<p>OK, got it. </p>
<p>We are very much on the same kind of track. He's thinking about taking the MSU ADS exam also - James Madison or Lyman Briggs. Would only consider going there with the ADS in hand.</p>
<p>The ADS is tough to win, that is the full-ride one. I know someone who took it this past weekend. He was told that 1100 students are taking it this year and there will be just 15 full-ride scholarships, but about 100 of these students will receive some kind of financial award. The test itself is very comprehensive, including not just science and math but also art history, architecture, literature, history, geography, economics, and other topics. While the winners tend to be students who also score very high on their SAT's, they have to be broad.</p>
<p>You're right. I actually remember taking it in 1974 (yikes) and being totally blown away (I ended up at Kalamazoo College). I don't really anticipate that he'd win, but it is probably the only thing that would lead him to go to MSU (even though my wife is an alum).</p>
<p>So anymore response to my post #15?</p>
<p>I was accepted to Harvard with a 2230. Math - 770, Writing - 750, CR - 710.</p>
<p>For what it's worth. I wouldn't retake it.</p>
<p>Don't bother. Once SAT scores reach a certain range (below your son) the differences are marginal and they stop making a difference in admission decisions.</p>
<p>^^^^ and how do YOU know this? ^^^^</p>
<p>Would it surprise anyone that a recent study of highly competitive students applying at highly selective schools revealed that: </p>
<p>Students who scored a perfect 1600 gained admittance at at least one Ivy at a rate of about 145% of the students scoring 1500 1590, 231% of the group scoring 1400 1490, and finally 322% of the 1300 1390 group. </p>
<p>Students who scored between 1500 and 1590 gained admittance at about 159% of the group scoring 1400 1490, and finally 222 % of the 1300 1390 group. </p>
<p>The same study revealed that students who gained at least one Ivy admission had the top 25% SAT percentile at above 1530; students who were not accepted at the 25% percentile at 1440.</p>
<p>Want more data? Check Brown website:</p>
<p>Distribution of College Board Test Scores (Verbal)
Applied/Admitted
Admitted Percent </p>
<p>750-800
4,233/1,105
26.1%</p>
<p>700-740
3,719/620
16.7%</p>
<p>650-690
3,383/ 356
10.5%</p>
<p>Distribution of College Board Test Scores (Math)
Applied/Admitted
Admitted Percent </p>
<p>750-800
3,954/ 1015
25.7%</p>
<p>700-740
4,533/ 751
16.6%</p>
<p>Give the URL please. Your last factoid just refers to Ivy, what's the reference for the first two, Xiggi?</p>
<p>It would also be interesting to know how important balance or imbalance is.</p>
<p>One thing that may also be relevant about 1500+ is that by necessity both scores must thereby be 700+.</p>
<p>Finally, I suspect there is a strong gradient in probabilities of admission within the 1500-1590 range; the higher you go the more likely at least one of those scores is 800. 1500-1590 is a very wide range among the "elite" scorers. The higher you go, the more balanced the two scores will be.</p>
<p>Give the URL please.</p>
<p>Haha, do I have to? :)</p>
<p>Nah. We just won't believe you . . . or we will still have all these nagging alternative explanations for what's really going on, in particular that lopsided scores are penalized (other things being equal).</p>
<p>
[quote]
There seems to be conflicting information regarding the risk of taking the test again and getting a lower score. Some say it could be detrimental to get a lower score, others imply that it won't because you use a composite score. </p>
<p>Does the composite score policy vary from school to school?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>While it is important to check with each individual school, there is a general answer: most private schools will use the best composite from different sittings and some will still consider the old and new SAT to derive at the best composite. On the other hand, most public schools prefer to use the best score from ONE administration. </p>
<p>Despite many rumors, we have yet to read (on CC) a report of a school that averages multiples scores. The consensus is that the only negative for students to take the test too many times is that they may appear obsessed or compulsive. I, for one, still believe that a higher score carries more positive than possible negatives. An adcom may frown a bit when seeing "too" many scores, but he will NEVER add a couple of points to compensate for a single sitting. :)</p>
<p>I can't believe that so many of you think that a student who scored CR 730, Writing 770, Math 800 should even CONSIDER retaking the SAT. Those of you who think such a student should retake the SAT are every bit as kooky as the wingnuts who think all public schools should teach Unintelligent Design.</p>
<p>The student can't possibly make more than a modest improvement in his score. There is a substantial chance that the student will score lower, especially on the Writing and Math portions. All it takes is one or two tricky questions, especially if the particular edition of the test he ends up with has a less forgiving curve (like dropping from 800 to 750 because of 2 wrong answers). Even if the student does better the second time, the gain is just a few measly points.</p>
