Very high GPA -- Middling SATs

Parents Forum
381

<p>Josh, it’s not what you think – I was addressing the way that college admissions use the information – and they don’t use individual test scores to “validate” GPA’s when they have other information about the schools. The use of average SAT scores as part of the data they have about the school is a very different matter than the use of an individual’s score to diminish the value of their GPA from a known competitive high school.</p>

<p>In other words, if you graduate from your competitive high school with a 3.7 GPA and a 2200 SAT score – and some other kid has a 4.0 GPA and an 1800 GPA… its quite likely that you will find that the kid with the lower SAT, higher GPA does better in college admissions. The school does’t suddenly become less challenging for the kid with the 1800 SAT. </p>

382

<p>This is why we shouldn’t have these standardized tests. Too many stellar students are disqualified because of a test that doesn’t even measure intelligence or what you learn in school. If you are gonna have an exam, let it be the ACT, but that’s it. The SAT is too much of a game to be a seriously considered in college admissions. </p>

383

<p>Calmom- I’m not sure you can generalize about your example. In my neck of the woods, there were several schools in the last five years or so who were rumored to be looking for high scoring kids (standardized tests, regardless of GPA). So kids at a rigorous HS with not perfect GPA’s but high scores were being encouraged to apply to Vanderbilt, Emory, Brandeis (I don’t remember the other schools) based on the GC’s beliefs (borne out by admissions results) that the high scores would trump the GPA.</p>

<p>I don’t disagree with your point about how adcom’s use the data- just that in every few admissions cycles there are colleges “on a mission” to raise their median test scores, and frequently, the easiest way to do that is with the high scoring kids who may have a blemish or two on the rest of the application.</p>

<p>The high school in the example you cite doesn’t suddenly become less challenging- but the student may or may not come off as “punching above his or her weight” with a perfect GPA but lower than expected scores. Some colleges will love this (hard work and diligence trumps all) and some colleges won’t be impressed (is the kid a grade-grubber? Does all the homework and extra credit to compensate for less natural ability?)</p>

<p>It will depend on the college for sure.</p>

384

<p>@calmom I think it’s different at my school because we have so many different lanes for classes - there are some juniors taking multivariable calc and others taking algebra 2. I think SAT scores are more defining at my school because classes vary so drastically. I would rather have a “B” in APC Physics and a 2300 than an “A” in chemistry 1 with a 1900, and situations like that often arise at my school.</p>

385

<p>It seems to me that it really depends on the student. I think it is silly to make a blanket statement that if you go to a respected high school, top schools don’t care about your SAT score as long as it rises above a certain minimal threshold. Even if the colleges really did see those scores as utterly meaningless, there would be pragmatic reasons for having some preference for a higher scoring student, all things being equal.</p>

<p>What seems more accurate to me is to say that an SAT score alone, once you are above that threshold, is not an automatic reason to reject. If a school has some reason to want you, the 1900 isn’t going to stand in your way. But I strongly suspect the reason has to be better than it would be if you had a 2400; i.e, more in “this kid is a great musician” as opposed to “you know, I really liked that essay about her grandfather’s stamp collection.” </p>

<p>Calmom, your D is an example of someone who got into a fantastic school with scores below their 25-75 range, but even there there were limits; would she, with the exact same profile, have gotten into Columbia rather than Barnard? It is one thing to get into a school with a 1200 when their bottom quartile ends at 1240, another when the bottom quartile ends at 1400. And, as others have mentioned, she sounds like an unusual applicant in several ways, which is different from being an otherwise run of the mill applicant whose stats, in one area, fall short of the competition. </p>

<p>I also think some of the more extreme dismissals of the SAT smack of sour grapes, and are downright rude to students who have done well on the test. I don’t think the ability to answer questions in a trivia contest is the ultimate mark of intelligence, and there are plenty of really smart people who wouldn’t do well on such an exam, but I can still recognize winning Jeopardy as a meaningful accomplishment. I’m not sure why, when it comes to the SAT, we need to go to such lengths to deny that it has even the remotest value.</p>

