I think the problem is more that ACT/SAT is not a good reflection of metrics selective colleges value. Instead it is only loosely correlated with such metrics. For example, the ACT math is composed of 60 simple multiple choice math questions focusing on algebra and geometry. You need to be fast and average a rate of answering 1 question per minute to complete them in the time limit. Among students who know basic algebra and geometry well, it’s often more a measure of being consistent and not making any careless mistakes. A few careless mistakes can be quite costly. In the most recent math SAT, making just 3 careless errors would drop the score down to 720… well below the average at almost any highly selective college…
I expect that no math exam given at any highly selective college resembles such tests. The college math exams don’t focus on algebra/geometry; they are rarely multiple choice; and they generally involve a few complex and involved questions that take a long time to solve, rather than many short and simple questions. Knowing basic algebra and geometry is certainly a valuable skill, as is being consistent without careless errors; but it is not a good reflection of being prepared for an intro math class at a selective college. Instead it only has a loose correlation.
Including some more complex and challenging AMC/AIME type questions might be more useful, but even with a few challenging questions, the test would still be fundamentally different from the skills required to be successful in college and beyond. And students already have the option to take AMC/AIME and similar tests, and pursue various other math ECs/teams/awards/research/… that encompass a higher level of mathematics that offered on SAT/ACT, or similar in various other interests or planned field of study. Selective colleges are generally looking for more than just students who score well on a standardized test, even if high scores on that test are extremely rare.
Too easy? Another cc myth. It’s just not true. 37000 hiuhh schools is us. And who knows in other nantons with students who want to study is USA. But just the 37k high schools indicate that there is only one student per school on average who received either a 34 35 or 36. Not two not three. One. And some schools have a dozen. It’s just not that common.
And this sample is from over 2mm unique test takers in 2017
2017 results
Score # of Students Percentage of All Test Takers
36 2,760 0.136%
35 12,386 0.610%
34 20,499 1.010%
33 26,920 1.326%
Source: ACT.org
I know that NEU didn’t invent this practice – nor is it the only school that does it – but NEU has a reputation out here on the west coast of doing this A LOT. And doing other things like yield protection, just to improve its rankings. It sounds like a school run by despots, haha!
@JHS “It would be hard to find anyone knowledgeable who believes there should be more reliance on standardized testing. It’s just not that meaningful.”
Then why do many colleges list “standardized tests” (along with GPA, course rigor) as the most important factors for admission on their common data sets.
IMO, there certainly is some correlation to scoring high on the ACT/SAT and being smart enough to fair well in college.
If colleges put some emphasis on test scores, the rankings should also.
Exactly, the bell curve still shows how hard it is to get those top scores. Per the data in my post #32, the top 1% is actually in the 35-36 range, and top 3% score in the 33-36 range. Average @ 21
Emory - Claremont McKenna - are two more. Out right lied about results in some cases to fame the rankings. And Emory clouds things with the oxford option as well.
And it so unnecessary if we parents stopped buying into it all. The hyper competitive nature of it all is so keeping up with the jones’ in my opinion. Sure we want the best for our kids of course. But arguing over x is better tha y is usually based on school and kid pride versus anything else.
“Claremont McKenna isn’t the only top college that lied. Bucknell University doctored SAT results from 2006 to 2012; Emory University provided numbers for admitted students rather than enrolled ones for more than a decade; and Iona College lied about acceptance and graduation rates, SAT scores and alumni giving for nine years starting in 2002. “
@privatebanker You are correct. The top 1.756% score 34-36, which is very rare. Also rare is the top 3.082% who score 33-36. Rarer still? 35-36 Rarest? 36
I don’t mean to be flip or to discount a 33 or 34. And I apologize for the sin of rounding when I made my comment. So we agree – top scores are rare.
FWIW around these parts (northeast), the perception is that 35/36 is on a separate and higher level. Clearly that’s not reflected in the %'s we are looking at today. But I remember when my D and her friends were testing for various graduation years (2016-2018). She attended a private high school and was on the honors track. Of her peers, anyone who got a 35 was done. They didn’t try to retest to get a 36. But anyone who got a 33-34 tested again to try to get at least a 35. That may not be grounded in reality, given the stats we’re looking at, but at least around here that’s the perception. I realize that clearly AOs have the numbers and know otherwise.
No my point was that its a not quite accurate to conflate a 34 which is 25 percent of the top 1 percent by adding in 33 which adds two full percent to the totals and group them together as a grouped subset. It is not statistically accurate. 34 is statistically closer to a 35 and 36 than the 33 group.
