<br>
<br>
<p>Yes. There isn’t one single admissions factor that can’t be coached and gamed to one extent or another. That’s why I don’t single out SAT for special scorn or whining. It’s just one more factor in a heavily gamed system.</p>
<p>And if, in order to thwart gaming, the admission gods decided to dream up some new totally-objective and totally-fair factor to consider, driven kids and their driven parents would soon figure out a way to game that one too.</p>
<p>^ Exactly. I think you will find that the system can be gamed no matter what you do.</p>
<p>all i have to say is that I’m glad i’m applying to college the last year before this. I got my score (and both of my sat II scores) in one sitting and although colleges may say they only consider the best score, I have no doubt in my mind that my score in one sitting, at least subconsciously, looks at least marginally better than if it were spread across 3 tests.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>By contrast, I completely doubt that that makes any difference at all, for the reasons mentioned in [the</a> FAQ I already posted](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1061403347-post8.html]the”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1061403347-post8.html) earlier in this thread.</p>
<p>^^And I have no doubt that a lot of college adcoms won’t even see that your score WAS single-sitting, Jcrew.</p>
<p>As a senior, I can’t help thinking it’s really not fair. But at the same time, it’s really pointless and costly don’t you think? I mean taking it twice I think is the ideal since you can probably see the difference but by taking it 4 or 5 times just because colleges won’t see it, it’s kind of ridiculous. I don’t get why ACT does this already but SAT never did till now.</p>
<p>what if someone tries to focus on math this time and verbal another time lol
I prefer people going for reporting all scores</p>
<p>yes, I also do not like the new scoring system
But some of the colleges that I am thinking of applying next year will overrule the new scoring policy, so that does not make substantital difference for me.</p>
<p>And just a point to coldsunlight, in the new scoring policy, separate sections cannot be taken to be combined to form a new “superscore” as they call it.</p>
<p>IF the new policy is practiced, then only ONE DAY testing scores are valid as a score out of 2400.</p>
<p>why not ch910907? Even if you are not forced to send multiple scores to colleges, you always have the option to do so. I don’t think any colleges have said that they are going to stop superscoring.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Have any colleges who now superscore announced that they will drop that practice? Why would they change their current policy and hurt themselves in the ranking game (by reporting lower scores)?</p>
<p>(Don’t forget that some colleges, but not many, currently superscore the ACT which requires an applicant to pay separately to send scores of each test date.)</p>
<p>bluebayou, I would think that many schools will keep superscoring in place for the SAT. If I am not wrong, unlike the ACT, the seatings you choose to send for the SAT will all go one score report if you order them all at once (one fee for SAT score report per school vs. a fee per ACT report per seating for each school).</p>
<p>^^agreed nemom. I was just challenging the assumption in #168, which is based on facts not in evidence.</p>
<p>bluebayou, sorry, I just did not read the prior posts.</p>
<p>I think if they really want to level the playing field against multiple testing, each candidate should only have 2 opportunities to take the SAT/SAT II and/or ACT.</p>
<p>No score choice, let schools superscore if they want to but there are only a maximum of 2 attemps. This way regardless of income (students on fee waivers get 2 free testings on the SAT/SATII) everyone is only testing twice.</p>
<p>Perhaps they should adopt the LSAT policy, no more than 3 test in 2 years but everything gets seen (some schools ask for an explanation as to chages in score over a sertain number of ponts).</p>
<p>sybbie:</p>
<p>the problem with the two-time only approach (and those that argue for one test only, like the psat) is that is places an even larger premium on test prep (ala the LSAT). Of course, any diligent student can prep on their own, but those in the 'hood typically don’t have the counselors to encourage such self-prep. </p>
<p>One reason that the Univ of California is planning on lowering the minimal academic (‘a-g’) admission requirements is that UC claims that HS counselors do not counsel students about which classes to take to become minimally eligible for UC. (If instate counselors don’t even know the the UC requirements, even tho they haven’t changed in 10+, it’s hard to imagine that they understand the intracacies of testing.)</p>
<p>I wrote to the Dartmouth admissions office while this thread was active, and first received an automated reply, and today received a personal email reply from a Dartmouth admissions officer, which reads in relevant part, </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In other words, don’t worry about how many times you took the SAT if you are applying to Dartmouth in the twenty-first century. </p>
<p>Good luck to all of next year’s applicants, the first wave of applicants to deal with the new score choice policy, which I don’t worry about at all.</p>
<p>some words more directly from Stanford on WHY they don’t want Score Choice…</p>
<p>[Palo</a> Alto Online : Stanford rejects multiple SAT test option](<a href=“http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=10650]Palo”>http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=10650)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps what Dean Shaw is really saying is test scores are much more important to Stanford admissions that what they will publicly admit – at least that’s the consensus of several local college counselors that I know. </p>
<p>btw: what about the ACT Dean Shaw? Sending multiple scores hurts “lower income” kids because they have to pay separately for each and every score sent…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>BB, I do not think that Dean Shaw places more importance onto the SAT than any of his peers. Actually, I believe that he is being honest about the process: It’s utterly simple … you need to share ALL your information as an applicant and allow the adcom to make the best decision for you. Let them measure you as an applicant from an impoverished town in Alabama who does not know much about the AP business or as an applicant from Newton, Mass who has been playing the IB and ACT racket like a pro! Be the person you are and let the system work for you. And, fwiw, I know for a FACT that the admission officers at Stanford do look well beyond the SAT scores to evaluate the entire candidate in his or her environment. </p>
<p>Fwiw, the fact that a school requests ALL scores does not mean they do not discard everything but the highest scores. It simply means they want a complete and truthful file. </p>
<p>My biggest hope is to see one more change: the elimination of score choice at the ACT and the elimination of the ACT as a substitute for the SAT Subject Tests. The policies regarding the ACT at our most competitive schools have never made any sense, and with a bit of luck, those errors will be corrected. If I were an executive at the SAT, I would illustrate the differences between the ACT and SAT to every college outside the Midwest.</p>
<p>xiggi, my good friend. I did not mean to infer anything about Stanford’s admissions relative to its peers, but just its own public spin (which definitely meets the level of its peers). :D</p>
<p>Stanford used to require subject tests, but now only “recommends” them. Perhaps the change in policy is true, but I’m not buying. The few local GCs that send lotsa kids to Stanford not only tell prospies to take the Subject Tests, but lotsa of 'em. Four 700’s are better than two. Two are better than none, even with a strong SAT/ACT score. And, of course, Stanford knows that the UCs require subject tests, so anyone from California who only sends an ACT score…hmmmmm.</p>
<p>I do agree that accepting the ACT in lieu of required subject tests makes no curriuclar sense – the so-called science test??? The only way accepting the ACT in lieu of ST’s makes sense is to enable such colleges to attract more applicants from ACT country…an example is Mudgette (a TX scholar who refused CB’s tests), but who got into Yale on her 35 ACT score.</p>