Perfect SAT

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jun 25, 2015
Messages
5,731
Location
New England
My daughter has a friend who recently confessed about how she was able to get a perfect (1600) combined SAT score. This girl is very bright and has outstanding grades, but I guess she thought that wasn't good enough.
It was a pretty simple plan...she took the SAT twice and ignored the proctor's directions to finish up with one section of the test and start on the other halfway through (the two parts are math and critical reading). Each time, she spent almost all of the allotted time on one section and basically ignored the other. I was really shocked to hear that the proctoring was so poor that this was possible.
The kid was still showing some serious brainpower to pull two 800s, but I remain outraged that she got away with this. Do schools not have access to her full suite of test results to see that she had poor results on one section each time she took the test? Either they don't or just don't care, as this kid had her choice of Ivys to attend (perfect student for them with great grades, perfect SAT, lots of activities, and uberrich parents who can easily pay full price).
Taking the SAT more than once seems extremely common now...my daughter and all her friends took it at least twice, and my daughter definitely spent more prep time on the subject that gave her the weaker result on the first try while getting ready for the 2nd time. She certainly didn't cheat brazenly, though! I never heard of taking it more than once until just after my scores came in, when I saw on the news that a kid in a nearby town had a 1600...he mentioned in his interview that it was his 4th or 5th time taking the SAT! I thought that was a pretty bogus perfect at the time.
 
When I was in high school I took the SAT twice. Improving on the second. I only took it twice because I heard that colleges do not like when students take it more than that, 3 allowing, but anymore than that gives them second thoughts.

You threw me off with the perfect score, I did not realize they had changed it from 2400 to 1600. I believe I got a 1620/2400 on my SAT 5 years ago, I was REALLY awful on the writing and reading sections.

I've heard of kids cheating on the SAT, I guess do what yah gotta do to get into your school of choice.

Getting a perfect score on your SAT after the 4th or 5th time taking it is not impressive.
 
I also took mine twice. I got a pretty average score the first time. I did all the prep and all that and just nerved myself out of a better score. The second time I didn't prep at all and just went in relaxed and mentally prepared knowing what I was in for and got a 1320.

Good enough to get me into engineering school.
thumbsup2.gif
 
I took mine twice. IIRC they used the best score for each half (English vs math?). Each time I did better on one than the other. That would have been back in 1994 or 1995. I think it was standard practice back then, to take them twice. Colleges said they would take the best scores.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Virtus_Probi
My daughter has a friend who recently confessed about how she was able to get a perfect (1600) combined SAT score. This girl is very bright and has outstanding grades, but I guess she thought that wasn't good enough.
It was a pretty simple plan...she took the SAT twice and ignored the proctor's directions to finish up with one section of the test and start on the other halfway through (the two parts are math and critical reading). Each time, she spent almost all of the allotted time on one section and basically ignored the other. I was really shocked to hear that the proctoring was so poor that this was possible.

Proctoring for these tests is really inconsistent. I'm not surprised that some people are able to get away with stuff like this. Enough people take the test that even rare occurrences will pop up all the time.


Originally Posted By: Virtus_Probi
The kid was still showing some serious brainpower to pull two 800s, but I remain outraged that she got away with this. Do schools not have access to her full suite of test results to see that she had poor results on one section each time she took the test? Either they don't or just don't care, as this kid had her choice of Ivys to attend (perfect student for them with great grades, perfect SAT, lots of activities, and uberrich parents who can easily pay full price).

Depends on the school. Some just ask for one score; others ask for several and "superscore" (i.e. combine your best subscores to get your total); others just ask for all your scores, and who knows what they do with them.

No matter what, though, she's got problems. If she sends one score, she'll look like a savant in one area and incompetent in the other. If she sends both, it'll be obvious she did something she wasn't supposed to. Either way, it's really going to be a stain on her application. The proctors may have missed the boat, but she will look nothing like a student who could get anywhere near a 1600 in one shot. Her "cheat" might leave her worse off than if she had just taken the test honestly and gotten a lower score.

