<p>How about Lawrenceville? </p>
<p>We were told by Andover this year, that they look for 92%...</p>
<p>BSR is unreliable. They put together a website and then tried to get the schools to pay fees... not a bad gig if you can get away with it... Last I knew, and this is old info... Taft and Loomis were holding out on the ransom money. </p>
<p>I would rely on Peterson's info.</p>
<p>I'm afraid that all these published compilations of numbers and data tend to be out of date. Peterson's is no more reliable than BSR when it comes to that kind of info. I think Peterson's is better when it comes to descriptions of programs, facilities, etc. but basically the best (and only accurate) source of information on stats is the school itself.</p>
<p>BSR and Peterson's are really only useful for that first pass when you're trying to pick a handful of schools to look at more closely by requesting viewbooks, arranging visits, and so on.</p>
<p>MPS looks for 82% average, I think
SGS is around 88%</p>
<p>guys,</p>
<p>remember, while the mean is commonly referred to as the average - there are actually 3 types of mathematical average - mean, median and mode. so it is not incorrect to refer to the median also, as being the average. </p>
<p>for our purposes with intake into these schools, what would probably be most useful would be the mode, particularly if expressed in ranges of five or ten - i.e. 70- 74, or 70 - 79 etc. that way, if say , that the mode score for tafts in tenths is 70 - 79, then it means that the largest group of successful applicants to that school, school score at this level.</p>
<p>the median does not seem to be particularly helpful, since it could mean that you have several kids in the 80s and 90s as well as several in the 30s and 40s etc. also, as the median given is an individual, exact number rather than a range as described above, if the scores of those below the median are all the same eg 63, etc, whereas those above happen to be all different - say 93 (yes, unlikely scenario, i know!), this could have the effect of lowering the median i.e. the number occurring exactly in the middle of the bottom and the top. </p>
<p>similarly, the mean (which is what is commonly referred to as the averag ) could be skewed low, where you have say a large group of legacy kids for instance, in the low 60s say, and an applicant without such a hook could be misled by a low mean to think they would have a good chance at say 78%, when in fact the mode for kids without such a hook may be much higher - say even 95%!</p>
<p>if we were told what the mode group was, it would be quiet clear what range of percentile had the highest representation in the schools. maybe some feedback we could take to the schools.....food for thought!</p>
<p>mm</p>
<p>i have heard of average and median but not about mode. interesting and something new. it seems to me like the schools have an interest in keeping us a little confused on these numbers. i have heard that the range of scores is a lot wider than we believe.</p>
<p>good post marathonmum, definitely something to consider :)</p>
<p>Good question, and I am seeking the same answer. </p>
<p>During our visit, we were not told directly this information, but it was made clear that they are looking for competitive scores as the other Ten Schools. So we are assuming low to mid-90's.</p>
<p>This is the way I learned about the difference between median and mean (years ago) which I also found on the internet:</p>
<p>**The big difference between the median and mean is illustrated in a simple example.</p>
<p>Suppose 19 paupers and 1 billionaire are in a room. Everyone removes all money from their pockets and puts it on a table. Each pauper puts $5 on the table; the billionaire puts $1 billion (i.e. $109) there. The total is then $1,000,000,095. If that money is divided equally among the 20 people, each gets $50,000,004.75. That amount is the mean amount of money that the 20 people brought into the room. But the median amount is $5, since one may divide the group into two groups of 10 people each, and say that everyone in the first group brought in no more than $5, and each person in the second group brought in no less than $5. In a sense, the median is the amount that the typical person brought in. By contrast, the mean is not at all typical, since nobody in the room brought in an amount approximating $50,000,004.75.**</p>
<p>The mode is the number that occurs most frequently in the set. So, as Marathonmom said, if we knew the mode, we would know what range of percentile was the most represented.</p>
<p>Mean - This is the average value of a set of numbers
Median - This is the number that is in the middle of the set
Mode - This is the number that occurs most frequently in the set</p>
<p>Is the average listed for Lawrenceville on BSR correct (81%)? Thanks!!</p>
<p>Here is something else that is bothering me:</p>
<p>Three years ago, the SSAT score scales were changed so that they would predict future SAT scores. It seems to me that they are not very good predictors. For example, Jonathan said he had a 43% but it was something like a 2000 predicted score (Jonathan -- I didn't bother searching for exactly what you said so I might not have this quite right). </p>
<p>Consider some of the variations in BSR of average SSAT scores and average SAT scores:</p>
<p>Blair 1850 65%
Brooks 1690-2030 (mid 50%) 72%
Cate 1980 82%
Concord 2023 80%
Dana Hall 1893 65%
Deerfield 2000 89%
Governor's 1802 75%
Gunnery 1680 50%
Hill 1841 72%
Holderness 1720 65%
Hotchkiss 2013 92%</p>
<p>Anyway, I think that average SSAT scores are for an entering class and average SAT scores are for a graduating class. Still, there is so much variation. Also, if a 43% is a 2000, then how could it also be around a 92% per Hotchkiss above. It doesn't make sense to me. I could make the list above longer, but I'm afraid I'll be cut off because it might take longer than 20 minutes. If I made the list longer, I'm sure there would be even more swings. So, contemplate that.</p>
<p>2004 was my # SSAT score. SSAT gives you a # score, and then a projected SSAT score. I don't remember exactly what my projected SAT score was, but I think it was around an 1850. I'll check again when I get back to Michigan.</p>
<p>When my son took it, his number score was the projected score. They also included projected ranges for each score. Anyway, compare an 1850 to some of the scores I listed.</p>
<p>In some ways, it's comparing oranges to grapefruit. The SAT writing section throws things off. If we subtract 500-600 points from the reported scores, it's easier for me to compare, especially as the SSAT does not score the essay. I suppose it's possible that schools with strong writing programs will have higher average SAT scores due to the writing section. Of course, you can also argue that accepting a bunch of kids who love to write, and score highly on the verbal section of the SSAT will have the same effect. So, if the SSAT scores are lopsided, verbal high and math low, those students get a bonus on the SAT from the addition of a writing portion, in comparison to the kids who do well on math and reading.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, the kids who take the SSAT are high achievers. Most of those accepted to the top schools cluster at the top of the SAT, compared to the rest of their peers. This is true even for those kids who don't score above 70% on the SSAT.</p>
<p>Also, there's a four year lag between SSAT scores, and SAT scores, which makes direct comparisons difficult. As entry into prep schools becomes more competitive, each year, SSAT averages may rise. (If, of course, a school chooses to place weight on SSAT scores.) So, the average scores reported in the fall of 2007 are the SSAT scores for the kids admitted in the spring of 2007, and the SAT scores are the scores for the preceding year's senior class, who enrolled 5 years before.</p>