<p>Colleges probably like the 2400 since it boosts their stats, but what do you think is more impressive?</p>
<p>2300 in one sitting is as impressive as 2400 in three sittings. But seriously, after getting a 2300, you don’t need to take it again. A 2400 will have no edge over a 2300.</p>
<p>If one really need 3 attempts to get 2400 in superscore, he would have lower chance for schools that don’t do superscore and schools that don’t like multiple retakes. If the 2300 is in a single sitting but after multiple retakes, then it is not better than 2400 superscore. If it is the same person that has 2300 in single sitting and 2400 in superscore from 3 sittings, it would not change their admission stat if they consider all scores. To me, getting 2300 in the first attempt would be more impressive. Perhaps only those that score less than 2300 would retake and get higher superscore later anyway.</p>
<p>By the way, there are also students admitted with high ACT but moderate SAT scores. That may hurt their statistics even more. So I don’t think that would be in their consideration.</p>
<p>Schools will always choose the 2300 in this case.</p>
<p>
I love the certainty of this statement. Pretty amusing.</p>
<p>Does it really matter what people who aren’t admissions officers think?</p>
<p>Frankly, I don’t find a “2400” nowadays that impressive. Prior to re-centering the SAT in 1995, a perfect score was approx. 35 times more difficult to achieve. Those who earned perfect scores were super-smart. Nowadays I’m not so impressed with the perfect scorers whom I’ve encountered/worked with. It’s just not that difficult to do anymore.</p>
<p>Once a student scores in the 2300-2400 range on the SAT, it’s my impression that other aspects of the application (extracurricular activities, singular accomplishments, etc.) will help an adcom arrive at an admissions decision.</p>
<p>I don’t think there is a consensus for this anyway.</p>
<p>@bartleby</p>
<p>I disagree. There were only two sections to prepare for and, to my knowledge, the test was shorter.</p>
<p>With the new test, part of the possibility of a 2400 is out of your hand with essay graders, and the possibility for error increases the long you take the test and more tired you get.</p>
<p>@harasNN: I invite you to do a little research…</p>
<p>When I took the SAT, 10 students out of 1.2 million test-takers earned perfect scores. In college, I lived down the hall from two of those kids and had classes with them. They were very sharp guys. 
In 2012, out of 1.66 million high school seniors, 360 scored a “2400.” In that year, in the state of CA alone, 83 students posted perfect scores. I knew several of those kids. They were good test-takers who enrolled in intensive classes at an SAT test-prep company…and took the test multiple times. Times have changed.</p>
<p>Either kids are getting smarter (unlikely), they’re preparing for the test better (almost certainly), or the test has gotten easier (very likely).</p>
<p>@harassNN: Perhaps you should take a look at one of those old tests. Back in the day, 1600s were as rare as hen’s teeth. The year I graduated, I think there were two or three 1600s nationwide. I only know this because one of those students was in my college class, and the accomplishment was spoken of in awed tones by others. For what it’s worth, I also cannot remember anyone taking the SAT more than once unless they took it in middle school for a talent search.</p>
<p>The “verbal” sections were different, with more vocabulary and antonyms and analogies. And the questions were hard. My child, by now no stranger to standardized tests, says the SAT questions generally are easy but tricky. The modern SAT strikes me as more of an endurance test than anything else. </p>
<p>The essay grading is arbitrary – and probably pointless, since graders spend about one minute on each essay. If you like, for the sake of your argument we can disregard the writing section and look at CR+M scores. In 2012, there were 1,171 seniors scoring 1600 on those sections: <a href=“http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/research/SAT-Percentile-Ranks-Composite-CR-M-2012.pdf[/url]”>http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/research/SAT-Percentile-Ranks-Composite-CR-M-2012.pdf</a> Even if we account for the fact that there are more college-bound seniors now than there were back in 19XX, that’s a lot of 1600s.</p>
<p>I believe SAT changed the test and score distribution to compete with ACT. The average score for ACT is also increasing slightly over the years.</p>
<p>2200 is the new 1300.</p>
