<p>The golden key to getting a good verbal score is to READ, READ, READ, and READ. Turn off the TV and read. Put away the video game controller and read. Find a book about some subject you are interested in, and read it. Subscribe to some magazine you like, and read it every time it comes to your house. Pick up your box of breakfast cereal (or bottle of scotch ;) ) and read the label. Don't miss an opportunity to read. </p>
<p>By the way, did I mention how useful it is to one's verbal/critical reading score to read?</p>
<p>A thread can go where it will, but (as the OP) the initiall theme of this one was not how much one improved (or didn't) by taking the SAT more than once -- but how much one gained by being able to combine scores from different SAT I sittings. </p>
<p>So: k_ twin: Your "boost" is in fact 90 points. Your best composite score is 730M (second sitting), 800 CR (either sitting), 800WR (first sitting). Great job, by the way. </p>
<p>ohio___mom. Similar point. Math down 20, verbal up 80. That's a boost of 80: you use the first sitting math and the second sitting verbal.</p>
<p>Actually, in our case both my kids' second sitting was also their best composite, i.e. the individual scores either stayed the same or went up. No downward movement in any of the tests. Maybe that means they didn't really have a composite? I dunno. Anyway, that's what happened with us.</p>
<p>Right. Mine also did that, so for the purposes of this thread, Driver's kids = 0, like mine, because their best single sitting would also be their best composite.</p>
<p>Both kids single vs composite boost=0. Highest scores on all sections on last testings.</p>
<p>Both gained 130+ pts between jr and sr years. Since the majority of their prep was done before the jr testing, I attribute the gains to familiarity and maturity. Gains were also pretty evenly divided between M & V (old test).</p>
<p>WesDad, I thought for the purposes of this thread you were supposed to compare <em>best</em> single sitting score to best composite score. Using that method, I thought k-twin and ohio-mom did it right the first time. Otherwise, my S's boost would not have been 0, it would have been the difference between his lowest sitting for the test (the first one) and the best composite test, which in his case WAS the second sitting score. There's some confusion here, I think. Could be mine!</p>
<p>Re-read the OP carefully, roshke....I didn't get the purpose of this either, at first. Apparently some big public U's only take an applicant's best single-sitting test score--whatever the higher total is. You do not get to mix/match from seperate sittings at these schools (I didn't know that--I thought mix-match was universal now.) WesDad is trying to determine (for the sake of discussion elsewhere), if the lower median test scores at these publics (compared to eastern elite privates) is due to this policy. The problem with this methdology is that it can't take into account the number of kids (like mine) whose best possible combination from multiple sittings came from a second single sitting--and are still going to end up at elite eastern privates anyway, not at western unis that only allow a best single-sitting score. But whatever--it's his discussion, I just like puzzles. :)</p>
<p>To extend this, with WesDad's permission--what other schools only take the best single-sitting? Is it a western/midwest thing? I was completely unaware that mix/match was not universal.</p>
<p>driver, Yes, I understood that U. Michigan uses the scores from the "best sitting". My confusion here comes from my interpretation of the original post -that we are supposed to be comparing <em>best single sitting</em> - the way Michigan and others do it, to <em>best composite score</em>.</p>
<p>Using ohio-mom as an example, I thought she had it right the first time (boost of +20) because:</p>
<p>First sitting 670M 710V = 1380 (lowest single sitting score)
Second sitting 650M 790V = 1440 (best single sitting score)
670M 790V = 1460 (Best composite score)</p>
<p>So, 1460 (best composite score) - 1440 (best single sitting score) = 20
rather than 80. </p>
<p>The only way you come up with 80 is if you are comparing the <em>lowest single sitting score</em> to the best composite. Am I way off here?</p>
<p>I think it's the wording that confused people. Once we used the words "mix and match" from various sittings to get a higher total number, it was easier to understand. Some of us thought the word "composite" was just referring to the "big" number from one sitting.</p>
<p>The national Presidential Scholars Program uses best single sitting as the criterea for qualification. Perhaps because they accept both ACTs and SATs.</p>
<p>The boost from taking the best scores from each sitting enables many schools to show higher SAT composites. For my two who have been through the process, my oldest improved 20 points from his best single sitting. My second improved 0 points, his second sitting was also his best composite.</p>
<p>Since colleges are mixing and matching SAT scores (but not ACT scores) it would seem like there is less incentive to take the ACT. Also, if colleges want to mix and match so that their own stats look better, then doing if for the ACT would benefit them, too. So far, I've only heard of 1 college that mixes ACT scores. </p>
<p>Is there a list of which colleges mix SAT scores??? Do they post on their websites?</p>