Or is it a public school with staff that worries the ones who can afford tutoring will have unfair advantage? Altho Postmodern is right, whether public or private, wouldn’t high SAT scores make the school look better? Hey, the competition is out there, like it or not. Your school will be compared. My D’s private school does 4 hour group prep sessions on-site; individual tutoring was more per hour but much more helpful.
‘A lot of people like the idea of high SAT scores but think it’s unseemly to study for them.’ Yep, I agree with that. (And 'unseemly is a perfect word!) Though wouldn’t their children practice for sports or band? And as for paying for tutoring being even more unseemly, what about tennis lessons, a workout trainer, a therapist?
Re Post 77: hope someone picks up studying in college to accommodate near perfect scores.
@Much2learn - Do you know why schools would frown on test prep? It wouldn’t matter to me if my kids school was against test prep. IMO preparing for important moments is something everyone should do. After all sports teams game plan. Musicians practice the piece they will be performing. Businesspeople prepare for important meetings. Why wouldn’t students prepare for a high stakes test? I don’t buy into the unfair narrative.
There are some who apparently believe (or want to believe) that SAT scores are a measure of “general intelligence”. Perhaps, from that viewpoint, the idea of preparation and practice to get a higher score is either (a) useless, or (b) deceptive.
Typically did not use test prep in high school themselves. They usually attended a directional, and see themselves as very successful. Therefore, they don't understand why you would do it.
Read the studies that show it has little impact. In my experience, the studies focus on review classes in the short run. We use individual, specifically, targeted Skype tutoring with good tutors over a longer time-period. It does help some. Especially when specific areas are being targeted and the student is motivated.
Feel like telling students that this matters will only add unhelpful pressure, because some parents pressure the students unrealistically. In many cases they are right, if some parent is telling their student who has a 29 ACT score that the kid is a failure if they can't get a 30, I agree that that is a poor approach. The problem with this approach is that once again, it is the student and parents who are not knowledgeable about the process who pays the price.
Think they know that other students did not do it. They send out a survey and almost all of the students deny using tutoring. The survey they send is not anonymous, so many students lie. The know the answer the counselors want to hear and give it to them.
5 Some of the counsellors understand that tutoring does help, but are concerned about “social justice” and therefore worry that tutoring gives certain students an unfair advantage. They foolishly try to level the playing field, by lowering the level of top students, instead of doing the hard work of raising the low end.
I think that students learning more about reading, writing and math can never be a bad thing, and that a parents job is to help their student be the best version of themselves that they can be, and not worry that if their kid does better, that some other student may be left behind.
To me, how much test prep matters for admissions is a function of the student goals, unprepared scores, and grades. Some students are targeting schools that they will almost certainly be admitted to. I that case it does not matter much. Other students who only need one more ACT point to get to their state flagship, should be able to achieve that if they put the effort into it.
Also, as you get into the top 50-75 colleges in particular. It can be increasingly unclear when a students application is good enough to get in. In that environment, a better score can only help.
‘There are some who apparently believe (or want to believe) that SAT scores are a measure of “general intelligence”. Perhaps, from that viewpoint, the idea of preparation and practice to get a higher score is either (a) useless, or (b) deceptive.’ I don’t believe they are worried about test prep being deceptive. Maybe stubborn, or feeling inadequate because they cannot, or can but won’t, spend the money to help better prepare their kids for college. I agree with ucb that they believe what they want to believe about SAT (and a whole lot more).
Much2learn in Post 84 makes several great points. Maybe the counselors themselves did not have prep and think, I took the SAT cold, worked for me, so can they.
And ‘a parents job is to help their student be the best version of themselves that they can be, and not worry that if their kid does better, that some other student may be left behind.’ That’s the whole truth here, in a nutshell.
“Maybe stubborn, or feeling inadequate because they cannot, or can but won’t, spend the money to help better prepare their kids for college.”
Or maybe just think it is a waste of money? Or believe, (and experience has proved) that a $20 prep book gets the job done just as well? Or maybe their kid is expected to show the same drive and self motivation that will be expected of them once they attend college without Mom and Dad shelling out a bunch of money for someone to hold their hand through a process that can easily be self navigated?
`I’ll throw out another possibility that I don’t think I’ve seen: middle class (again, real middle income, not $150k+ income) parents might not even really know about SAT/ACT prep. These are often parents who may not have gone to college themselves or just took the test to get into a local school.
I personally could never study for standardized tests. I legitimately tried a few times but never made it more than a day or two. I tried SAT, ACT, and GRE prep and couldn’t even make it through the practice tests in the practice books. I usually made it through a few days of AP test prep. For me personally, I think a prep course would’ve been completely useless. I took the ACT twice and improved 4 points in between the two (29 -> 33) without additional prep. Perhaps I would’ve only had to take it once if I had had the discipline to make it through a practice test but taking the ACT test twice was definitely cheaper than a prep course.
Our HS farms kids for NMF, so they provided group PSAT prep for the group of kids identified as potential high scorers. We used that prep as our SAT/ACT prep because it didn’t seem beneficial to spend hundreds to squeeze out marginal improvements for a suburban white kid.
@planner03 To assume that all students that choose to take an ACT or SAT prep course lack " the drive or self motivation that will be expected of them once they attend college without Mom and Dad shelling out a lot of money for someone to hold their hand that can easily be self navigated " is a gross over generalization and an insulting comment. I can assure you that my son has both drive and self determination . He did not need "handholding " nor did I shell out a lot of
money for him to attend a prep class. After assessing the pros and cons for our family, we made the decision that was best for my son. The little bit I spent to prepare my son with a prep class was money well spent when he was accepted to his first choice with nearly a full ride . I wouldn’t begin to judge or make assumptions about a choice that you made for your child , I’d appreciate the same courtesy.
