<p>My SSAT scores: they were 692 or 73% on the verbal, 695 or 68% on the math, 680 or 70% on the reading, overall with a 2067 or 72 SSAT percentile. Analogies was the worst section for me getting 2 more right (16) than wrong (14). Can people with higher scores tell me how they raised it or achieved it? How I can raise my scores to the 80's or 90's? If you achieved this, how did you? Specific names and books? How can I learn those challenging words or analogies since the first time I encounter them were on the test when it's too late to learn them? </p>
<p>First, buy the Princeton Review book on the SSAT. It is by far, without a doubt, the best book. Inside the book there is a list that you should make flashcards of, as well as and any other words. For the analogies, read the strategies, and practice, and practice.</p>
<p>For the reading comprehension, I found it very useful to eliminate the obvious wrong answers, and then focus on the possible right answers. Again, as with the analogies, practice.</p>
<p>The math is probably the easiest to improve on. Princeton Review explains how to solve all the types of problems.</p>
<p>Overall, I would just make sure to do all the practice tests.</p>
<p>...And remember, even if you didn't do so good the first time around, studying can make a gigantic difference.</p>
<p>The only one of those schools I truly know is Exeter. I have heard of Anne Wright's and Emma Willard, but I am not sure where your SSAT score needs to be to get in. For Exeter, you need to get into at least the high 80's, though 90's would be better. I might not be correct, but a score in the 70's is pretty good for Emma Willard.</p>
<p>Pursue your daily tasks with particular zeal; to minute detail, be it in a Nature [your greatest ambient space ~ of thought or in position] or in a System [that is, wholly of the mind], the goal should be made that all tasks should be pursued with an exacting finesse, through the most discerning eye. Apply this principle to even your mundane dealings, and pursue such a state-of-mind with vigilance; you will find that some things mentioned will fall into place.
If you feel that a more practical stance must be taken, then the advice that has been given is surely sufficient. Simply know, and I am sure you do, that it is not in the interest of the committees to be haggled with continually inane frivolities (87% vs. 90%?), and that consequently you should not pursue this end either. Based on the little experience I have, it seems that attitude somewhat resembling the one I have described above is valued in these admissions, and so it is beneficial both for this particular test and for any future endeavors. If such a philosophy is to be adopted, best start now!</p>
<p>with those scores, i might consider a retake. if you don't you still have a chance, but i would rule of Exeter. not that it there is no chance but those scores are kind of low.</p>
<p>I agree with Groton in terms of they ARE to the lower end, but it isn't uncommon for a minorty or athlete that is very strong in the other areas to get admitted.</p>
<p>Umm... not sure! I don't think it's as prevalent as ethnicity or being from a foreign country in general. Especially since it isn't exactly as prominent as skin colour etc.</p>
<p>I mean, I think that religion falls under the sexual orientation category (like is a kid with gay parents a minority?) - you aren't sure whether to pay attention to it or not... it's almost like discrimination, except in a non-discriminatory form.</p>