<p>I agree that the number has risen, and I doubt that students have gotten any smarter. What has changed is the tremendous pressure to do well on those tests. Most adults can reminisce that they took the test once, with no/minimal preparation, and didn’t care all that much about their scores. The perfect 2400 kids were the natural geniuses who, for the most part, didn’t study for the SAT and happened to do well. I’m not discrediting the achievement, I’m just offering an analysis of the times. Now, the emphasis on the test is so dramatic that kids study four or five years in advance, centering their lives around achieving that perfect score. Add in the hundreds of test prep books, thousands of expensive private tutors, and schools whose curriculum is often centered around the SAT, and the environment for today’s kids with the same distribution of intelligence as previous generations is dramatically different. As a personal example, I got a 2100 the first time I took it with little to no prep. If this were a different era, I would stop there and be fine with it. But living in the times that we do, I studied for hours on end and got it to a 2250 the second time. Followed by another round of dozens upon dozens of study hours, and I think I may have a shot at the 2400 on the June SAT. Additionally, the number of high school students taking the test is much higher, as this generation is hitting the tail end of the baby boom’s children (myself included). Lastly, the old test was bias for kids who happened to grow up in wealthy homes, they took out the analogy section specifically because it biased towards the ultra wealthy (kids who knew a regatta is to a crewman like the space race is to an astronaut, because they knew what crew was). Last time I checked the census data, there’s not a lot of ultra wealthy children out there in proportion to the total number of teenagers. The essay section is far from arbitrary, there’s a formulaic way to achieve 12s on it (write a ton and use fancy language being the two most important factors). My point is, the modern SAT is longer, less biased, and about the same level of difficulty when you factor in the grammar memorization and essay prep required to ace the added writing section. The SAT has always been a test you could study for. The difference is that dramatically more kids now are studying.</p>
<p>from neuromajor’s post (#13 in this thread):
I really hope that’s hyperbole. Your quoted statement above is inconsistent with what I’ve seen at San Diego area schools.</p>
<p>I do believe that, at present, many kids are allowing themselves to be pressured to do well on standardized tests. That doesn’t necessarily translate into the teenagers “centering their lives” around SAT study. They talk about the test a fair amount. They brag about their scores to their friends. They worry about it…because they can. A minority actually spend a significant amount of time preparing for the test. At least that’s what I’ve seen…</p>
<p>A 2300 on the first sitting should be a one and done. But for the sake of argument.</p>
<p>Pro: I suppose a 2400 on the third sitting could be construed as a willingness to work.</p>
<p>Con: It is well known that with practice, one can increase the SAT. But what does it say about the well-roundedness, depth, value system and confidence of the candidate who will likely waste hundreds of hours, practicing for a score that really does not matter (as compared to a 2300). it probably says-I’m insecure, one dimensional and will have little to offer the university.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would argue that kids have gotten smarter.</p>
<p>2400 in three sittings is more impressive in my opinion. Looking at the reasons stated here, people on these forums try to be elitist without placing much substance in their statements. If I recall correctly, the blue book has about 8 SAT exams in it. That’s a lot more exams to work with than someone taking the exam 3 times versus one time. Secondly, “not studying” for the exam does not exist: people have been learning material applicable to the SAT since they went to kindergarten. Hence, there’s little, if any difference, between taking the exam once, twice, three times, or even four times. That’s probably why most schools allow you to send in your highest score now.</p>
<p>
Care to elaborate?
Perhaps you’re not as smart as you think…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you want to look at it on the basis of test scores, there’s no doubt that progress has been made. In the 1990s, 5% of all high school students took at least one AP course. Now around 15% do so. Look at the difficulty and average scores on today’s SATs, AMCs, and APs. The tests have overall become much harder, and yet the average scores are fairly constant.</p>
<p>It’s relatively simple logic. With more amenities available (AoPS is a great example) students are able to perform better today. [url=<a href=“Young, Gifted, and Not Getting Into Harvard - The New York Times”>Young, Gifted, and Not Getting Into Harvard - The New York Times]This[/url</a>] is an interesting article related to the subject.</p>
<p>@mapletree7:
Citing the wider availability of AP courses is not a compelling argument that kids are now smarter. It just means that more kids are taking a fairly standardized curriculum (which is probably a good thing).</p>
<p>Trends in scaled test scores aren’t compelling evidence either.</p>