<p>"Even Choate, Hotchkiss, and Lawrenceville have lower SSAT scores. (than AESD, to put in context) I know that Choate accepts some people with 60s on their SSATs, so you might have a shot there. But these are very difficult schools and they are trying to determine who can handle the courseload and who can't."</p>
<p>Not true. According to each's official website, Hotchkiss and Choate's average SSATs are both 92%, higher that SPS's 88%</p>
<p>Currently -- He attends a private Day. Post March 10, it remains to be seen. </p>
<p>Your own words point to non-definitive responses... "I don't think".... "Most certainly at..." Numerical quantitative specifics seem to be hard to come by... You've validated my point that low SSAT by a specific person does not mean they can not succeed in an academically demanding environment. Let me put it another way... Stellar sports individual is accepted with sub par SSAT scores but still graduates. What does this mean? SSAT is not an indicator or capability to succeed academically. Admit this is a valid argument. SSAT score is not an indicator of true ability to academically succeed. I'll go a step further. Validate for me if you will that ALL students accepted and attended that have scored 99% have never failed to graduate. I suspect there have been some.</p>
<p>My only point is that scores don't validate, nor invalidate capability to succeed in the environment. No guarantees of success either way.</p>
<p>So what are we left with? Admissions committees must determine the richness of the admitted student body. Agreeably the SSAT and GPA play a role in determining the fit and fitness for the individual in the class. But the empirical evidence shows that scores and GPA alone do not guarantee failure or success in any individual circumstance.</p>
<p>thats very wordyyy...... but i get it.... way to go perparent!!!!!</p>
<p>I think the slight difference in scores at the top schools reflect how many legacies they let in and how much they bend for athletes. For the unhooked candidate I'd bet the averages would be the same.</p>
<p>Prepparenttoo, I've never said kids with lower scores would not make it through these schools. I think it's well known an average student can make it through Harvard. And I believe all these schools will bend over backwards to make all admits succeed. The conversation here, however, has centered on who will get in. </p>
<p>I'm not an adcom so of course I express my opinions as my thoughts as opposed to fact. I do think that I have a pretty good handle on who gets in or I wouldn't bvother posting. I think there have been lots of articles and books that support my beliefs (read the Vanity Faire article posted on this board which talks about how hard it is now for legacies, and I've seen this). And when I'm unsure I have emailed a former advisor and friend who is an adcom.</p>
<p>Unhooked kids with sub par scores don't get in because of a good essay when they are turning away generous legacies with 70s. They will bend for some athletes, but only certain sports and some schools more than others. I think these kids would still have at least a 70 though on the whole. Are there legacy athletes with 50s at some schools? Yes. But they are rich legacies and great athletes.</p>
<p>I'm also confused about why parents who have kids scoring so below a school's average would want their kid at the school. Unless it was a mega bad day, the score reflects where a kid is academically. I sure wouldn't want to be at a school where everyone was far ahead of where I was. As SPS pointed out, there's a reason they can predict SAT scores based on the SSAT scores. The low scoring kid would probably have a better high school experience and get into a better college at a less competitive school. Again, just my opinion.</p>
<p>[EDIT: This is directed to prepparenttoo.] You're arguing that the SSAT isn't a guarantor of academic success when the point is simply that it's a reliable predictor.</p>
<p>If I admit 1,000 students over 10 years to Quacko Academy and there are 17 anomalies like you suggest, where students with 25%ile scores graduate or others with 99%ile scores don't, that just wouldn't shatter my faith in the SSAT as a valued and reliable predictor.</p>
<p>While you're correct in maintaining the position that scores don't by themselves determine whether a student will or won't succeed, I don't know of any one factor that's a better tool for answering that question. </p>
<p>You're correct that there could be exceptions. That's all well and good in theory. Practically speaking, however, there are going to be scores that will have some Admissions Offices sufficiently convinced that the applicant -- in the context of their academic demands -- is guaranteed to fail. And with a stack of 324 promising applications next to that perilously low SSAT score still waiting to be reviewed, that Admissions Officers' decision becomes a reality when the Admissions Officer stamps "REJECTED" on the application and that applicant, having failed to gain admission, suddenly has a 0% chance of graduating from that school.</p>
<p>The perception of the Admissions Office is the reality...no matter how correct you are, in theory, that an abysmally low SSAT score doesn't guarantee anything.</p>
<p>Everyone else is too PC, but I'll ask. Preparentoo, why would you set your son up for failure by having him apply to schools way out of his reach? If his score doubles they will still be out of reach. They are unlikely if his scores triple.</p>
<p>When you saw the scores, why didn't the list change? It was hard for me not to get into one school I applied to even though I got into the others and my first choice. Rejection is tough at that age!</p>
<p>Interesting point but I suppose you'll never know. If you reject based on score, then empirically, you never have the opportunity to accept and have the individual fail to say... "See... I told you so...". More to the point let's be honest the reason the score average is as high as it is, is because of competiion, not because the one that was rejected could not succeed at the school.</p>
<p>"let's be honest the reason the score average is as high as it is, is because of competiion, not because the one that was rejected could not succeed at the school."</p>
<p>the fact that as the top schools get more competitive, the calibre or intellectual ability of the students rises at the same time...
