02-05-2015, 03:46 PM
I keep reading that several players retook tests (either SATor ACT) several times in order to get the score that was needed to gain a favorable admission decision. Anybody know what minimum score is required?
Minimum Test Scores for Admission
02-05-2015, 04:13 PM
Although I am sure there is a de facto minimum, below which we haven't ever admitted anyone and likely never will, there is a large grey zone, where a weak-ish SAT/ACT score can be overcome with stellar grades in difficult classes, recommendations, etc, or where bad grades would torpedo even a good test (this is pretty common, as it points towards a student who is not making the most of their potential). I know there isn't a score that would guarantee admission, since there are certain red flags (academic misconduct, for example) that cannot be overcome with an outstanding score (though maybe with a phenomenal explanatory essay).
BCÂ
BCÂ
Although I am sure there is a de facto minimum, below which we haven't ever admitted anyone and likely never will, there is a large grey zone, where a weak-ish SAT/ACT score can be overcome with stellar grades in difficult classes, recommendations, etc, or where bad grades would torpedo even a good test (this is pretty common, as it points towards a student who is not making the most of their potential). I know there isn't a score that would guarantee admission, since there are certain red flags (academic misconduct, for example) that cannot be overcome with an outstanding score (though maybe with a phenomenal explanatory essay).
BCÂ
BCÂ
02-05-2015, 04:14 PM
I think you can say there is a minimum for any individual, but not an overall minimum.
An admit needs to qualify based upon the overall index of their academic and non-academic achievements. The level of their academic achievement they need will therefore vary depending upon the level of their non academic achievement. A 5 star athlete, for example--just like a nationally accomplished musician--will not need the same level of academic achievement as a two star athlete, or as a kid who went to county band.
Then, on the academic index, the test score needs to be weighed relative to the gpa. It is not quite as clearcut as UC in which the gpa and SATs are put into a sliding index, but there is some of that. And also figuring into to academic index will be the rigor of the curriculum, how many APs, etc., the reputation of the high school based on previous admits from that school.
So, a five star athlete with a 4.0+ gpa who took 12 AP classes will probably not need a very high SAT score, while a two star athlete with a 3.5 gpa who took two AP classes had better be sky high.
An admit needs to qualify based upon the overall index of their academic and non-academic achievements. The level of their academic achievement they need will therefore vary depending upon the level of their non academic achievement. A 5 star athlete, for example--just like a nationally accomplished musician--will not need the same level of academic achievement as a two star athlete, or as a kid who went to county band.
Then, on the academic index, the test score needs to be weighed relative to the gpa. It is not quite as clearcut as UC in which the gpa and SATs are put into a sliding index, but there is some of that. And also figuring into to academic index will be the rigor of the curriculum, how many APs, etc., the reputation of the high school based on previous admits from that school.
So, a five star athlete with a 4.0+ gpa who took 12 AP classes will probably not need a very high SAT score, while a two star athlete with a 3.5 gpa who took two AP classes had better be sky high.
I think you can say there is a minimum for any individual, but not an overall minimum.
An admit needs to qualify based upon the overall index of their academic and non-academic achievements. The level of their academic achievement they need will therefore vary depending upon the level of their non academic achievement. A 5 star athlete, for example--just like a nationally accomplished musician--will not need the same level of academic achievement as a two star athlete, or as a kid who went to county band.
Then, on the academic index, the test score needs to be weighed relative to the gpa. It is not quite as clearcut as UC in which the gpa and SATs are put into a sliding index, but there is some of that. And also figuring into to academic index will be the rigor of the curriculum, how many APs, etc., the reputation of the high school based on previous admits from that school.
So, a five star athlete with a 4.0+ gpa who took 12 AP classes will probably not need a very high SAT score, while a two star athlete with a 3.5 gpa who took two AP classes had better be sky high.
An admit needs to qualify based upon the overall index of their academic and non-academic achievements. The level of their academic achievement they need will therefore vary depending upon the level of their non academic achievement. A 5 star athlete, for example--just like a nationally accomplished musician--will not need the same level of academic achievement as a two star athlete, or as a kid who went to county band.
Then, on the academic index, the test score needs to be weighed relative to the gpa. It is not quite as clearcut as UC in which the gpa and SATs are put into a sliding index, but there is some of that. And also figuring into to academic index will be the rigor of the curriculum, how many APs, etc., the reputation of the high school based on previous admits from that school.