14000 students out of 2mm test takers received a 35 or 36. And unless some school has a monopoly on these randomly distributed scores across the globe, it does seem that it is remarkably few statistically retested and moved the needle. Maybe a few hundred students out of the universe of students. The numbers just are not there to support very many kids could or have successfully done so move from a raw score 34 to 35. Retest to improve one category and super score to a 35 I can agree with.
But you can ask ao’s independently outside of cc. But all of the admission people I have talked to say that 34 35 36 group are auto identified as elite in that category and they move on. The 36 4 0 uw student is already in a different pile anyway.
But this is really dissecting to atom. It’s all good.
@ucbalumnus this struck a cord with me when my son applied to our local University of Illinois champaign engineering. He got a 34 like a lot of his classmates( 33-35 is not that abnormal). He got sqat for any merit from Illinois. I called and said shouldn’t a local kid with great GPA and ACT scores get something. They told me there were 500 kids ahead of him with 35/36 ACT scores and many of them got like $ 500 scholarships for their effort. Another reason my son left the state like so many others and is going to Michigan.
@JenJenJenJen
Yes, the difference you’re noticing in admissions is the fact that theses schools have not increased their class sizes relative to the overall population size.
@Knowsstuff I believe you 100 percent. But to think that 500 of the 14k world wide population who earned a 35 or 36 wanted to attend uiuc engineering school seems like someone was not being honest with you. But uiuc is really respected. So who knows.
And you must have attended one of the best schools in the country if 34 is a common score. Only 20k outnof 2.1 mm test takers around the globe scored that last year. And there’s 37k high schools in USA alone. That means a lot of schools have zero if there are a lot coming out of all the schools talked about on cc where 34 is a dime a dozen. So it’s definately not a common score at most schools. Heck there’s not even one per school on average including he 35 and 36 too
What I think is that our high achieving kids and their friends scoring at that level make it seem ordinary. And cc is filled with high achievers. It’s a remarkable achievement and it gets overlooked. And also undermines the quality of the pool at 30 and above. Above average was a 22 in 2017.
@privatebanker… My son not me. It’s what Illinois scholarship department told me… I didn’t even think twice about it. We know a lot of kids there that scored high. That is why this thread is so interesting. The kids going to Michigan from his school all had ACT in this range also.
My sons school is unique with avg ACT of 31.3 in his senior year. So for his friends to score 33-35 is not that unusual. It is the number 1 school in our state at the time also and even though a public school you test in so not a fair comparison I guess.
@privatebanker I notice you have a lot of negative things to say about Emory especially when it comes to the Oxford option we have which is just as excellent. Emory admitted to its own misguided acts, as they did not outright lie, they reported admitted stats instead of ENROLLED stats that the ranking agencies tend to ask for.
Also when it comes to Oxford, Emory’s old campus had no option but to continue to be a haven of elite education. Was Emory to destroy and mow over Hundreds of millions of dollars worth of assets because they decided to move.
Also when it comes to stats Emory College has very high stats higher than UCB,Umich, UCLA, Boston College, BU, UNC, Tulane etc. These are high caliber students and guess what Oxford College can say the same as well. Oxford’s ENROLLED median is a 1425. Higher than all the aforementioned schools. You can find Oxford’s Class of 2021 enrolled stats here… https://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/?q=emory&s=all&id=487092#admsns
Yes,… most student’s at Oxford did not get into Emory College, but that doesn’t matter when most students at BC, Tulane, Umich etc couldn’t get into Oxford college.
I don’t have anything bad to say about Emory. It is fantastic. Top of the mountain great.
The question related to rankings manipulation and the poster recommended moving up and down based on act scores. Emory is the top echelon of schools.
This is a rankings discussion. Emory and some other schools had to fess up on gaming a few years ago. The oxford option is fantastic. But with different numbers for each cohort and some applying to both it’s a bit less clear what the actual statistical mid point is a as part of that discussion
It’s a discussion and that includes some good and bad if it’s being frank.
OP, why do you think the average ACT/SAT score affects the quality of curriculum/teaching?
It is difficult to rank academic strength at the undergraduate level. Faculty accomplishments are fine, but do those award winners teach undergrads, and are they good teachers if they do? Class size can be important, but does a small class mean anything if the teacher is dull? Superstar lecturers are great, but if your only chance of interacting with him or her is through email because the lecture has a thousand students, is it really that great? Surveys can help complete the picture, but is everyone participating and being honest? GPA can be inflated or deflated. And salary metrics are rife with issues, like differences in regional job markets and S of L, students’ self-selection of major/career/salary, etc.
There are so many variables that go into academic strength, and some can be measured. But there should be a qualitative aspect to it as well, and the dean/GC rating sort of does that. (though if it were my formula, i would replace GCs with additional notable faculty. GCs know which schools are popular, not necessarily which are good)
