Using only test scores and grades as proxies for academic qualifications will likely lead to misinterpretation for some top colleges (perhap including Harvard). There may be other pieces besides stats in an application that contribute to the applicant’s overall adademic profile. I agree that LoR could be highly influential in the admission decision for some applicants, even though it may not matter much for others.
Final comment to you: The SAT math tests concepts learned in algebra 2. If a kid hasn’t taken algebra 2 or is weak in it, then test prep is not going to help them learn it to the extent necessary to do well under test conditions.
My S23 is going to take the SAT this year because if he waits until the school-administered SAT in senior year, he’ll be in his third year of calculus and too far removed from algebra. From what he tells me, solving problems using calculus is easier and reverting back to using algebra is tedious.
@mountainsoul My daughter took Algebra 2 in 8th grade and was in calculus by 10th. She didn’t really have too much trouble with the reverting back to “easier math” with the SAT, when she took it in 11th grade.
1 Like
Well, I sure am glad this is your final comment to me, so you don’t have to bother with reading what I think of yours.
This is 10th grade math for probably the majority of the college bound, not brain surgery. 9th or 8th grade for the seriously accelerated.
It must be the only endeavour in human history regularly thrown at 10th graders that no one can get better at with practice, or a better teacher or a better learning environment than they had in the first place.
Eugenics. See what I mean?
Carry on.
1 Like
Algebra 2 is normally an 11th grade course in US high schools. It is taken in 10th grade by those one year advanced in math, or earlier for those more advanced.
Thank you, I’ve edited my post. Doesn’t change the gist of my argument.
While that may be true for subjects like statistics or physics, calculus itself uses lots of algebra. A student as far advanced in math as your student should have no trouble with SAT/ACT math without significant SAT/ACT prep.
Thank you for replying.
My kids’ school (a private elite with peers among the Ivy+) looks at test scores in order to vet the academic record. People might be shocked that nose-bleed scores aren’t necessarily required for a closer look at an unhooked applicant (however, a poor academic record on its own will likely kill the application). IMO, this is probably a fairly typical approach to how test scores are used by many of the peer schools. They all get plenty of top scoring applicants so it’s not really a 35/1550 competition.
The twist is that this school has been test optional now for a couple cycles already, in order to allow low-scoring applicants a chance to highlight other material that better reflects their academic strengths. It’s entirely left up to each applicant what to submit; the only required materials are the application, two essays, teacher LOR’s, and transcripts. So here is an example of how “academic” includes more than just the school record; it will include test scores and/or other supporting “academic” materials. None of that seems to have changed in the pandemic, fortunately. While someone without a score might feel at a disadvantage, it might be a misplaced concern; the school’s thinking is along the lines that a top academic record will oftentimes stand on its own or be easily supported by a few other materials so a score may not even be necessary (the dean of admissions has said this in the past). I suspect if there is any “weighting” going on, those other materials will be given a closer look than usual, rather than throwing more to the transcript or “the rest.” Essays are a key component of “the rest” for this school, btw, but aren’t germaine to the original topic so will leave it at that.
I truly wonder how distinct this is from how peer and other schools are assessing applications this year - or any year, for that matter (specific scholarships, auto admissions etc. that depend on a score threshold are a separate matter). Usually the ability to score well is correlated with other top attributes that would make a candidate at least competitive in the high stakes game of selective admissions. As mentioned already, it’s too early to assess the results of this year’s application cycle. But my guess is that many adcoms have been quietly de-emphasizing the direct significance of test scores in favor of other evidence of academic potential for a while now.* Hopefully this year will help re-set the admissions process so that candidates everywhere have more freedom to submit their strongest application.
*Even state flagships. For instance, I’ve noticed at our own that if you do college in your high school and do well, that’s given more direct weight than your test score in the admissions process. Perhaps, sensibly, it’s considered a more reliable proxy for academic potential.
2 Likes
This whole idea that there is something wrong with test prep (or too much, or too expensive test prep) is a complete head scratcher to me. Many parents pay thousands of dollars annually for elite club sports teams or for private music lessons or for any number of other activities that require instruction and/or “coaching”. I think we do our kids a tremendous disservice to tell them that, not only must excel academically, but they must do so without “prepping” or “coaching” or tutoring. Why is academic excellence different than any other type of excellence? Yes, there are kids who have natural aptitude in a sport or who are talented vocalists or musicians right out of the gate–but if those kids rest on their natural ability, they will eventually be surpassed by others with good-but-lesser-talent, but who worked harder. The SAT is something you can learn and prepare for. Yes, natural academic talent provides a big boost, as does good schooling, but those with fewer resources can do well. Part of what the SAT measures is “how badly did you want to do well?”. I could practice for a lifetime with the best coaches in the world, but I’m not physically built to be an elite gymnast. Practice and tutoring will help you improve, but it doesn’t a guarantee of a particular outcome and it doesn’t mean you’ll ever be as good as the person who had natural talent and worked really hard. By poo-pooing prep, we are sending a strange message that hard work somehow diminishes their accomplishment of doing well on the SAT or that if they were really smart, or the best student, they wouldn’t have needed all that prep or tutoring. And yet, we’d never say this to an Olympian because we would know how ridiculous and untrue it is.
