<p>^ I’ve thought about that, but here’s something else to think of:</p>
<p>[Brown</a> Admission: Facts & Figures](<a href=“Undergraduate Admission | Brown University”>Undergraduate Admission | Brown University)</p>
<p>If the difference between 750 scores per section and 800 score per section were irrelevant, why would Brown take the time to mention the acceptance rates of those with an 800 on a section vs. those with a 750-790 on a section?</p>
<p>Lots of things in the college admissions process are not conclusive enough that they are often put into question by the good ole “correlation not causation” mantra. “URMs aren’t getting in because they’re black, it’s because they are culturally diverse.” “Legacies aren’t subjected to an advantage; they have a higher average SAT score despite a higher acceptance rate!” Clearly, though, all of these are factors, and standing far and above the two examples I have used is the SAT score, probably the second biggest factor in college admissions (next to the transcript).</p>
<p>
Neither of those groups is likely to get into a top college without some sort of push, depending on your definition of a top college. If you’re speaking top 25, then I suppose the first candidate stands a chance, but when we’re speaking schools with acceptance rates near the single-digits that first candidate is going to have to spend that EC time doing some very special things.</p>