So, a five star athlete with a 4.0+ gpa who took 12 AP classes will probably not need a very high SAT score, while a two star athlete with a 3.5 gpa who took two AP classes had better be sky high.
02-05-2015, 05:27 PM
No hard rule, but a sub 24 ACT/sub 1100 SAT makes the veteran recruting watchers nervous. Ditto, a sub 3.4 gpa.
Admissions does take a big view, however, and considers mitigating circumstances. I am living proof.
Admissions does take a big view, however, and considers mitigating circumstances. I am living proof.
02-05-2015, 05:55 PM
One add... once upon a time there was a simple index that included GPA and SAT score, named, I believe, after Steve Durrett (who occasionally shares his photography with us here). The simple index was a reasonably reliable predictor of admission; above a certain threshold admission was very likely absent some sort of problem (for example, a disciplinary issue); below a certain threshold, admissions was unlikely absent some mitigating circumstances. In between was a grey zone where things like letters of recommendation were very important. My recollection was that during the Mamlett era, those thresholds markedly increased and the rejection of some applicants above the "safe" threshold is how we knew that the admissions had indeed gotten tougher. I believe a few prominent alumni armed with the information brought it to the attention of the two Johns (Hennessey and Etchemendy), looked into it and confirmed the findings. With Richard Shaw as admissions director, things have returned to how they were pre-Mamlett.
Steve (or others who remember the formula), can you post it?
BC
Steve (or others who remember the formula), can you post it?
BC
One add... once upon a time there was a simple index that included GPA and SAT score, named, I believe, after Steve Durrett (who occasionally shares his photography with us here). The simple index was a reasonably reliable predictor of admission; above a certain threshold admission was very likely absent some sort of problem (for example, a disciplinary issue); below a certain threshold, admissions was unlikely absent some mitigating circumstances. In between was a grey zone where things like letters of recommendation were very important. My recollection was that during the Mamlett era, those thresholds markedly increased and the rejection of some applicants above the "safe" threshold is how we knew that the admissions had indeed gotten tougher. I believe a few prominent alumni armed with the information brought it to the attention of the two Johns (Hennessey and Etchemendy), looked into it and confirmed the findings. With Richard Shaw as admissions director, things have returned to how they were pre-Mamlett.
Steve (or others who remember the formula), can you post it?
BC
Steve (or others who remember the formula), can you post it?
BC
02-05-2015, 06:32 PM
The formula was 300 times gpa plus SAT (or ACT adjusted to SAT)= total points.
A total over 2300 (e.g. 4.0, 1105) was a virtual lock admit.
Under 2200 (e.g, 3.4, 1175) was a lock loss.
2200-2300 was the evaluation zone.
It's merely a rule of thumb. But rules of thumb work much better, of course, than no rule at all.Â
It appears that some one, and probably more than one, 3.3 got admitted in this class.
And more than one recruit has offered that the staff want to see at least a 24 ACT. I think that equates to a 1100 two-part SAT.Â
A total over 2300 (e.g. 4.0, 1105) was a virtual lock admit.
Under 2200 (e.g, 3.4, 1175) was a lock loss.
2200-2300 was the evaluation zone.
It's merely a rule of thumb. But rules of thumb work much better, of course, than no rule at all.Â
It appears that some one, and probably more than one, 3.3 got admitted in this class.
And more than one recruit has offered that the staff want to see at least a 24 ACT. I think that equates to a 1100 two-part SAT.Â
The formula was 300 times gpa plus SAT (or ACT adjusted to SAT)= total points.
A total over 2300 (e.g. 4.0, 1105) was a virtual lock admit.
Under 2200 (e.g, 3.4, 1175) was a lock loss.
2200-2300 was the evaluation zone.
It's merely a rule of thumb. But rules of thumb work much better, of course, than no rule at all.Â
It appears that some one, and probably more than one, 3.3 got admitted in this class.
And more than one recruit has offered that the staff want to see at least a 24 ACT. I think that equates to a 1100 two-part SAT.Â
A total over 2300 (e.g. 4.0, 1105) was a virtual lock admit.
Under 2200 (e.g, 3.4, 1175) was a lock loss.
2200-2300 was the evaluation zone.