My twins were top 10% of their class but couldn’t find the internal motivation to self-study. Prep course was basically paying a third party to encourage them to study. I no longer had to nag them, they’d feel foolish if they showed up to the next prep session with none of the work done.
And seeing a room full of ambitious peers at the course removes the whole “Mommmm nobody studies for the ACT” as well as makes them realize the world is bigger and more competitive than who they see at their own school. It was well worth the $2,000 total.
Shell out a lot of money? Depends on the perspective. $1000, $2000? May be more than I want to spend on a sofa. But considering a college education can cost $100,000, $200,000, and be worth $1,000.000 in extra income for a lifetime, it ain’t much money.
Clearly, anyone who has a high-scoring kid who chose not to pay for prep for whatever reason, and whose kid–oh, the horror!–basically refused to do prep, is going to be accused of bragging on this thread if they have the temerity to share their experience.
Much more palatable to brand anyone who doesn’t pay for prep a fool or an idiot.
Frankly, I am appalled by the thought that some people start prepping years before the test. I was appalled when I found out that some people made their kids prep for the SAT in or before middle school in order to qualify for CTY or TIP. There has to be a more rewarding use of the money and the kid’s time. And I don’t mean rewarding in $$.
“Private tutor for the ACT was the best money we ever spent. Went from 26 on ACT to 33. It was all about test taking strategies vs. inherent intelligence. I have heard 32 is the “magic number” when it comes to higher merit awards but surely it varies school to school.”
We did the private tutor also. S had pitiful PSAT scores (like 1000.) He went up to mid 1900’s and from 26 ACT to a 30.
His largest merit award was $30k/yr but he got huge FA package ($40k/yr) at need based aid only top 25 LAC. He would have had zero chance at either school without upping his scores. Lower ranked schools then those two gave merit aid ranging from $12k to $28k.
It was the test taking strategies he learned from the tutor which made all the difference for him and we got an excellent ROI from having him tutored.
As @sblumenthal says, ‘the world is bigger and more competitive than who they see at their own school.’ Yes.
Going to an SAT prep class or tutor is not like going to a spa. It’s academic work. I don’t regard sitting in a high school composition class as hand-holding.
I don’t deny a $20.00 book can provide equal help. Depends on the kid. And there are the ones who take the ACT cold and hit 34 and 35 and say, I’m done. That wasn’t my kid.
Many middle class folks are penny wise pound foolish. Kids have the newest iPhone, data plan, play travel sports when the kid isn’t even talented or in the least bit appreciative, $200 cleats, eat fast food after school, et cetera et cetera. The garage has a boat in it, mom drives a new leased SUV, $200 cable bill.
At a less selective public U, the merit awards can be $0 for a 23 on the ACT; $6,000 for a 24. If you subtract a $1000 prep course that’s still $5,000 or $200-plus an hour in return!
The lower the income, the more the prepping can be worth. That was the premise of our log-departed OP.
And $1000 is a lot of money, to a family with an income of $100,000, if you have to pull that from your day-to-day expenses. We pulled our D’s $895.00 prep fees from her Coverdale fund. Without college savings she would not have been able to go even to state-supported college. (Her SAT jumped from just above 25% to 50% of SAT ranges of the one school she most wanted to attend and she got in and is now a senior).
Isn’t this your first post to this thread? How could I have possibly been addressing you? My comments were in response to someone else’s statement, (thus the quotation marks!) specifically referring to reasons why a parent may choose to NOT use test prep, not an attack on anyone that does. It was hardly a “gross generalization” since I was referring to MYSELF. Since you don’t “judge” I am not sure why you would be so offended that another parent doesn’t see value in test prep, or that someone else’s kid can get acceptances and full rides without it? And after reading your post I think you are the one that should consider some “courtesy.”
You seem to protest too much…glad the prep paid off for you though.
The lower the income the less merit money does for you. $30K merit money per year likely leaves you with $20-30K to pay. If your income has been in the 50K range for a substantial amount of time, the likelihood of college savings large enough to make a dent in that is nil. The most effective financial strategy in that case, if you have the right kid, is to aim at big FA from true meets-need schools with deep pockets. And the right kid A) will almost certainly score in range without spending a lot of money on prep, and B) will be much better served spending time on ECs or other endeavors that will have the side benefit of making him or her more attractive to the target schools.
If you don’t have that kid, doG help you.
And BTW, @sblumenthal, I hope that you are not suggesting that the families with an actual middle income–around $50K–routinely have all of the toys you cite.
In our case it had nothing to do with needing an extra push to study - our daughter said it was all about the strategies she learned (time management) and taking a full practice test a week (and of course you can do that on your own if you want). She had to set aside time during the week to time herself and take the tests, and then at tutoring they went over the results. By the time she retook the ACT it was just another test. She also had one tutor for english and one tutor for math, and they tagged team.
She is a senior so I don’t know what kind of payoff she will get, but she was also more focused on getting into some schools that would have been out of reach with a 26 but are now within reach with a 33. Even the test optional schools suggest you send scores if you think it will be an advantage to your application. So while not required, they sure do ask for them “if you want.”
I don’t remember the exact amount we paid but it was around $1,500 when it was all said and done. I distinctly remember thinking that kids who couldn’t afford it were at a disadvantage (and couldn’t vs. wouldn’t is a whole other discussion). I still contend it’s the best money we ever spent.