<p>I have looked through a few of these threads, and one major thing I've noticed is the huge emphasis on test scores. I've seen many posts that say "your poor SAT/ACT scores show grade inflation," but what if the person is just not that great at standardized testing, or <em>GASPS</em> what if the SATs/ACTs don't prove how intelligent you are. I think the tests are overemphasized on this site, and many college are starting to look at test optional policies. Also, I don't think admissions officers care that much about SAT/ACT test scores as some people on here would like you to think.</p>
<p>Thank you for voicing this out</p>
<p>It’s the fact that elite schools have applicant’s with excellent scores, and most people who are applying have great scores. So if you are applying to Yale or whatever, and you ask for a chance thread. You put your stats, and then your Sat is 2100. That sticks out like sword thumb. Everyone else has a 2250+. And it just happens that most people’s weak spot are test scores, and so on Cc that happens to be mentioned the most. In reality, your probably right, it isn’t as important as most people think. But if it sticks out to you, it will certainly stick out to an adcon.</p>
<p>Thank you for voicing this out man!!!</p>
<p>Lets see…Just because most adcoms do reference test scores when they talk about admission. I don’t know, I think that’s a pretty reason. Of course, you could just assume everyone is making this up because they have nothing else to focus on. </p>
<p>Good test scores is not going to make up for poor GPA, but you need good test scores to go with your good GPA.</p>
<p>You’re not alone in the opinion, but the truth is it is still considered. If you look at the common data set for any school test ranges are all very high (just like GPA). I mean come on GPA isn’t a complete indicator of intelligence either. I don’t think there <em>is</em> a complete indicator of intelligence in general. But this is college and they have to find some way of sorting us out. It happens, but no one said it was good.</p>
<p>I believe that standardized test scores are (rightfully so) the most influential factors in determining admission. The reason is in the name. Standard. SAT/ACT/AP scores are the only figures that can be fairly cross-referenced between applicants.</p>
<p>If I get a 98% in calculus BC because my teacher is lenient with test grades, offers a lot of extra credit assignments, and curves the final grades, and you get a 92% with a strict teacher who offers no extra credit and no curve, do I know the material better than you? There is no way that somebody reviewing two applications could know which Calculus BC class was more rigorous, but they do know that I have a 98% and you have a 92%. That is the only distinction that can be made between me and you, so I have an advantage.</p>
<p>If I list NHS member on my application, and I only do the bare minimum to stay in, and you are actively involved in NHS functions, how will an admissions committee know the difference between us?</p>
<p>If we are in completely different high schools, with completely different teachers, and completely different environments, and completely different schedules, can it be said with certainty that a 3.94 GPA in one reflects greater ability than a 3.92 GPA in another?</p>
<p>Admissions committees are aware of the shortcomings of our national education system, so they look for numbers they can put more faith in.</p>
<p>Now, let’s speak hypothetically. What if we had a course that was taught internationally by a single teacher? That teacher got on a webcam every day and students who took the course would watch his lesson on their computer. Whether the teacher was good, bad, strict or lenient, every student received the same lesson as every other student in the world. Since every student is in the exact same environment, the grades each student receives should reflect ability accurately relative to his or her classmates. It’s a scenario that an admissions committee could look at with confidence and be able to determine “Who is better than who”. </p>
<p>Standardized tests are controlled environments that puts everybody on the same scale. They are not perfect, but they are the best way currently available to compare two applicants. They are the only number that can be evaluated with relative confidence. All other numbers leave room for uncertainty about the ability of the applicant.</p>
<p>As an aside, the “I’m bad at taking tests” excuse is crap. Why should anybody reviewing your application feel for you in that situation? Tests are a part of college. If you get a poor SAT score because you aren’t good at tests, then a college will know that you won’t succeed in the college setting, and thus, should not be accepted. SAT/ACT not only determines knowledge; it tests ability to work under pressure (college-related stress, time limits) and test taking abilities. All of these are invaluable skills for high schoolers looking to attend college. If a student isn’t up to par with these skills, then they shouldn’t be accepted.</p>
<p>Class rank is another important factor. Now, it isn’t a good way to compare students on a national level, but it is a good way to compare students at a schoolwide level. Since people attending the same high school are educated in approximately the same environment with the same teachers and class opportunities, those students can be fairly compared based off of GPA or rank. Colleges look at how you compare to your classmates because it is the closest thing to a “controlled environment”, similar to the SAT or ACT.</p>
<p>TL;DR Standardized tests are heavily considered because it is an internationally controlled environment. No other aspect of your application is scaled relative to every other student in the world. To those who complain because they aren’t good at tests: College has tests. If you can’t do well enough on tests, you shouldn’t get into college.</p>
<p>I agree with immasenior; standardized test scores are easily the most important thing on your application because it’s the only thing that really lets adcoms check you in relation to everybody else.</p>
<p>But perhaps tests as an undergrad are vastly different from the multiple-choice, timed grind of SAT/ACT… at least in some disciplines.</p>
<p>No, it is not the most important thing on your application. It is one data point. Holistic admission means adcoms take everything into consideration - GPA, class rank, tests, essays, ECs, family background, financial background, race, sex…Most international students mistakenly believe test score is the most important factor when it comes to US college admission. Standarized tests are also not given in a controlled environment. It has been shown that students from more affluent background tend to do better.</p>