It's merely a rule of thumb. But rules of thumb work much better, of course, than no rule at all.Â
It appears that some one, and probably more than one, 3.3 got admitted in this class.
And more than one recruit has offered that the staff want to see at least a 24 ACT. I think that equates to a 1100 two-part SAT.Â
02-05-2015, 06:40 PM
Article this week in the Corvallis paper about linebacker Christian Folau who committed to the Beavers after he was "unable to meet the Cardinal's requirement of at least a 25 on the ACT test". That's BS, at least as far as any official communication from Stanford about minimum GPAs or test scores. In practice I'm sure there is a range that constitutes the Danger Zone as others have articulated.
Article this week in the Corvallis paper about linebacker Christian Folau who committed to the Beavers after he was "unable to meet the Cardinal's requirement of at least a 25 on the ACT test". That's BS, at least as far as any official communication from Stanford about minimum GPAs or test scores. In practice I'm sure there is a range that constitutes the Danger Zone as others have articulated.
02-05-2015, 06:41 PM
Holy cow, thanks for posting that Hulk, now I feel my 4.0 1240 did justify admissions. I have lived my entire life thinking I was a legacy admit and never should have been admitted in the first place. Then again I felt that way all during grad school, I may have terminal "imposter syndrome".
Heroism is not defined by one great act, but by a lifetime of right action.
Holy cow, thanks for posting that Hulk, now I feel my 4.0 1240 did justify admissions. I have lived my entire life thinking I was a legacy admit and never should have been admitted in the first place. Then again I felt that way all during grad school, I may have terminal "imposter syndrome".
Heroism is not defined by one great act, but by a lifetime of right action.
02-05-2015, 06:58 PM
Kicked my gpa/SAT ass, Buddha. But as I may have posted too often, I earned the lowest high school grade point average of anyone ever admitted to Stanford. Seriously.Â
Fortunately, Fred H saw that there were mitigating circumstances. I am so grateful to him--speaking of things I may have expressed too often.
Fortunately, Fred H saw that there were mitigating circumstances. I am so grateful to him--speaking of things I may have expressed too often.
Kicked my gpa/SAT ass, Buddha. But as I may have posted too often, I earned the lowest high school grade point average of anyone ever admitted to Stanford. Seriously.Â
Fortunately, Fred H saw that there were mitigating circumstances. I am so grateful to him--speaking of things I may have expressed too often.
Fortunately, Fred H saw that there were mitigating circumstances. I am so grateful to him--speaking of things I may have expressed too often.
02-06-2015, 05:38 AM
the SAT was recentered in April 1995, after Bookman took the test.
a newspaper (the Chicago Tribune may be?) published Stanford's 1995 football class as having 1051 SAT average (which recentered comes to about an 1140 average). the SAT average has been higher since that time but down from the 1274 one year under Robin's Reign of Terror.
Hulk's right on the Durrett formula. it is still a good rule of thumb.
a newspaper (the Chicago Tribune may be?) published Stanford's 1995 football class as having 1051 SAT average (which recentered comes to about an 1140 average). the SAT average has been higher since that time but down from the 1274 one year under Robin's Reign of Terror.
Hulk's right on the Durrett formula. it is still a good rule of thumb.
the SAT was recentered in April 1995, after Bookman took the test.
a newspaper (the Chicago Tribune may be?) published Stanford's 1995 football class as having 1051 SAT average (which recentered comes to about an 1140 average). the SAT average has been higher since that time but down from the 1274 one year under Robin's Reign of Terror.
Hulk's right on the Durrett formula. it is still a good rule of thumb.
a newspaper (the Chicago Tribune may be?) published Stanford's 1995 football class as having 1051 SAT average (which recentered comes to about an 1140 average). the SAT average has been higher since that time but down from the 1274 one year under Robin's Reign of Terror.
Hulk's right on the Durrett formula. it is still a good rule of thumb.
02-06-2015, 09:36 AM
Isn't "recentered" just a euphemism for "dumbed down?"
All models are wrong; some models are useful......
George Box
02-06-2015, 10:11 AM
FWIW, I tutored a kid in Tallahassee who was being recruited by Stanford (yes, I charged him the same amount of money I did anyone else so at least I don't think it is an NCAA violation). He told me they said he had to get his ACT up to 26 if he wanted to go there.