386

<p>

I agree that “many schools” have thresholds, often public colleges. However, is there evidence to support a minimum threshold score at highly selective, holistic colleges? Or rather than a threshold, is it more test scores are one of many factors that influences the application, where higher is better, and there is no clear cut minimum threshold?</p>

<p>For example, if a student has a great GPA/course rigor/LORs/ECs…, a college might be more forgiving about a lower SAT score than if a student’s rest of the application is typical. A holistic college might be more forgiving of a lower CR score for a prospective engineering major and more forgiving about a lower math score for a prospective English major. A holistic college might consider background, such that a 2100 coming from a lower income student who attended a HS where hardly any get scores this high is treated differently than a 2100 coming from a student who comes from a wealthy private HS where his score is just typical. One could create dozens of additional scenarios leading to the same score having a different impact on admissions for different students and no simple score threshold.</p>

<p>

When I applied to colleges, my CR score of 500 was in the bottom few percent of applicants to Stanford and in the bottom ~6 students of my entering class. I was not an URM, athlete, child of a big donor, or other hook; yet I was admitted with a score that was well below what I’d expect someone to call a “threshold” for unhooked applicants. And if a score in the bottom few percent of applicants is not below the “threshold”, then how can one know that such a threshold exists?</p>

387

<p>With all due respect to everyone here, the stories of lower score admissions achieved a number of years ago aren’t all that relevant to the admissions landscape today. I had kids go through several years ago and I’m truly staggered at how it’s all changed since then. </p>

<p>When schools are deluged with high scoring applicants (no, I can’t name the precise cut off for consideration), the bar is raised for all. Yes, yes, the unusual applicant will get a second look and low scores relative to the rest of the pool may not be an insurmountable obstacle to gaining admission but is anyone really saying that the chances are equivalent to the person with the higher scores and the rest of the package? </p>

388

<p>

Bu then the college would look at the transcript to make a judgment about the rigor of the course level. I originally responded to a post in which you wrote that a college would assume that the high school lacked rigor if they saw high grades together with a mediocre SAT score. </p>

<p>I’m saying that the make their determination about course rigor from other information they have --the exception would be if the student was attending a smaller high school that was not known to the ad com and not large enough to have meaningful statistical data. </p>

<p>But in your situation – if some kid is taking multivariable calc, getting A’s, but has unexpectedly low SAT math scores – and some other kid has better scores and A’s in algebra 2 – the college is NOT going to conclude that the SAT scores means that the calc teacher is an easy grader. They are going to see that the student is taking a higher math at a challenging high school, they will look at the rest of the transcript and if the student is doing equally well with other courses in a schedule filled with AP classes – they aren’t going to devalue the grades. That doesn’t mean that they disregard the SAT score – but they aren’t using it in the sense you originally suggested. </p>

<p>Nor will they draw the opposite conclusion about a student with to scores. If some kid who has a lot of B’s manages to get a 2350 SAT – the ad com doesn’t take that as evidence that the grading must be really tough at the high school. Again, they are going to look at the school profile info and class rank-- and if there are other students earning A’s, the high test scores are not going to be seen all that positively.</p>

389

<p>

</p>

<p>I never said that. </p>

<p>I said that the schools do not use an individual score to draw conclusions about the rigor of the high school.</p>

<p>I also said that the schools look at all of the information together, not in isolation. The OP’s daughter doesn’t have a “minimal threshold” score --she has perfectly respectable but not amazingly high scores. I pointed out many, many posts ago that there are other factors beyond scores that probably mean that the particular student is not competitive for Ivy League. The point isn’t that scores don’t matter – the point is that they are not nearly as important as people on CC seem to believe, and definitely aren’t weighed or evaluated as a make-or-break proposition. </p>

<p>That is, Penn and Columbia are not going to exclude her from consideration because her SATs are just below 2000-- as the OP asked at the outset. Penn and Columbia will read her application and they will each accept quite a few students with equivalent or lower SAT scores. But getting considered is not the same as getting accepted. </p>

<p>I do believe that whether or not the colleges admit it, there are applications that go into an auto-reject pile. And there probably is some sort of minimum SAT level that is low enough to trigger the auto-reject. But my point is that number is a lot lower than CC’ers seem to believe. </p>

