<p>I'm wondering if you think that "superscoring" SAT I scores (taking each section score separately, regarding your best section score as the highest score you ever obtained on that section, even if it was from a sitting for the test that didn't have your highest score on other sections) is a big advantage to you. </p>
<p>Many high school students take the SAT I just once in their last two years of high school. </p>
<p>The data show that a majority of high school students take the SAT I more than once in those years, and some as many as five times. Most colleges (all colleges I have asked about this) have a stated policy of considering a student's best scores for admission purposes, and no college has a general policy of averaging scores, but some colleges mean best single-sitting score when they say "best," and others mean best score section by section. (Insofar as there is a national pattern in these practices, state universities tend to be more likely to take single-sitting scores, as the U of California system does, while elite private universities tend to take scores section by section, that is "superscore.") </p>
<p>On a practical level, how much difference does it make to you how a college considers scores from different sittings? If you take the test just once, you have the score you have. If you take the test twice (or more), and all section scores are higher on one test sitting than the other(s), superscoring makes no difference. If you do have a split in score variance among your different sittings, a college may give you the benefit of superscoring--but how many other applicants in the same applicant pool are treated the same? In other words, do you ever really gain an advantage from superscoring, as contrasted with single-sitting consideration of best scores?</p>
<p>Ten points. However, I am very near a lot of scholarship lines and ten more points on any later testing would mean between $1,000-2,000 at different schools I am applying to.</p>
<p>The only circumstance in which I could have seen DS1 retaking the SAT would be to raise a score to qualify for merit money at a top choice school. I know kids who did that for just those reasons (heck, I did it in HS, too -- just made the mistake of taking the SAT on the day of the prom and I wasn't going...back in a place where the prom was a HUGE deal). And the school (a flagship public) didn't superscore, either.</p>
<p>I also know kids who took it to try to raise a specific section score --and it didn't work.</p>
<p>Hey! how do you know if the college you are applying does the "superscoring" stuff?
I am looking forward to apply to Texas A&M, UT austin, U of Houston.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I am very near a lot of scholarship lines and ten more points on any later testing would mean between $1,000-2,000 at different schools I am applying to.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's a good concrete answer to my question. If the scholarship program sets a cut-off score, and the applicant has a set of SAT scores with some up-and-down scatter in section scores, that would be a very good economic reason indeed to inquire about the rules of the scholarship program. Thanks for the specific example.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I also know kids who took it to try to raise a specific section score --and it didn't work.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is the basis of my puzzlement about why so many applicants care about superscoring--there is still the issue of walking into the testing room and obtaining the desired score. I took the SAT I exactly once when I was in high school. It never occurred to me that anyone would take it twice unless they were sick on the first opportunity to take it. It seemed to me then, and still does now, that the way to score high on the SAT is to be "on" for the whole test, and maintain concentration and energy until done with all sections. So I wonder about the test-takers who expect to go into the testing room and boost a score on just one section, while possibly letting the other sections slide. I wonder who really manages to do that. Why not aim for a high section score on each section every sitting?</p>
<p>One unintended side effect of the superscoring policy is that it gives applicants an incentive to take more tests (because all the other applicants are doing so, and because score ranges are more compressed, making small increments more important) until they reach a plateau. This in turn reveals more clearly to the college what the "true" SAT level of the applicant is; I think they are looking (overtly or implicitly) for the location of the plateau, not the superscore as such.</p>
<p>Token (second post), I would say it depends on the person. I took the March date and scored a perfect W, 96 percentile CR and dismal M. From them until the June date, I literally did not look at any CR nor any W. Starting two weeks before the test date, I started daily M prep. When I went into the test, I had the attitude to do my best on the CR and W, but not to stress. I hadn't prepped for CR/ W, and I didn't really expect any increases, because I knew that all but one of my college choices superscores. I didn't slack on them, but I wasn't worried about perfection. I just wanted a higher maths score, and I had a specific goal in mind.</p>
<p>On that test date, my CR went up 50 points (to the 99 percentile), I got a 790 W (with 80 MC), and I exceeded my maths goal by 20 points, raising my superscore from a 2080 to a 2190. I think the key to doing well across the board that time was that I wasn't concerned about the other two sections. I had scores I was satisfied with, so I relaxed through those sections. I was so focused on M that when I was doing CR and W, I thought, "Okay, this is the easy stuff, no worries, just breeze through." </p>
<p>I think that if my colleges didn't SS, I would have been worried about doing poorly on the CR section and not done as well in maths. Knowing that my CR would hold or increase gave me the attitude to just enjoy doing it as much as I could, and it paid off. However, I agree wholeheartedly that no one should enter the test with the attitude of slacking off on any section.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think that if my colleges didn't SS, I would have been worried about doing poorly on the CR section and not done as well in maths.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's a very interesting idea. As I noted above, I've never tried this myself, because throughout my life I've taken all my key tests just once. </p>
<p>suggests that many high-school-age test-takers do better (as to critical reading section scores or math section scores) each new time they take the test, but it is the exceptional cases that students fear.</p>
<p>i thought i would be able to take advantage of it on my second try, but i was unable to and superscore does nothing for me. But, this was actually a very good thing =)</p>
<p>2190 first time
both english sections went up 50. math went up 20
2310 second, no need for superscore</p>
<p>Colleges decide how to treat scores from students who take tests more than once. They generally give students the benefit of their highest scores.</p>
<p>My single sitting score was a 2360 buy a counselor encouraged by to retake it to get my CR, the only section I lost points in to get a superscore of 2400 which I did. I’m not sure it will make a difference whatsoever. Sorry, not much to contribute to the discussion here other than my second sitting score was lower than 2360 b/c I focused on CR to get an 800.</p>