FWIW, I tutored a kid in Tallahassee who was being recruited by Stanford (yes, I charged him the same amount of money I did anyone else so at least I don't think it is an NCAA violation). He told me they said he had to get his ACT up to 26 if he wanted to go there.
02-06-2015, 10:24 AM
I'm guessing that different kids are given different goals for their test score, depending on how the rest of their file looks. I doubt that there's a "one size fits all" approach.
02-06-2015, 10:37 AM
(02-06-2015, 10:24 AM)terry link Wrote:I'm guessing that different kids are given different goals for their test score, depending on how the rest of their file looks. I doubt that there's a "one size fits all" approach.
You're probably right, but my guess is 26 is about the "base" score. If everything else looks great they might take it down a little, and if it doesn't they might raise it a little.
(02-06-2015, 10:24 AM)terry link Wrote:I'm guessing that different kids are given different goals for their test score, depending on how the rest of their file looks. I doubt that there's a "one size fits all" approach.
You're probably right, but my guess is 26 is about the "base" score. If everything else looks great they might take it down a little, and if it doesn't they might raise it a little.
02-06-2015, 11:29 AM
Did the kid say Stanford ADMISSIONS said he needed an ACT score of 26 to be admitted?
That doesn't sound like a conversation the school would have with a prospective applicant in a one on one conversation. I can see them discussing a typical profile in a group setting or a college admissions "coach" discussing how to increase application strength but giving targets to a single applicant seems out of character unless admissions has changed a heck of a lot. There was a WIDE range of SAT and ACT scores in my all freshman dorm and test scores were obviously balanced against the strength of the overall application and individual circumstances. I hope that hasn't changed.
That doesn't sound like a conversation the school would have with a prospective applicant in a one on one conversation. I can see them discussing a typical profile in a group setting or a college admissions "coach" discussing how to increase application strength but giving targets to a single applicant seems out of character unless admissions has changed a heck of a lot. There was a WIDE range of SAT and ACT scores in my all freshman dorm and test scores were obviously balanced against the strength of the overall application and individual circumstances. I hope that hasn't changed.
In 1938 Neville Chamberlain declared "Peace in our time", Superman first appeared in Action Comics, Seabiscuit beat War Admiral ....... and C.a.l last won the Rose Bowl.
Did the kid say Stanford ADMISSIONS said he needed an ACT score of 26 to be admitted?
That doesn't sound like a conversation the school would have with a prospective applicant in a one on one conversation. I can see them discussing a typical profile in a group setting or a college admissions "coach" discussing how to increase application strength but giving targets to a single applicant seems out of character unless admissions has changed a heck of a lot. There was a WIDE range of SAT and ACT scores in my all freshman dorm and test scores were obviously balanced against the strength of the overall application and individual circumstances. I hope that hasn't changed.
That doesn't sound like a conversation the school would have with a prospective applicant in a one on one conversation. I can see them discussing a typical profile in a group setting or a college admissions "coach" discussing how to increase application strength but giving targets to a single applicant seems out of character unless admissions has changed a heck of a lot. There was a WIDE range of SAT and ACT scores in my all freshman dorm and test scores were obviously balanced against the strength of the overall application and individual circumstances. I hope that hasn't changed.
In 1938 Neville Chamberlain declared "Peace in our time", Superman first appeared in Action Comics, Seabiscuit beat War Admiral ....... and C.a.l last won the Rose Bowl.
02-06-2015, 11:49 AM
(02-06-2015, 11:29 AM)leftcoast link Wrote:Did the kid say Stanford ADMISSIONS said he needed an ACT score of 26 to be admitted?
That doesn't sound like a conversation the school would have with a prospective applicant in a one on one conversation. I can see them discussing a typical profile in a group setting or a college admissions "coach" discussing how to increase application strength but giving targets to a single applicant seems out of character unless admissions has changed a heck of a lot. There was a WIDE range of SAT and ACT scores in my all freshman dorm and test scores were obviously balanced against the strength of the overall application and individual circumstances. I hope that hasn't changed.
He didn't say, but I'm sure it was the coaching staff that told him that. I have been assuming that the coaching staff talks with the admissions department and gets general guidelines that they tell a recruit he needs to meet to have a reasonable shot at admissions. My guess is with football recruits it is more a GPA (including AP courses) and a standardized test score goal they have to meet than it is for the general student population.