What'll be really outrageous will be if her parents manage to buy her an Ivy League admission despite her obvious SAT shenanigans.

Something to think about, though: has your daughter seen her friend's actual scores, or does she only know the combined score? If all she knows is her friend's combined score, it's possible that the friend made this whole thing up to avoid seeming too far "above" anyone.


Originally Posted By: Virtus_Probi
Taking the SAT more than once seems extremely common now...my daughter and all her friends took it at least twice, and my daughter definitely spent more prep time on the subject that gave her the weaker result on the first try while getting ready for the 2nd time. She certainly didn't cheat brazenly, though! I never heard of taking it more than once until just after my scores came in, when I saw on the news that a kid in a nearby town had a 1600...he mentioned in his interview that it was his 4th or 5th time taking the SAT! I thought that was a pretty bogus perfect at the time.

It's extremely common. 4 or 5 times is a bit much, and admissions committees don't always look on that favorably if they find out. But 2 or 3 times makes good sense -- succeeding on these tests takes practice, and there's no practice like the real thing.
 
I think you need to put a few things into context. First, a perfect score now is much easier to achieve than it was before the test was "adjusted". I.e. You can get a lower percentile score and still get a perfect SAT score. So, you should be more impressed by the PSAT results that lead to being a National Merit finalist.

Next, most kids who are serious about college take it twice. There is simply no substitute for actually taking the test to improve your test-taking skills...which, like it or not, this kid clearly accomplished...

Next, many schools weight the ACT as much as the SAT and will take either score.

Finally, standardized test scores are simply one variable in the admissions equation. Curriculum, grades, class rank, community service, sports, arts, interviews, essays - they all matter. These are the things that define the applicant, not just a test score, and that help a school make an admission decision.

My son, for example, only took the SAT once, but he did well on the ACT and that was enough when placed in the context of all of his high school accomplishments and interests.
 
I'm guessing this kid didn't need the 1600 to open up doors for her...she was probably going Ivy even with a 1400 SAT. My daughter told me which one she picked, she had a bunch to choose from.
I also think she was under significant parental pressure to ace the SAT and wonder if the idea to cheat on the test time the way she did came from her folks. I still think if you took the SAT twice and got something like 800/300 and then 300/800 (don't know her real numbers) that it SHOULD raise some real flags.
The DD's friend has been accused of cheating in various ways throughout high school (formally and informally) and nothing ever stuck, she always claimed it was due to jealousy but I am really wondering now.
I am aware of two major SAT adjustments since I took it, first the change from 1600 up to 2400 and now going back down to 1600. I'm sure changes I'm not aware of have occurred, too. It was kind of neat that my DD ended up within 10 of me on the combined score, although I will gently remind her when prodded that mine was not a superscore. ;^)
 
Its been a while since I was applying to college, but I recall hearing that if you took the SAT multiple times, some schools took your best total score, and some took your best mixed score of the best of the times you took it.

I doubt she did that bad on the other section, even with this approach, but if she got an 800 on one, and a 600 on the other, each time more or less, then to some schools she may have gotten a 1600, while to others she may have only gotten a 1400. FWIW.

Growing up in NJ, the ACT was never a consideration. My wife, growing up further south, only took ACT. I thought I had heard that the ACT more or less "won out" over the SAT in recent years, FWIW...
 
this doesnt make sense to me as a valid technique to brag about. disregarding the other issues and just focusing on extra time:

Double the time isnt going to help someone score a perfect score.

Someone who is capable to score a perfect score already has techniques down. the test is not so complex, so they already should be done with each section in half the time with plenty of time to spare.

then the issue is doublechecking. whatever thing they missed or misread the first time they are going to misread the same way the second time reviewing.
everytime ive tsken the old sat u had 10minutes at end of each period with nothing to do even after doublecheckinf. For the critical reading or vocab if you dont know the word more time isnt going to help you.


for the math, its not like the problem is count the number of 5s in 1 to 100 and if they had double the time they could brute force their way to the right answer.

if a person wanted extra time theyd be better off just claiming a fake attention related disability then they could boost their GPA in school tests as well.
 
