Agree that retesting is not of too high value in this case.
However, if she chooses to retest, probably the best way to prep is to try the math sections of released old tests under test conditions, then review which types of questions she got incorrect and focus prep only on those types of questions, rather than general test prep that can consume a lot of time that would not be needed.
Also, the current ACT score of 34 is actually a rounded down 34.25, so it would require a gain of only 1 net section point to raise it to 34.5 which rounds up to 35 (or a gain of 1 section point anywhere regardless of losses to get a 35 super score).
I am finding this discussion really interesting so thanks for your replies! I also have a hard time believing that kids would be spilt into two groups based on testing and evaluated only within those groups. I was assuming that everything a student submits is another data point about that student and no one point is reviewed in a vacuum. For example, my DD won’t be submitting an arts portfolio but for others, that would be a component that would strengthen their application.
I know that test scores are correlated with wealth and race but I am guessing it does tell the AO something about school fit. In this environment it’s hard to know at what point do test scores detract from the application vs add to it? As one person pointed out, once students are only submitting at 1550 and above, what’s the point? Personally, I would be happy to see standardized test scores decrease in importance. It measures performance on one day and there are other factors at play. For example we live in a very underfunded school district with older computers. During the school day ACT her computer kept crashing between sections. Did that interfere with her overall concentration and impact her score? Maybe, maybe not.
I am personally against making test scores optional. Yes, they should be evaluated and compared to other test scores from one’s neighborhood and demographic, and guidance counselors can point out to AO’s in their letters why a score might or might not be reflective of a student’s abilities. A 1400 from a poor area might not be the equivalent of a 1400 from another. Context matters, and colleges have always been free to use or not use the scores as they see fit. But in a school district like our’s, where finances and bad wifi connections are NOT holding kids back, the kid who doesn’t take or submit the test is just taking an easy way out, in many cases. there are always extenuating circumstances that are pointed out by students and GC’s to explain poor grades, and these can be applied to test scores as well,
The TO policy is being abused by colleges to increase applications (and their fees), increase average SAT scores, reduce acceptance rates, and allow AOs to craft their incoming class anyway they want without hurting their stats (actually helping their stats). Yes, I am skeptical, but I don’t think most colleges are TO out of the goodness of their hearts.
I am not as 100% certain of my opinion as I sound, but this is my gut feeling.
If a college checks standardized testing as “important,” then an application with a reported ACT score of 34 should be considered as advantageous in comparison to applications without a reported score, a group with almost certainly lower scores (and that may include students with scores in the 12–17 range, of whom some, based on available information, may be accepted). This is different, of course, from saying that a high score should be definitively advantageous.
@mom2one2022 , did your D study a lot or a little for the tests? Did she do better on practice tests?
I think it’s worth trying to squeeze a few more points out, especially in math, but only if there are still easy points to pick up. As someone mentioned above, getting the ACT score to 35 isn’t a big lift.
If you decide to call it quits, I’d suggest sending only the ACT because a 34 is great and I think there is a little bump for being “one and done”.
She said she studied using Khan academy between SAT 1 (December) and SAT 2 (March). I nagged her a bit but didn’t push to see any proof of studying. Her math score went down 20 points. My hunch is she probably didn’t study as much as she claimed. ACT scores were from the school day test which are required for state bench mark purposes (hence the essay). Her PSAT score was similar and also scored lower in math than English. She did not study for the PSAT.
My original reply is up above about my daughter’s experience this year with a 1580 in covid test-optional world. Pretty much the worst timing.
For what it’s worth, I think far more schools will stay test optional than were before covid (my older daughter goes to Davidson and they just announced they are staying test optional) - but the actual test score range itself is not really what I saw as the big issue with this year.
Having a daughter who applied in 2019 for fall 2020 (who had a 1440 - went to Davidson) and the 2022 grad now applying for fall (the 1580), the biggest issue is that without some testing measure, the pools of applicants is far far inflated.
The score bands essentially helped students self-select out of applying. That made sense. If you were in the low range, you might go for it and maybe be that diamond in the rough, but if you were flat out of it, you’d usually look elsewhere.
Without the test requirement, basically it has been a free for all. That can be great for some students who might not otherwise be considered at some of these schools, but it made the number of applicants surge so incredibly high that it most certainly didn’t help the high scoring kids who might have been in a smaller pond.
And that’s really the question about how/where it comes back for me. Somewhere like MIT or UNC or schools bringing it back are going to likely see application numbers course correct. What will their new range for test scores be? Can’t tell ya but it could very well be higher. And will their applicant pool numbers stay up, likely but I’m guessing not quite as high. MIT was quick to announce the end of that - they need and want that standard of measure.