390

<p>

</p>

<p>The reported score ranges of enrolling students haven’t changed all that much in the intervening years. </p>

<p>The big change that I’ve seen over the past decade is the trend toward more and more schools becoming test-optional or test-flexible. My daughter didn’t have nearly the same array of possibilities for test-optional applications that similarly situated students now have. </p>

391

<p>

My point was that I didn’t see evidence of a minimum score threshold. If there wasn’t a minimum score threshold several years ago, it’s unlikely there would be one today. Ignoring that point, there hasn’t been dramatic changes in test scores at many selective colleges, with the dramatic changes in acceptance rate in recent years. For example, in the past 15 years Stanford’s acceptance rate has dropped from ~15% to ~5%. That’s a tremendous rate of change. During this period, their 25th and 75th percentile verbal test scores increased from 670/770 to 680/780, and their math scores increased from 690/780 to 700/790. When the acceptance rate was cut in a third from 15% to 5%, the 25th and 75th percentile SAT scores increased by only 10 points… an insignificant change.</p>

392

<p>

</p>

<p>@apprenticeprof - my d. was admitted to U. of Chicago the same year.At the time, the score range for Chicago was set about 20 points higher tan or Columbia. (I happen to still have a copy of a document I prepared for my d. in 2005 to get a sense of the selectivity of various colleges that were possibilities at the time). </p>

<p>So I can’t know the answer to your question because my d. did not apply to Columbia – but she was accepted to a different university where her scores were even farther below the 25th percent mark.</p>

<p>I’d add that if my daughter had a “hook” that accounted for her admission into reach colleges, then it was her focus on Russia language studies, at a time when many colleges were concerned about declining enrollment in their Russian departments. The Columbia/Barnard Slavic language department is operated jointly, so the enrollment pressures and considerations would have been roughly equivalent to both colleges. That is, at least in theory, Columbia should have wanted prospective Russian studiers to the same extent as Barnard, because either way the same classes were being filled. But of course there are a whole lot of other considerations and priorities involved as well, and colleges can use very different metrics to evaluate applicants. </p>

393

<p>

</p>

<p>Ain’t that the truth! It does not take a Rhodes scholar nor does it take much time to notice how the people who are FairTest fans and do their best to dismiss the value of the SAT are either students with “lower” SAT or parents of such students. Such posters cling to a distinct set of statistics (that obviously support their positions) and suggest that they (or their children) did well in admissions despite a lower SAT score. </p>

<p>We DO know that students with a compelling application package, and often with the benefit of parents who have “studied” the admissions’ process with great attention and dedication, have … survived relatively poor SAT scores. And then there are countless special cases: immigrants, minorities, very poor and very rich kids, athletes, and plenty of compelling cases. There are students who have had to overcome incredible odds (SES, race, gender, etc) and end up with an irresistible application. An application that sings to adcoms and fit their schools’ institutional objectives. This, for instance, is why programs such as Posse and especially Questbridge so effective when they help students who are historically poorly directed learn HOW to navigate the admission process.</p>

<p>Next to Questbridge, there are very smart and well educated parents who have dedicated a substantial amount of time to help their children, and have learned from “mistakes” with older children. Fwiw, I think that such description fits Calmom’s narrative. </p>

<p>But, what is there to learn from an experience that dates a decade ago? For starters, the admission at Chicago in 2004-2005 are drastically different from today. The pools of applicants are different. The admission rates in EA, RD, and the use of waitling lists are hardly comparable in 2004 and 2014! And it is good to remember that Chicago was/is a school that admits more students in its early round than it has freshman beds! Regardless of what might have been true then is hardly useful today! </p>

<p>Yes, the statistics of enrolled students at highly selective schools have changed very little. One can see the Rice decade statistics to see that the SAT have not budged much. But then, the statistics are for ENROLLED students and are stratospherically high to start. Do such number give more “confidence” to the students who have lower SAT? Looking at the admit rate by range of SAT (or ACT) score tell the real story, and it is not very positive! </p>