Originally Posted By: Virtus_Probi
I'm guessing this kid didn't need the 1600 to open up doors for her...she was probably going Ivy even with a 1400 SAT. My daughter told me which one she picked, she had a bunch to choose from.
I also think she was under significant parental pressure to ace the SAT and wonder if the idea to cheat on the test time the way she did came from her folks. I still think if you took the SAT twice and got something like 800/300 and then 300/800 (don't know her real numbers) that it SHOULD raise some real flags.
The DD's friend has been accused of cheating in various ways throughout high school (formally and informally) and nothing ever stuck, she always claimed it was due to jealousy but I am really wondering now.
I am aware of two major SAT adjustments since I took it, first the change from 1600 up to 2400 and now going back down to 1600. I'm sure changes I'm not aware of have occurred, too. It was kind of neat that my DD ended up within 10 of me on the combined score, although I will gently remind her when prodded that mine was not a superscore. ;^)


There was a "rebaseline" adjustment to the test in the 90s that made it much easier to get an 800 on any section. Prior to that (I took the test in 1980), a perfect score was 99.9995 percentile. Afterward, a 99.93. Meaning that five kids in a million got a perfect score before that adjustment, and seven hundred kids in a million get a perfect score after that adjustment.

Quite a difference.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAT

Further, for the sake of context in this discussion, I wouldn't say that a kid getting a 1400 these days is "going Ivy". Check the stats on Ivy League admissions. 1400 is well below the 25th percentile for those schools. It would very difficult to gain admission with a 1400. It's a fine score, but in the current, hyper-competitive college admissions climate, it's not enough for the Ivy League.
 
Last edited:
My daughter was valedictorian of her HS class (a small school with only about 500 students total...125 in the graduating class). She took the SAT once and got 760V, 680M, 800W (she was always an excellent writer).
She took several AP classes and had over a 4.0 GPA because of extra credits. She received several full scholarships to very decent schools. She chose a fine school that would have cost nearly 60K a year had she not won the scholarship.

My income was enough to disqualify me from any significant 'financial aid' and yet not enough to pay that outrageous tuition. Being a caucasian, she wasn't eligible for any 'special consideration' programs.

My daughter knew that she would have to EARN her way to these finer schools based on MERIT otherwise she would attend a SUNY (State U of NY) school...some of which are excellent..ie: Binghamton U, Geneseo College etc...

She graduated Summa Cum Laude and Phi Beta Kappa and received several full scholarships to very good law schools, one of which she currently attends.

The moral of the story is that schools seek out top students and still do reward achievement.

PS: Even though she won the tuition scholarship it still cost me a small fortune for room and board in NYC...
 
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Congratulations PBM, she has done very well. I mean that sincerely. Hard work pays off.


agreed
thumbsup2.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Congratulations PBM, she has done very well. I mean that sincerely. Hard work pays off.


Thanks Astro: I give a ton of credit to my wife (a nurse) who read to both my girls and spent a lot of time on them as young children. Thanks to my better half, both of my daughters could read and write before starting grade school.

PS: My younger one just graduated from SUNY with her Batchelors of Science in Nursing.....she scored very high on the ACT (30 I think) and was accepted into the Honors Program which included free tuition. I've been blessed when it comes to my childrens education cost but both of them earned it.

Two years ago I treated both of them to a trip to Europe for 5 weeks where they visited Greece, Spain, Britain, France, Czech Republic, Germany, Italy, Belgium and a few others I think...With hostels and the Eurail pass it wasn't as costly as you would think. It was my way of showing appreciation for their hard work.
 
Originally Posted By: Astro14
...
Further, for the sake of context in this discussion, I wouldn't say that a kid getting a 1400 these days is "going Ivy". Check the stats on Ivy League admissions. 1400 is well below the 25th percentile for those schools. It would very difficult to gain admission with a 1400. It's a fine score, but in the current, hyper-competitive college admissions climate, it's not enough for the Ivy League.


