<p>I guess, Xiggi. In our case, S never prepped for any, but sailed through the SAT 1 Math and Verbal and the SAT 2 Writing tests. Not as fortunate with the other 2's, which as you say, probably coulda used some prepping (and a better HS education.) However, he got into both schools he applied to, so any prepping would've been a waste of time. (OTOH, finishing has been a different case; maybe some persistence paractice would've been prudent.)</p>
<p>Xiggi- I agree that it is a good idea to prepare. However, my son just wasn't interested in doing so. He preferred to read literature and engage in debates with his physics teacher and only took the SAT IIs because I told him he had to for the colleges to which he was applying. He got by, got in and is doing well. He DOES seem to understand that his next standardized test, the LSAT, is the real-deal and will require lots and lots of preparation.</p>
<p>It is really difficult to prep for those tests if the kid has APs, a full load of difficult courses, the SAT1s to retake and time consuming ECs. That was the case for my kids. It was more important for them to focus on their grades than to study for the SAT2s. They did at least go through a test so they had some idea what it was like, but we did not do prep courses for the SAT2s neither self directed nor through a tutor/service. We did do test prep for the SAT1s.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Despite what many will post here (especially students), those scores are going to be absolutely fine for applying to any school in this country, including the most competitive.
[/quote]
I very much doubt that anyone would get accepted to Caltech, MIT, or Harvey Mudd with 670 on Math I.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I could list at least fifteen kids I know personally who applied within the last three years and are now accepted at or attending schools at the top of the first tier, all of whom had at least one subject test below 700.
[/quote]
This statement, though probably true, is completely meaningless. Most schools that require SAT IIs ask for 2 of them (3 at most). Many students take 4, 5, or even 6 SAT IIs. If they have 2 high scores among them, it all that matters - the school takes the highest 2-3 scores; having an "extra" score bellow 700 does not matter at all.</p>
<p>SATIIs in our house were ways to show that you could perform out of a school with very weak AP instruction. So...they have multi purposes. Now that AP instruction has reved up in the era of son number two..I find them annoying..as they don't correlate with APs exactly..and in my opinion require at least three or four hours of prep for kids like mine...they seem redundant when APs are fulsome.</p>
<p>I think the OP made it clear that her student is not a "mathy" kid. Doubt the techs will be on her list unless they have good humanities programs. Then she would have an advantage getting into such a school!! (Yep, much easier to get into Hopkins or CMU for English than for Engineering or Sciences). Any such aspirations in math would probably want a Math2 instead of Math1 anyways. </p>
<p>All of my kids were accepted to top 25 schools including an ivy with at least one of three top subject tests scores below 700. I know others in the same situation. It depends on the school and the subject. If you are any aspiring engineer, it would not be cool to be applying to a top school in that field with a math or physics score below 700. But a 670 in lit may not hurt you that much. A theatre or creative writing major with 680 in math is isn't going to be dunned by most schools.</p>
<p>Faline, I found them annoying too. I think the strong AP scores may have mitigated my kids' lower SAT2 scores. However, there are schools that use formulas that average all the SAT scores, such as the academic index, and if that figures strongly in admissions for a particular school that is highly selective, it can adversely affect admissions. Our kids' schools does do AP prep sessions, so going to those on top of end of year events and another go at SAT1, along with regular course work was just too much. I guess some of the schools know this and feel that is a more "real" score. I had read somewhere that the UCs have this philosophy.</p>
<p>My kids both took the lit test. Just a note for the OP, though, the lit test has the very lowest average scores of any of the subject tests. Lit and World History are the ones kids tend to do the worst on... which is not to say your kid won't do great, just that the average scores suggest it's the toughest test to score high on.</p>
<p>Both my kids used prep books and practice tests to prepare for it. My younger did great, and would have done great without the prep, I think. My older most definitely benefitted from prepping. You know your own kid best, but taking a practice test or two will at the very least give them some idea of what to expect. Then they can decide if some prep might help.</p>
<p>nngmm, as cptofthehouse said, my response was aimed at the OP's question about her kid. True, I didn't say "except for Mudd, MIT, or Caltech," and you're right, it would have made a more fully comprehensive answer. It just didn't seem to apply. </p>
<p>The other bit you're quoting was in direct response to tokenadult's question. For one thing, I'd already noted that I'm aware it doesn't represent any sort of meaningful sample. And your point that some of these kids (and many, many others) may well have taken more than the required number of subject tests, thus rendering their "low" score moot, is well taken. </p>
<p>Overall though, I stick by the gist of my post: Top schools - with certain specialized exceptions - don't throw competitive applicants out of the running because of subject test scores. Yes, they require them; yes, they look at them. And some pay more attention than others. But they look at these scores in context, and students and parents should realize that one "low" (and certainly in the OP's case, still very respectable) score is not going to tank an otherwise competitive application.</p>