<p>In other words, retaking after a CR-730/W-770/M-800 is too much work for too little effort. Students should ONLY retake the SAT if they are confident of making substantial improvement. Someone who expects to improve 200 points but falls 40 points short still makes an impressive 160 point gain. Someone who expects to improve 30 points but falls 40 points short ends up scoring 10 points lower.</p>
<p>Well, JHSU, it is obvious that you did not pay much attention to what the kooks -or was it wingnuts- wrote.</p>
<p>That isn't necessarily true, jhsu. I did not retake with a 1540, both because I was satisfied with the score and because my highest practice test ever had been a 1560 - realistically, I wasn't going to do much better. However, if the OP legitimately thinks he can raise the score by about 50 points, than it is worth it. In the age of US News data schools can't afford to say "oh, I recognize that on a different test this could easily have been a 1570." Why not give yourself the best chance possible?</p>
<p>That being said, I think a 1530 is probably fine for the schools the OP's son is applying to - or for any other school in the country. However, retaking is not completely stupid either.</p>
<p>Go, Your sons scores are not going to keep him out of any of the schools on his list or any other selective school in the country. On the other hand they arent going to guarantee admissions either. They are just one piece of the puzzle, one tile in the mosaic. I would accept them as a job well done and concentrate on other aspects of his application. He sounds like a very strong candidate by the way. His challenge will be to get his energy and talent across on his application.</p>
<p>The only reason I would consider a re-take would be as Xiggi says, he just has to know. (To quote from Dirty Harry, I gots to know!":) ) Fast forward to opening that admissions envelope. If its a rejection will he -- or you -- always wish he had retaken the SATs? If yes, then go for one more time.</p>
<p>Thank you all for your valuable input. Ultimately, of course, it is his decision which probably means he will take it one more time. </p>
<p>As an aside, he's also going to take the April ACT (which is part of the reason I wanted him to bag the SAT). He's only taking the ACT because his school offers a scholarship to the male and female who score the highest on this test each year.</p>
<p>Has your son had significantly higher scores in practice CR tests than what he received in the actual test, while consistently as high in the other two sections? Then it might make sense to retest, actually, as I think about it some more ...</p>
<p>But if he scores in the same range in practice tests (or below), I don't see what would be gained by retaking the test.</p>
<p>I would ultimately leave it up to him, of course. I would NOT want to be in the position of insisting that my kid not take a particular test again, seeing a later rejection, and hearing, "It was because you didn't let me take the test again!" Oh, deary no ... find what facts you can and let HIM decide.</p>
<p>It is hard to look at statistics and draw causation from correlation BTW. Yes, higher scores are correlated with higher admit rates. But do the higher scorers ALSO happen to have higher GPAs, more glowing recommendations, better ECs, etc.? About the only way to test this would be to get ad comms to look at hypothetical applicants that happen to be the same in these other factors and whose only difference is the testing. But even this might be unrealistic, if applicants don't look like that in the real world!</p>
<p>Yeah, I've seen Brown's stats. Now I wonder how my daughter got in ... looking at the 6.5% admit rate for those using the ACT alone and the fact that they are telling homeschoolers now that "at least one" homeschooler is in the freshman class (meaning her, I presume). Her science and math scores were only in the 92nd percentile -- but then it is clear that she wasn't going into science and math.</p>
<p>What I am trying to say is the need to bring up a particularly score may be dependent on whether that score is relevant to the student's proposed field.</p>
<p>DianeR</p>
<p>I agree that "causation versus correlation" is at the core of every attempt to isolate admission statitics.</p>
<p>I hear what you are saying about scores and proposed fields, but S is really all over the board about his future academic plans - religion, philosophy, classics, pre-med. </p>
<p>Somehow, all other things being equal, I really don't think his chances of getting in as a humanities major with CR730 and W770 would be any worse than getting in as pre-med with M800. But maybe I'm just naive.</p>
<p>Given the schools being applied to, it probably wouldn't make any difference. Well, maybe for Columbia -- thinking without any fact checking here, you realize! For HYP it probably would make a difference, due to the strength and size of the applicant pool and the need to find some basis for choosing. But something else in the application can make an applicant stand out, too.</p>
<p>Yeah, this stuff can drive you nuts if you think about it too much.</p>