<p>All in all, if there is something to learn is that the SAT represent more opportunities than one might imagine. If we would follow the Calmon/FairTest narrative, the SAT is not “that” important or not important at all (at least for cerrtain schools.) But if that serves as an “excuse” there is also an alternative theory. The SAT provides the chance to someone to show that he or she did MUCH better than her environment. This is why minorities with 1900 or 2000 SAT scores get plucked by HYPS when such average is 200-500 higher than their environment and especially when they attend horrible public schools in non-competitive states. </p>

<p>Some might not like it all, but scoring high on the SAT is both important and rewarding. While many devote huge efforts in 4 to 8 years to maximize a GPA (often decided in decimal points) and a ranking, a lot less attention is given to the test. This often a result of poor advice or … misguided activism by some. The reality is that, among all elements of an application package, the SAT (or ACT) is one of the easiest and more direct opportunities to elevate an application. </p>

<p>Granted, it is not doable for everyone … as the stories shared here by some are clearly indicating. But for most students, the opportunity exists in the real world! </p>

394

<p>To be clear about the above post, here is its spirit was. </p>

<p>Inasmuch as we could spend another 100 pages debating the value or impact of the SAT or debate the SAT optional schools versus the traditional colleges, there is little new that will arise. Most of us have arrested positions about those issues. </p>

<p>On the other hand, what does one actually DO (or recommend) to your generic HS schooler who just completed his or her 10th grade. Chances are that such student, when looking at the CC typical choices, will have a good to exceptional GPA, a reasonable set of ECs, pretty average essays, and (often) a lower than expected SAT or ACT score. Of course, you also will have your overachiever who has scored close to perfect on the standardized tests, including multiple 5s on the AP. But let’s look at your more “pedestrian” candidate! </p>

<p>Typically, the opportunity to increase the chances of success in applications will be limited. Moving the GPA upwards in one year is quite hard. Starting compelling EC activities are equally limited, and joining clubs to “look good” is a futile exercise. We all know the value of developing good essays, and probably seek COMPETENT advice to deliver the compelling essays that make a difference. The next opportunity is to develop a realistic lists of schools that match the student’s profile. All is good so far, but there is one element left! And that element, and one that makes a ton of difference in the final outcome is none other than a higher SAT or ACT score. </p>

<p>And the beauty is that for MOST students, a dedicated effort to work at it between the end of the sophomore year at the start of the senior year should yield positive results. </p>

395

<p>@xiggi‌ Correct. Most here seem to have there own agendas. Very few make measured and unbiased posts. The most vocal are parents of low SAT children, public school parents and middle class who are FAFSA tweeners.</p>

<p>“Ain’t that the truth! It does not take a Rhodes scholar nor does it take much time to notice how the people who are FairTest fans and do their best to dismiss the value of the SAT are either students with “lower” SAT or parents of such students. Such posters cling to a distinct set of statistics (that obviously support their positions) and suggest that they (or their children) did well in admissions despite a lower SAT score.”</p>

396

<p>

Looking at the admit rate by range of SAT/ACT alone is often not very telling because SAT/ACT scores are correlated with many other components of the application. For example, suppose a selective college gave little consideration to test scores and instead focused on GPA, course rigor, LORs, ECs, awards, etc. I’d expect the admit rate at that college to be far higher admit rate for high test score applicants than low test score applicants since the top GPA with high course rigor + excellent LORs… students that the college is looking for tend to do very well on standardized tests. I’d expect admit rate at that college to steadily increase as test scores increase, with a few admitted outliers who happen to have the criteria that they are looking for, yet uncharacteristically bombed the SAT/ACT. Consistent with this, when you look at admit rate by a combination of GPA and test scores, the results can show very different patterns, like the Cornell stats I posted earlier, where admit rate among 3.7-3.9 GPA with 4+ AP applicants was quite similar for all ACT scores with a statistically significant sample size, even though the admit rate increased with ACT score when not filtering for GPA/APs. When considering other factors, such as GPA/AP in combination with SAT, the influence of test scores appears to vary quite a bit from one college to the next, which prevents a simple summary of how colleges view test scores. </p>

397

<p>No matter how anyone tries to spin it, the fact is that 25% of all students who enroll in a college have scores that fall below the mid 50% range. How far below can be discerned from other data published – in addition to the mid-50% range, most colleges also supply info as to percentages of students with tiered score ranges at each school. </p>

