<p>so is this grade dropping supposed to be good for us applying to college soon?</p>
<p>No, 10-20 points is FAR from statistically significant.</p>
<p>Odds are that the lower 25th percentile is a result of low income recruitment at these schools and/or the new SAT format.</p>
<p>The lowest 25 percent will probably stay about the same, but the upper 25th will continue to rise.</p>
<p>Bear in mind that top schools do have to admit athletes, legacies, and development kids into every class. Those kids will always bring down the averages.</p>
<p>blondie, not those of us with crappy grades but solid test scores...</p>
<p>I wouldn't really care about a 10-20 point drop. If there was a drop of more than 50 points, that would bode ill to the Ivys..</p>
<p>Since 2008 USNews Rankings are based on 2006 data, I wonder if the trend of lower SAT continues in 2007 and 2008?</p>
<p>I highly doubt that the trend continues. The majority of the Ivies had record breaking number of applications and thus are hailing this year's freshman as 'the smartest class[es] ever'.</p>
<p>The scores will go back up.</p>
<p>If it is true, as some have suggested, that students are retaking the SAT a lower number of times, the resulting SAT 'super scores' would obviously trend lower.</p>
<p>The selective schools are dipping into more into the "subjective" arena I suppose.</p>
<p>High SATs: students are good testers, parents are spending the money to send their kids to classes. Some students self study and do well or don't. Some students cannot afford classes, they work or are heavily involved in ECs. Low SAT scorers are probably just as good or better than those scoring higher. At what point does a student continue spending so much time trying to get that perfect score. Maybe colleges are noticing that there is more to an applicant than getting a perfect score or very high score.</p>
<p>Simple answer: new SATs...</p>
<p>I agree. It's a longer harder test. </p>
<p>Also, the colleges are moving away from relying on the test scores as heavily. Basically, a student coming from a top school can still be hurt by a low score, but can't really be helped by a high one. This is the price that we pay for all that prepping.</p>
<p>It is such a shame that what was once such an equalizer isn't anymore. It seems that the result of grade inflation and prep courses is that the colleges are deciding on which kids to take based on extra curriculars and the student's ability to sell herself since so very many applicants have good grades and high scores. It's nuts!</p>
<p>The dropping SAT I scores at the top schools might, ironically, suggest that students are getting better.</p>
<p>The SAT I is designed to be a universal test that's aimed at the center of bell curve: grammar, information-dense but light analysis reading comprehension, basic algebra and geometry. The SAT, in theory, is a good evaluator of performance in the middle, say, 50% of the population. Most people take somewhere between pre-algebra to geometry before graduating so the SAT I is well-aligned with the standard senior in math. I'm not very sure about reading and writing, but I'm guessing that they have a similar case. </p>
<p>Now for top schools, most applicants are in the top 20% if not in the top 10% or 5% for the Ivies, Caltech, MIT, Harvey Mudd, etc. For most of these students, it has been years since they studied the SAT topics. In my case, I haven't studied SAT-type material for 4 years and I am statistically a mid-range applicant to Mudd and the upper ivies.</p>
<p>As for the nation-wide trend, although we might be getting dumber I think it might be more a matter of re-distributed values. As an ironic symptom of the U.S.'s wealth, we've spent an incredible amount of money on sports, music, movies and videogames. So when the standard 12 year old starts asserting his or her values, what will it be? The astounding Richard Feynman and Niels Bohr, or those silly football players and hip-hop artists? Unfortunately, hardly anyone has ever heard of Feynman and fewer still have heard of Bohr, but if I so much as utter Justin Timberlake everyone starts singing Sexy Back. Sports are cool and all, but tend to be a poor long-term investment for our well-being.</p>
<p>No song Justin Timberlake every sings will be sexier than the Bohr model.</p>
<p>"As for the nation-wide trend, although we might be getting dumber I think it might be more a matter of re-distributed values. As an ironic symptom of the U.S.'s wealth, we've spent an incredible amount of money on sports, music, movies and videogames. So when the standard 12 year old starts asserting his or her values, what will it be? The astounding Richard Feynman and Niels Bohr, or those silly football players and hip-hop artists? Unfortunately, hardly anyone has ever heard of Feynman and fewer still have heard of Bohr, but if I so much as utter Justin Timberlake everyone starts singing Sexy Back. Sports are cool and all, but tend to be a poor long-term investment for our well-being."</p>
<p>Agreed 110%.</p>
<p>(Oh shoot, I don't know how to use percentages because I was too busy listening to Britney that day in math)</p>