<p>Something else to consider: Not all colleges are looking to fill their entire upcoming class with HIGH STATS STEM students. There are many creative, talented students applying who exhibit a real passion and can add interest and diversity to a campus. Yes, high stats can be a great predictor of a kid’s intelligence, but it does not guarantee success. Many excellent universities look beyond the test scores and consider the entire package.</p>
<p>I know, my D is one of them.</p>
<p>@Catria - I get that. As I said, standardized tests aren’t perfect.</p>
<p>@oldfort - I understand what holistic admission means. I never said that other aspects of the application aren’t considered, just that standardized tests are more heavily considered. I’d like to hear what you think is more heavily considered than standardized tests. The only other part of the application that comes close to standardized tests in terms of importance is the essay(s). This is just my opinion, obviously. I’m no adcom.</p>
<p>It makes sense that wealthy people perform better on standardized tests. Why wouldn’t they? If they have more than enough money to meet their needs, they can use their resources to improve their knowledge and test-taking abilities, two important factors for an adcom. They can attend a great high school or hire private tutors or purchase test prep books. These are all great ways to prepare yourself for college by strengthening your abilities. Poor people can’t afford private schools or tutors, and as a result, they are less capable. Unfortunately, they are not as prepared for college as “rich kids”. Whether or not this is socially fair is irrelevant. The individual who has performed well on standardized tests is showing that he is prepared for college. He has knowledge of fundamental concepts and can perform well in a stressful environment.</p>
<p>Students who went to top private secondary schools are better prepared for college, but in general after the second year the difference is not as apparent. </p>
<p>Class rank (GPA) is the most important factor, this is a known fact.</p>
<p>I agree with immasenior and smargent. Standardized tests put everyone on an equal playing field in a time where GPAs and Course Curriculums are blown out of proportion. There are too many question marks in a GPA score. SAT/ACT makes it easy to compare one student to another.</p>
<p>However, I don’t agree with the fact that just cause some people are rich, they have access to more tutoring resources and get better scores. Just because you attend tutoring doesn’t mean that you’re guaranteed a high score. You still have to work and practice to get the score you want. I know some people who have been going to SAT tutoring for several years, but their scores have barely improved.</p>
<p>Also, I hate it when people claim that they are not a good test taker. No one is born a good test taker. You know that you’re going to be tested for the rest of your life, so take the initiative, and actually work to be a good test taker. Saying that you’re not a good test taker is just an excuse.</p>
<p>You’re not alone in the opinion, but the truth is it is still considered. If you look at the common data set for any school test ranges are all very high (just like GPA). I mean come on GPA isn’t a complete indicator of intelligence either. I don’t think there <em>is</em> a complete indicator of intelligence in general. But this is college and they have to find some way of sorting us out. It happens, but no one said it was good. >>>></p>
<p>Great topic and thanks for bringing it to the fore. I agree with the above post. If standardized tests weren’t that important, most of the top colleges wouldn’t list high score. </p>
<p>for e.g. 75% of the admitted students score between 30-34 on ACT for at the top colleges. Unless they are able to find passionate, creative people with high scores.</p>
<p>Most highly selective schools are do not publish the acceptance rates for certain SAT ranges. There is one however (Princeton) that does.</p>
<p>The admission rates are as follows:</p>
<p>2300-2400: 16.5%
2100-2190: 7.5%
1900-2090: 4.1%
1700-1890: 1.8%</p>
<p>source: [Admission</a> Statistics | Princeton University](<a href=“http://www.princeton.edu/admission/applyingforadmission/admission_statistics/]Admission”>http://www.princeton.edu/admission/applyingforadmission/admission_statistics/)</p>
<p>As you can see, SAT score highly correlates with likelihood of acceptance. In the instance of giving an applicant their probability of admission, SAT scores are very important, especially at a school like Princeton where there are so many academically well-qualified applicants. </p>
<p>I understand that in reality admissions are much more holistic than a chance thread. But since you cannot read the applicant’s entire application on this website, SAT scores provide an easy, objective measure.</p>
<p>Also, let’s be clear. SAT/ACT are not intelligence tests, and nor do they claim to be. If you took the SAT before 1995, it actually was quite close to intelligence test. Now they hardly correlate with intelligence. What these tests claim to be is predictors of how well you will do in college. Do they succeed is that regard? IMO, I think they do. You can see studies published by ACT and Collegeboard, they are quite similar and they seem to correlate well with college success. Of course these are studies published by the makers of the test, so the validity can be questioned. </p>
<p>However, from my experience with Ivy league admissions, a strong GPA and good test score beat out a poor GPA and great test score. Last year, Cornell stats from 2 people from my school. They had similar ECs, the one with 3.5 GPA was a superb writer, so I’m guessing his essay was amazing.
3.9 UW GPA, 1470/1600 SAT → Accepted
3.5 UW GPA. 1530/1600 —> Denied</p>
<p>I agree that the whole “because your test scores are lower than your GPA, it shows grade inflation” thing is entirely ridiculous, and I don’t imagine that admissions officers think of it that way at all. GPA is really a measure of your intelligence and logical abilities combined with motivation and work ethic, while SAT/ACT are reasoning tests, and they can vary widely- certain people aren’t very good at reasoning tests, but have a great work ethic, and vice versa. It is definitely true, though, (and has been proven) that SAT and ACT scores can be improved a significant amount with practice, training, and repeat testing, and it’s also true that your scores are likely to go up each sitting, until after about 3 sittings (at which point it usually plateaus). Based on this, and the fact that wealthier people are more likely to be able to afford both training and taking the actual test multiple times, wealthy students really do have an unfair advantage here, and it’s really something that colleges should consider.
At the same time, though, standardized tests are probably the second or third most important thing in admission (definitely behind GPA and course load)- I’m not sure why, but many colleges really do care about them, and will eliminate applicants whose scores are too far below their mean. So, yes, they are a reasonable concern when considering your chances.</p>