<p>The admit “rate” is merely a factor that one can evaluate in assessing chances of admission, not whether or not a student who is eligible for admission will actually get in. That is, it’s useful for judging whether a given college is a reach or a safety, but when the college term begins in September, there is no difference between an enrolling student with top scores who viewed the college as a safety, or one with weak scores who believed the college to be a super-reach when she applied. </p>

<p>I see this common logical fallacy of attempting to equate statistical data to individual cases all the time. You can see that college X has score ranges of 670-770 on the SAT sub-tests, and extrapolate to draw the conclusion that, on average, that college won’t accept very many students with combined test scores below 2010. But that doesn’t mean that they won’t accept student Y who has a combined score of 1980 – or even that it is particularly surprising that the kid with the 1980 gets accepted. That bottom quartile is not far enough down the scale to fall into “outlier” territory – but in any case, even some outliers will get accepted each year.</p>

<p>The other obvious fallacy is the correlation/causation confusion. Just because the data shows that students with higher SATs get accepted at higher rates, doesn’t mean that the students are being accepted because of their SAT scores – or that the converse would hold – that is, that a student would be rejected simply because their SAT score is on the lower end of the spectrum. Again, of course, the actual enrollment stats defeat that idea. Somewhere along the line, the colleges are admitting enough students with “below range” scores to fill up the bottom quartile of their classes. </p>

398

<p>Data10, I do not disagree with the above overview of the correlation. And neither could I disagree with a diametrically divergent set of statistics that might break down the correlation to generate a different conclusion. In the end, what do you have? The simplistic conclusion that higher test scores, higher GPA, better essays, and perhaps better parents all result in better admission results. This is why many of the discussions, including this one, are simply buried in battles of semantics! </p>

399

<p>The problem with the statistical analyses here is that the data is equally supportive of mine and Xiggi’s position and Data10 and calmom’s, </p>

<p>What the data contradicts is the straw man claim - which no one here seems to be arguing - that no one gets into certain schools with a sub 2100 score. But our point of disagreement here is not over whether or not students can be admitted with lower scores, but over which students are likely to fall into the bottom 25 % range of a school’s reported scores.</p>

<p>My point has never been to argue that there aren’t all kinds of reasons, from being an athlete to being from a lower SES background to having an unusual interest, that might get a kid in with lower scores. My contention is that even given that, it still hurts you if your scores are substantially lower than those of similarly situated students offering more or less similar things, even if your application is otherwise equal to or even a shade better than those of your peers. Granted, admissions rates alone tell us that it is hard for ANYONE without something specific to offer to get into these schools, but I believe that it is substantially harder, to the point of being all but disqualifying above a certain selectivity level, if your performance on the SAT/ACT is markedly lower than that of other top students in your own and similar schools. </p>

<p>If I am right, Data10’s numbers still make perfect sense because most of the students applying to highly selective universities will be among the top students in their own high school, or at least close enough to the top to have a GPA in the 3.7 or better range. If you are applying to an Ivy League school with lower qualifications in terms of SAT or GPA, it is probably because you have some other reason to believe you might get in. So, a valedictorian from Alabama with a 1950 might apply and be admitted, contributing to the “SAT doesn’t matter when taken with GPA” narrative, but that really doesn’t say much about the chances of someone from Scarsdale with the same score. </p>

400

<p>Well one big problem with the CC-view is the habit of looking at combined SAT scores when the colleges report subscores – and very well may look primarily at the subscores (in the context of the applicant) when making decisions on who to admit. Obviously the schools didn’t care about Data10’s CR score- presumably because they saw Data as a numbers person (I’d assume with the right combination of EC’s to underscore that point). They didn’t care about my d’s math scores - she probably had plenty of leeway to go even lower in that arena – because they knew darn well when they admitted her that she would probably never take any math course in college beyond the bare minimum to meet the school’s qualitative reasoning requirement.</p>

<p>So it’s not just a matter of whether the kid is from Alabama or Scarsdale, it also matters a LOT whether the the score pattern matches the student… </p>