My daughter got a 1510 on her first SAT and we all said “well, you’re good with that.” She is a STEM, Comp Sci kid and felt that she wanted her math to be outstanding, so she (much to our surprise) took it again and got the perfect math score. It makes sense to be strong in the area where a student is saying they want to focus. She was probably right about that.
But would those scores have resulted in any different results in the entirely test optional landscape…? I don’t think so, honestly. I’m proud of her for her hard work and achievement alone. If it didn’t matter to a college, well, so they missed that measure of a great student this year.
Hopefully it will end up balancing out but the key thing that hopefully adjusts is that testing requirements will pull the numbers back to something reasonable for schools across the board. I wish that for all future applicants and their families.
Anyway, good luck on deciding about testing and the process in general!
PS Some articles on the change in volume of applicants:
I stated very clearly that I was speculating, just as anyone who says an AO assembling the class of 2027 will treat a 1500 and 1550 exactly the same is also speculating! I apologize if it wasn’t clear that I was talking strictly about unhooked students.
Speculation aside, we seem to be approaching this from different directions. I completely agree that a 1500/34 will not in and of itself be the determining factor. I very strongly disagree that in the current climate it can be conclusively, non-speculatively said that there is no added advantage to having a 1550/35+ vs a 34/1500, particularly at these two schools.
That is a widespread belief here whether or not it is true (or partially true and partially false). However, there are two sometimes conflated concepts:
Parental or self-pressure to consider only reach colleges acceptable. While obviously not universal, it is seen here as being more common among Asian American students. This leads to pressure to try for higher college admission credentials, including test scores, compared to students who are ok with match and safety colleges.
The idea that, at the same (highly selective holistic admissions) college, an Asian American applicant needs higher test scores or other college admission credentials than other applicants. This is widely believed on these forums.
The universities themselves have argued publicly for many years (go read about the U of Texas case at SCOTUS) that they need to have different standards for underrepresented minorities and non-URMs in order to maintain the campus diversity they feel is valuable and important. That includes standardized tests. This board is filled with a variety of opinions on the merits of doing things this way, but it is impossible to say this doesn’t happen. The universities publicly state it does happen.
I am actually wrestling over the same thing. My daughter is an URM and scored 1500 super score on her SAT (760M/740R). I think she is also going to make national merit in our state from her PSAT at 220 pts. One thing I have heard is that the SAT score should be “balanced,” i.e. not an 800M/700R for example. I don’t know if that is true, especially for a STEM student, but I have heard you should aim for a 750 on each section.
I would say that if you believe your daughter could make real progress on the score and she is willing to put in the work, I would take it again. I know my daughter could raise her score, but only if she is willing to put in real work to raise it. If my daughter is not really interested in taking it again, I won’t push because I believe you really have to put in the work to get that last 50-100pts.
My observations and experience is that overall, Asian American’s have a work ethic that is unsurpassed but they are modest and humble about their achievements. Of course, not all, but definitely the majority. Society values and rewards extroverted self-promoters. Universities have a huge opportunity for improvement in this area.
I believe it is #2. Asian American’s always have to go above and beyond to prove themselves (unless they are legacy, athlete, development case). Until society values hard work and talent over bravado and self-promotion, we won’t see real change.
I agree that self-promotion, while imho unattractive, is rewarded. This is really tough for any quiet kid, and especially ones fron cultures that discourage this.
I also think that for many kids who feel family pressure to achieve - and who are responding to that – they can come across as lacking independence, whether in interests or drive. Schools want kids who are genuinely motivated by learning rather than by "having achieved ". This too can be challenging for kids from families/cultures who put kids on the achievement track vs kids who choose some version of it for themselves. And as parents, it’s really hard to find the line between instilling value for hard work and a love of learning and expecting your kids to excel whether they want to or not.
And to the other poster, your scores are fine too.
Ok, I should have refrained from my previous comment until looking at the entire document. Thanks again for sharing. While I don’t agree entirely with everything in this document, I do believe that most humans, especially educators, intentions are honest and that they care a lot and work hard to admit students who are a fit. Nothing in life is easy and certainly not fair. Systems are flawed. As long as I continue to see things moving in the right direction and colleges taking a hard look at their policies and practices (for all marginalized communities), I remain optimistic.
I’d encourage parents of students to practice some interview skills with their high school students and help brainstorm with them how they will highlight their strengths to colleges. One of the first things that college career centers do for students is help them with the “elevator spiels”. How do you sell yourself to someone in a very short period of time. Helpful not only for job fairs, but also for college interviews, and applications.
If a student can’t “self promote” on the common app, how is an ad com supposed to figure that out in the 10 minutes or less that they have to review the application?
And as a reminder, schools with very low acceptance rates are getting application from the top kids from all over the county (and the world). Tens of thousands of valedictorians and 16K NMF all applying to the same 20 schools. The high GPA and test scores are just the first hurdle.