(02-06-2015, 11:29 AM)leftcoast link Wrote:Did the kid say Stanford ADMISSIONS said he needed an ACT score of 26 to be admitted?
That doesn't sound like a conversation the school would have with a prospective applicant in a one on one conversation. I can see them discussing a typical profile in a group setting or a college admissions "coach" discussing how to increase application strength but giving targets to a single applicant seems out of character unless admissions has changed a heck of a lot. There was a WIDE range of SAT and ACT scores in my all freshman dorm and test scores were obviously balanced against the strength of the overall application and individual circumstances. I hope that hasn't changed.
He didn't say, but I'm sure it was the coaching staff that told him that. I have been assuming that the coaching staff talks with the admissions department and gets general guidelines that they tell a recruit he needs to meet to have a reasonable shot at admissions. My guess is with football recruits it is more a GPA (including AP courses) and a standardized test score goal they have to meet than it is for the general student population.
02-06-2015, 11:51 AM
(02-06-2015, 11:29 AM)leftcoast link Wrote:Did the kid say Stanford ADMISSIONS said he needed an ACT score of 26 to be admitted?
That doesn't sound like a conversation the school would have with a prospective applicant in a one on one conversation.
I think that actually is the kind of one-on-one conversation that happens with football recruits. I think the coaching staff works with the admissions office to get an idea of the test score the admissions office wants to see for each recruit. Then the coaches know what expectations to set for each recruit. I assume the test score expectations probably are different for different recruits, depending on the rest of the file.
(02-06-2015, 11:29 AM)leftcoast link Wrote:Did the kid say Stanford ADMISSIONS said he needed an ACT score of 26 to be admitted?
That doesn't sound like a conversation the school would have with a prospective applicant in a one on one conversation.
I think that actually is the kind of one-on-one conversation that happens with football recruits. I think the coaching staff works with the admissions office to get an idea of the test score the admissions office wants to see for each recruit. Then the coaches know what expectations to set for each recruit. I assume the test score expectations probably are different for different recruits, depending on the rest of the file.
02-06-2015, 02:59 PM
What Terry said, once again; a student with borderline grades can offset that with a well above-line SAT. Steve and others observed that a 4.0 students looked safe with an 1100 (24 ACT), but a 3.4 student needed closer to 1200 (~26 ACT).Â
Again, there is no firm rule, just a general principle that admissions wants to see some combination of performance and aptitude that adds up to "can do the work and feel comfortable here."
Again, there is no firm rule, just a general principle that admissions wants to see some combination of performance and aptitude that adds up to "can do the work and feel comfortable here."
What Terry said, once again; a student with borderline grades can offset that with a well above-line SAT. Steve and others observed that a 4.0 students looked safe with an 1100 (24 ACT), but a 3.4 student needed closer to 1200 (~26 ACT).Â
Again, there is no firm rule, just a general principle that admissions wants to see some combination of performance and aptitude that adds up to "can do the work and feel comfortable here."
Again, there is no firm rule, just a general principle that admissions wants to see some combination of performance and aptitude that adds up to "can do the work and feel comfortable here."
02-06-2015, 03:59 PM
If you think about it, requiring a higher SAT to offset a lower GPA is backwards. If we assume that the SAT is a measure of academic capability, which is what the schools do by using them, right or wrong. It follows that a lower GPA combined with a high SAT suggests underachievement. The converse would be true as well. I would take the person with the better work ethic and attitude.
If you think about it, requiring a higher SAT to offset a lower GPA is backwards. If we assume that the SAT is a measure of academic capability, which is what the schools do by using them, right or wrong. It follows that a lower GPA combined with a high SAT suggests underachievement. The converse would be true as well. I would take the person with the better work ethic and attitude.
02-07-2015, 03:12 PM
A high SAT score requires a lot of studying and practice tests. I wouldn't assume that work ethic and attitude were absent from a high SAT score. However, it only takes a a year or so of such study to really improve your score...and a GPA is built over four years (three and a half before admissions?), so there's more weight for persistence there.
A high SAT score requires a lot of studying and practice tests. I wouldn't assume that work ethic and attitude were absent from a high SAT score. However, it only takes a a year or so of such study to really improve your score...and a GPA is built over four years (three and a half before admissions?), so there's more weight for persistence there.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »