Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

"Pick the most prestigious school you can get into," is common advice to high school seniors. An article in the Washington Post, College Applicants Urged to Take Cue From SAT Scores suggests that students should choose a school with comparable peers.

One source quoted in the article says a student shouldn't enroll at a school with an average SAT score 200 points higher than his own.

The article also makes the point that it seems that minority students attain higher level degrees if they attend a college with comparable peers rather than elite schools where they are lumped in with better-prepared students.

In addition to minority students, talented athletes, musicians, and other non-academic admits may gain entry to colleges that wouldn't give them a second look on pure academics. The article cites the story of a 1240-SAT high-school track star who departed Cornell University for Albion College after one year.

There's an element of common sense in this, although the article seems to fly in the face of the argument that SAT scores are poor predictors of college academic achievement.

By Dave Berry on Wednesday, April 03, 2002 - 01:24 pm: Edit

In the good-news, bad-news world of the SAT, the good news seems to be that it provides some kind of leveling device for assessing students from seemingly disparate high schools. The bad news is that it can puncture an otherwise-worthy student's self-esteem. That point is brought home in the article when it says:

"Experts say low scores might also affect students in a different way, creating a psychological burden for all but the most self-confident teenagers. Bad instructors, fraternity rush parties or blossoming romances can severely depress first-term college grades. Freshmen with high SAT scores will see it for what it is, bad luck or the penalty for youthful excess, and shrug it off. Students with low SAT scores might wonder whether they are college material."

If we do away with the SAT, then all colleges will have to find their own means to assess and select from applicants presenting non-standardized data. So? What's wrong with that? Lots of SAT-optional colleges are doing that right now.

In my view, the SAT creates more problems than it solves. I wonder what the situation would be if the ACT were in the driver's seat instead?

By AFL on Wednesday, April 03, 2002 - 07:23 pm: Edit

At age 50+, there are a lot of things I didn't learn about myself until just around last week, but one thing I did know when I was still a teenager was that I tended to work harder (and achieve more) in classes where I was surrounded by brighter peers, rather than in those with less able students where I could be a star in my sleep. I had friends, however, who felt just the opposite: that is, they did their best work when their confidence levels were high--in those middle-level classes, not the advanced ones.

Similarly, college-bound students of today can generally evaluate where they fall on that scale. Is the pressure of a high-achieving peer group a motivator or a discouragement?

For the first group, attending a college with better average SAT scores might be the best route; for the latter group, perhaps not.

As for those studies that say that "minority students attain higher level degrees if they attend a college with comparable peers rather than elite schools where they are lumped in with better-prepared students...," I've read claims that insist otherwise. These studies suggest that minority students (particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds) benefit more from attending snazzy schools than their well-heeled confederates do.

So, what this probably boils down to is--like a lot of other things in life--it's important to look at each individual as..well...an individual and not to determine what is right for anyone based on SATs, other statistics, or sweeping generalizations.

I can also make a good case for the pluses of attending a college where the average SAT scores are a couple hundred points LOWER than one's own.
But, again, that really depends on who's involved, and, besides, I'll save that one for another day.

Meanwhile, keep up the good work, guys. You have a great site here.

By Mother Love on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 05:55 am: Edit

I agree, AFL. What constitutes the optimal environment varies among people. Another variable is that some students who've done poorly on SATs thrive in college, others who've done well, flounder. So it's hard to draw any meaningful conclusions from that or make any blanket statement or absolute rule concerning the use of scores. It would be wrong to eliminate or be eliminated based on only one piece of information, the SAT score, especially when the measure isn't foolproof.

SATs' role should be to corroborate the transcript. Correlation should be looked for and when absent closer scrutiny is invited. As an example, when students with impeccable grades earn only mediocre scores it's a warning signal for the admissions office to look closer to see that they are not benefiting unfairly from grade inflation or sucking up to the powers that be. Conversely, low grades/high scores could signal laziness, immaturity, disinterest, etc.

By Mrbungle (Mrbungle) on Monday, June 30, 2003 - 11:39 pm: Edit

Very interesting thoughts presented here. I have a 1460 SAT, and the main school I am thinking of attending (University of Oregon) has an average SAT of only 1110. I would be in the ballpark of their honors program though if I get into that.

I know I'm not an SAT score, but I've been trying to decide whether being a top student among my peers or having highly competitive peers motivates me more. Really, they both motivate me to some extent. Any thoughts on this?