Well, of course, I don't really know what would have happened to the girl if she had a 1400 SAT. I know that is not a competitive result for the very highest ranked schools. She has an impressive application beyond the SATs, I'm guessing valedictorian or salutatorian as well as being active in student govt, playing a sport (not well, but she played one), doing well in geography bee beyond the local level, and lots of other activities outside of class in a very competitive school in a wealthy town. Plus parents who can easily pay full price for those schools that claim they don't give merit aid (not sure if I believe those claims TBH) and might also be giving her the alum edge at some of the best schools.

I really wonder now how much of the resume' is fake, though. The kid is clearly very bright and has excelled in things you can't really cheat in, but has also been accused over and over of cheating on exams and homework. I'm sure plenty of kids are jealous of her, but knowing now that she admitted to cheating on the SAT makes me wonder about fire causing all that smoke.

I think it's silly to suggest that having 2X the time per section didn't help her scores, having two extra hours or whatever to work on those 3-5 questions that probably stumped her at first is a huge advantage towards getting a perfect score. I would guess that she would have been smart enough to not spend the extra time on a single section if she felt 100% sure about all her answers after the allotted time. BTW, my understanding is that vocab now is not emphasized to nearly the degree it was when I took the SAT.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Astro14
I think you need to put a few things into context. First, a perfect score now is much easier to achieve than it was before the test was "adjusted". I.e. You can get a lower percentile score and still get a perfect SAT score.

True in the strictest sense. But having spent the past several years in the test prep business, I can tell you perfect scores are still practically unheard-of as a percentage of all scores, even among very privileged and high-achieving students. "Much easier" than basically impossible is still insanely difficult.


Originally Posted By: Astro14
Next, most kids who are serious about college take it twice. There is simply no substitute for actually taking the test to improve your test-taking skills...which, like it or not, this kid clearly accomplished...

Next, many schools weight the ACT as much as the SAT and will take either score.

Finally, standardized test scores are simply one variable in the admissions equation. Curriculum, grades, class rank, community service, sports, arts, interviews, essays - they all matter. These are the things that define the applicant, not just a test score, and that help a school make an admission decision.

My son, for example, only took the SAT once, but he did well on the ACT and that was enough when placed in the context of all of his high school accomplishments and interests.

All correct.

I'd only add that, as I explained in my previous post, seeing multiple tests with vastly different section scores probably hurts a heck of a lot more than it helps. I have a hard time imagining that wouldn't get red-flagged by admissions committees.
 
Originally Posted By: Virtus_Probi
BTW, my understanding is that vocab now is not emphasized to nearly the degree it was when I took the SAT.

Correct.
 
Originally Posted By: raytseng
Double the time isnt going to help someone score a perfect score.

Not always true. Being able to do the work is not the same as being able to do it quickly and under stress. It's different for everyone.
 
Gaming the score isn't necessarily good for you either, as you may be put in with much brighter people and flunk out.

Thinking about this in a tangent, in which an average 8th grade student from India would be in the bottom 1% of a Danish or U.S. class.


Lant Pritchett: No. It's not. And that's a good example. Because this is something we actually know facts about. And facts are good, right? So, the world does international comparable assessments of student learning. And they are roughly normed so that the mean is 500 in OECD (Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development) countries. And the student standard deviation across all countries is 100. Which means, sort of, only 16% of, you know, OECD students are below 400. So, that's kind of the range of performance. As we try and chain-link to discover what the poor countries who don't participate in PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) score like, the scores in the two Indian states that participated in PISA, the scores were around 320. Which means--you know--just unbelievably low number. Literally, you would put, the average student in India in 8th grade would be in the bottom 1-percentile if they were suddenly put in a Danish or U.S. school. Unbelievably low, right? And low at 320 and not a huge variance, actually. So, the number of people, even scoring above 400, is very, very small.

Russ Roberts: When was this? When are we talking about?

Lant Pritchett: This was 2009.

Russ Roberts: In India.

Lant Pritchett: In India. PISA exam. They did a PISA exam in two states, and India chose what they thought would be the best two states. So that probably is an overstatement--it must be a pretty substantial overstatement of the performance, India-wide, because they did it in two states that everybody thought would be the best. With good reason.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top