred from their state flagship into schools like Columbia after a year.
Answer to question about D at UDel–yes she was in the Honors program. In Honors classes, she was disappointed by the lack of engaged discussion. Same with interactions in dorms. I don’t think that’s because it was a big U vs an LAC. I do not believe that large U’s cannot, by definition, have a sense of academic rigorous engagement. Mine certainly did.
@calmom–I have no doubt my D and yours would get along great.
In my experience, applicants with scores in the high 600’s or low 700’s who have some sort of interesting thing going on outside of school tend to get in to selective schools more than kids who have high scores but just do the usual class officer/school clubs kind of thing. Many families concentrate on grades and scores but in assembling an interesting class, admissions officers are really more interested in the “what else” kids are doing.
For schools’ where admissions is not test-driven, applicants are not looked at hierarchically in the sense that higher grades or scores will get you in. Instead, as we so often say, the approach is holistic. “Character” and the “ability to overcome obstacles” are also important. And they want a diverse environment with many talents, interests, and backgrounds.
If the second son, whose scores were three points lower, had been involved in music or art or service in a deep way, the results might have been different.
There are many colleges which focus on different areas; it’s all good. Some kids get automatic scholarships at state schools because they become National Merit Finalists; some kids don’t make NMF but get really high scores on SAT/ACT so they end up with some non-automatic merit-based scholarships; some kids excel in one sport so get athletic scholarships from UC Berkeley etc. and get free education; some kids don’t have great GPA but are very talented in certain areas so they end up at good liberal schools.
What I am saying is everything is fair when the system favors our kids, but it’s good there are different types of schools that emphasize different strengths. US education system is good in this way. Ultimately, it comes down to the kid’s motivation because there are a lot of opportunities to get education in US.
DS’s pre-ACT list:
Binghamton (match)
Villanova (match)
Lafayette (match)
Vanderbilt (reach)
Johns Hopkins (reach)
Columbia (reach)
ACT (high 20s)
DS’s post-ACT list:
Ohio State (reach)
U Florida (reach)
Virginia Tech (reach)
U South Carolina (match)
U Houston (match)
Buffalo (match)
He is an extremely strong classroom student and team player. Lots of APs and honors. Straight As in a competitive school and loved by his teachers and counselors. He could certainly succeed at any of the schools listed above. However, he struggles with standardized tests. VERY frustrating, but we had to play the cards we were dealt.
In the end he lowered his sights, and he is being rewarded for it. He will choose a school that wants him as much as he wants them.
STEM: Did he keep one of those pre-ACT schools on this list as a high reach?
Compmom: Are you referring to highly selective schools? Most kids that have SATs in the high 600s or higher will get into seclective schools with decent GPAs and typical ECs. They may not get merit and they may not get into the super selective schools (top 25 or so), but certainly many solid choices.
@SouthernHope I totally share your frustration. The quest for stats means that only the tippy top kids get the best packages because schools want them. The others need apply only to boost the selectivity of the school. They will be rejected.
Your only recourse is to have your student apply to safety schools that you can afford.