not saying that SSAT is a perfect indicator of intellectual ability, but it's the only reliable and objective one we have out there</p>
<p>Again, you're isolating your data in ways that just don't happen in reality.</p>
<p>The schools have years of experiential data to go by. The see the students in the 40-50 band struggle more than those in the 70-80...just for example. And they can see that the numbers have a direct correlation. Again, precisely because there are exceptions they know these things.</p>
<p>But for some schools they know enough from the other students -- and maybe that one time they did take a risk and it failed -- that there's a line they can safely draw. They might be wrong, but since they're in charge...they're right -- regardless of how much wishful thinking and positive karma you put into this.</p>
<p>I have trouble following the logic of your posts prepparentoo. What the competition yields is kids withing a smaller than most range of ability. That is the beauty of top schools, you are not held back by having classmates who need to learn things you're way past.</p>
<p>Do you think the kid with a 25% SSAT should be learning the same things at the same pace as a kid with a 95%?</p>
<p>The logic should be clear. I'll try to be succinct for you. As we have discussed there is a wide range of scores for accepted students. If you have facts supporting the narrowness of the accepted range of scores, please provide. Also what has been discussed is that given the wide range of scores, success is not guaranteed. </p>
<p>As to the rate or pace of learning; the schools determine that. I think that the 95% student is NOT guaranteed to have a higher GPA than the 25% SSAT student. If you have data showing otherwise please provide.</p>
<p>As to WHAT they should be learning that should be based on what they have learned and their interest. ALL of the schools for instance have an Algebra I class. Something I would have expected ALL students to know when entering 9th grade, but there you go – something for everyone so you won’t be, as you say, held back... Just an example…</p>
<p>Hope this helps.</p>
<p>Let's not forget the A in SSAT stands for aptitude. Sure some kids didn't have the opportunity to take algebra in middle school. However, I would argue that the kid with the 25% SSAT would most probably hold back the kids with 95% because of aptitude.</p>
<p>Then we can talk about most of the other subjects, few of which have honors sections at SPS. The schools don't deny that they are looking for kids with exceptional aptitude.</p>
<p>Can you provide evidence that there is "a wide range" of scores.</p>
<p>I agree SPS. The logic of these arguements elude me too. Prepparenttoo, are you sure you're not trying to support the unsupportable? I also think SPS posted a good question that you have avoided answering. Is it healthy for a parent to let a 13 year old think the top 4 BS's in the Country will entertain such sub par scores?</p>
<p>"Wide range of scores" Therein lies the enigma. We only know what has been made available. I've asked the question before but the board has been non responsive. I have no empirical data.</p>
<p>As to the kids that didn't have Algebra I in middle school. An excellent supposition! We'll put it to the board. Can you achieve a 90%+ on math SSAT without having had Algebra I? I've examined the questions and without knowledge of Algebra I you will not get a 90+% score IMHO. So, why then offer the class?</p>
<p>As to holding back -- Any class that I have ever taken, the curriculum is the curriculum if you can't keep up, you fail. Or are you arguing that the teachers slow down the curriculum so that everyone, (regardless of his/her SSAT score) can keep up? </p>
<p>Finally as a rhetorical question, do you believe the 95% SSAT student is immune to failure?</p>
<p>jeeezzz. SSAT measures previous scholastic aptitude. not potential. it does not measure intelligence, but may be an indicator of it. it also but exam tests A) you ability to take standardized tests under pressure, B) your ability to use what you've been taught, C) PREDICTS future success on the SAT's (and thus a rough, rough estimate of college placement), D) logical reasoning abilites (for higher-level math, real-life situations, general logic), E) knowledge of BS-level vocabulary (to communicate coherently with the other articulate peers in discussion and verbalize logic for a paper, etc.), F) write a cogent essay on the spot with no help.</p>