11 Likes
It is not a surprise that how well you do in college courses is a better predictor of how well you are likely to do in future college courses than how well you do in high school courses (including advanced level ones like AP, IB HL, etc.) or high school standardized tests.
Of course, not every advanced high school student has convenient access to college courses while in high school.
1 Like
Agreed. D19 is one year behind her brother in math and scored a 780 using the test prep method I described in an earlier post. The advantage is the earlier S takes the exam, the earlier he can hopefully be done with standardized testing. D19 took the SAT fall of junior year right after the school-administered PSAT, earned a confirming score for NM, and was done.
Of course, you can get “better,” if there’s some concept you need to learn or practice.
But then, IIRC, you’ve made the point about eugenics a few times. Just a different perspective than others have. Not all of us think the point is aptitude. And elite adcoms want to see results, not potential.
We do need to get along, per TOS, ok?
Perhaps that idea comes from wanting to see the SAT or a theoretical substitute as an “aptitude” test that is not (or should not be) effectively subject to test preparation, even though reality is that many students can improve their SAT scores through test preparation.
However, it is also likely the case that some students doing test preparation do so inefficiently in terms of amount of time spent per point gained. But then that can also be true for some who practice sports or music.
1 Like
“By pooh-poohing prep,” we are also suggesting those born with a somehow measurable talent, aptitude or whatever are “better.”
Oooh, imo, that’s dangerous turf.
1 Like
Perhaps you’re right that some see the SAT is a aptitude test that you can’t effectively prepare for, but to me, any such argument has long since been debunked. You’re right that not all prep is created equal in terms of efficiency, but it’s clear that you can improve your score through practice. If colleges are looking for an “unpreppable” measure of ability, they should give IQ tests–but even then, people would find a way to prep and IQ tests have their own flaws and inequities. The bottom line is that if a test is high stakes, people will seek to prepare and improve their score–and I don’t see why colleges wouldn’t want them to. They want kids who will work hard and learn, even in the face of challenging material that they don’t readily understand. To me, studying for the SAT is just one way that a kid who doesn’t test well or who isn’t naturally brilliant might demonstrate that commitment to excellence.
3 Likes
So by your analysis, parents who are willing/able to pay thousands for test prep are the ones whose students are willing to ‘work harder’ to prepare and hopefully do their best on standardized tests.
While there are students from all backgrounds who do exceptionally well with no prep but self study, access to money to pay for prep and the luxury of time to prepare (my kids aren’t working 20 hrs/week during the school year to help pay our family’s bills but plenty of kids are) provide distinct advantages to improve scores.
For those who would benefit from but cannot afford to pay for test prep assistance, it’s extremely hard for me to see anything but their lack of privilege being a barrier to better test scores, and I am glad that that more college admissions offices are going to do their best to make decisions without them this go around.
@2ndthreekids, I agree. I said upthread (post 521-ish) that I think test scores are particularly important for kids of privilege and colleges can and should take into account the resources available to students who are coming from more challenging circumstances and view their test scores in context.
My point is twofold: 1) If we imply that test prep is wrong or that it diminishes the accomplishment of a good score, we’re sending a poor message about the critically important value of hard work and preparation (in my book, no matter who you are or how talented you are, preparation and hard work are a must to succeed in life, not just on the SAT); and 2) If we talk about test scores as a fixed measure of ability, we are not only putting a huge amount of pressure on kids to be “naturally” talented academically, we are also contradicting ourselves by supporting practice, coaching and instruction in other areas such as sports, debate, musicianship, etc.–but not on the SAT. It makes no sense to me.
1 Like
I think we’re now talking prep, in general. Pricey test prep and other ways some do spend big bucks,
is a subset, to me.
Everyone has talent and skills in something and no one is talented in everything. Why do we insist that everyone has to be talented in the same thing?
7 Likes
I agree, @1NJParent. I think we have to acknowledge that some kids–regardless of SES–are smarter and/or more academically talented and no matter how much they prep or how hard they try, they won’t be in the top percentile of test takers. That’s okay, there’s a place for them. But that doesn’t mean we diminish the accomplishments of the kids who are very academically talented and who prepared and did well on the SAT (or APs or whatever) by claiming that they “only got there because their parents paid for tutoring.” That’s a message that implies that if you have to put in any elbow grease, you’re not a “natural” and are therefore less worthy than a student with more natural talent but who studied/prepared less. I disagree. Strongly. And I think colleges do, too.
1 Like