Whistle, I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. First off, in a previous post, you guard us against stats; "In this case the stats don't lie, but still liars do stats." Then you overwhelm us with SATs own statistics. The College Boards have to do everything they can, short of outright lying, to keep from admitting that retaking the SATs will improve scores. Therefore, they don't even gather sufficient data to prove one way or the other. If they admitted that retaking improves scores (and subsequent college admissions), they have just made the SATs elitist and discriminatory against socioeconomically disadvantaged minorities ("Why not as long as the ol' man can shell out $60 or whatever they zing you for on this"). I think in most schools, students are encouraged to take the exam twice, first in their junior year, making the first take, in essence, a practice run, and then again, "for real", in their senior year. The vast majority of retakes are simply that, a retake with no, or very little, other outside studying. Now let's assume that 10%-15% have the necessary time and desire to devote to really studying to improve their scores. 10% of the 1 in 25 who raised their scores by 100 points or more now becomes 1 in 2.5 who did it through a dedicated effort. From the 25 or so SATs I see each year, I don't think my assumptions are too far off the mark.
Lastly, you guard us against anecdotal evidence, but then provide us your own by stating your son increased his scores by over 200 points. How do you account for this increase?
The academies place, I think possibly, undue emphasis on SATs and encourages retakes. Candidates should "play the game" as long as the ol' man is willing to shell out the money. My "anecdotal" evidence is that it pays off.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------