<p>IT DOES NOT GAURENTEE ANYTHING. rather, IT IS AN INDICATOR. an indicator does not guarentee, but INDICATES by heavy research.</p>
<p>schools prefer all of the above (A-F) qualities in a student. it demonstrates ability to handle the BS rigor. they do now want to "dumb down" their classes to cater to a wide range of students. if that child is not really there to be a student (rather, an athlete or a $1,000,000 check), and they really want that child to attend for reasons other than academic, they will make an exception, which nulls any need for a prediction of academic aptitude.</p>
<p>don't you already know this, everyone? hasn't this already been discussed time and time again?</p>
<p>This thread reminds me of the one in "college essays" about whether colleges avoid accepting the mentally ill. Even after an adcom weighed in twice, the OP still can not accept it that they do. News flash: This is not a fair world. Neither top colleges or prep schools can serve everyone who might do well at one.</p>
<p>I think the parent here is dug into a position because he's not ready to deal with the reality. I might be too if it were my kid. </p>
<p>Of course you have no evidence there is a wide range because there isn't. But you stated it as though it were fact.</p>
<p>Many of us who fled public schools, even good ones, did so because the teachers have no choice but to teach to the middle. Top prep schools make no bones about the fact that they are set up to serve the exceptional student. They don't come out with 90% SSAT averages by letting in many below average unhooked candidates. If they were going to do that they'd just take more legacies so the money keeps pouring in. It's hard enough to get the diversity they want, decent athletic teams and to satisfy alum while maintaining their high standards.</p>
<p>However, I'm not commenting further here because I think prepparenttoo will come up with myriad specious arguments until March 10th.</p>
<p>Sorry to be curt, it's after one and I'm still at work.</p>
<p>a low SSATs doesnt guarantee that one sucks...one might be having a bad day or just cant handle the pressure...
but a high SSATs guarantee that one does not suck, doesnt mean one's perfect. but you cant have a 99% just because you "have a lucky day and so happen to guessed every single questions right"</p>
<p>If I were the adcom at a top BS, even as a student, I'd rather the office not take the risk and take the high SSAT kid coz you know that he/she must at least know something and has certain level of intelligence</p>
<p>most parents think their kids are perfect little babies, unique and unlike anyone else; human nature, but when it comes to a third person, an adcom, you have to be extremely unique to appear unique...remember, they dont know you, and as my dorm faculty who is an admission officier said, if we have more 99percentile applicants than the spots avalible, and most of them are remarkable and unique people, why would he take a chance on an unhooked low scoring applicant, when yield is almost guaranteed for a top school? An as suze said, if the school were to "pardon" a low SSAT score which would hurt their SSAT average which appears on their propaganda materials, they would let in a generous legacy or developmental candidate or a sports star rather than the unhooked applicant</p>
<p>I have to disagree about not being able to obtain 90th percentile on the SSAT without algebra. My daughter took it in the Fall of her 8th grade (Nov) and had not had algebra and she scored at the 92nd percentile in Math.</p>
<p>My daughter began Algebra 1 in September, took SSAT in October, and scored 92nd percentile in math. Scored with distinction on SAT mid year 7th grade. No prep tutoring. No accelerated sequencing. Public school.</p>
<p>"Can you achieve a 90%+ on math SSAT without having had Algebra I? I've examined the questions and without knowledge of Algebra I you will not get a 90+% score IMHO." </p>
<p>There are many 7th graders who take the SAT when they are 12 years old to participate in a gifted and talented program like the Center for Talented Youth of Johns Hopkins. Every year, many score at or above 600 in math without the benefit of Algebra and Geometry. The test measures a type of mathematical reasoning. That is the SAT, not the SSAT. These are the same kids who most likely will score in the 90s on the math SSAT.</p>