<p>There isn't really a point to this thread. I just wanted to point something out.</p>
<p>Lurking on the results threads for Harvard and Yale, I've noticed that every single person with a 2400 either got waitlisted or rejected. Same goes for Stanford. It has never been like this in previous years. I realize that stats aren't everything, but this is truly on the other end of the extreme...</p>
<p>above 2100, there really doesn’t seem to be much additional benefit. With the test getting easier, score choice, super scoring, theres just way too many 2400 applicants that look exactly the same. thats my 2 cents.</p>
<p>I can’t seem to find it anymore but there was a direct quote from an interview with William R. Fitzsimmons where he very clearly states “beyond a certain threshold the actual numeric value of the score is negligible. We are just looking for the range to be met” or something close to those lines. Make of it what you will, but someone like him wouldn’t lie nor try to deceive and everyone’s observations clearly point to him telling the very truth.</p>
<p>I have no evidence to support this, but it seems to me that your SAT score can only affect the outcome of your application if it’s a huge outlier: either very low or very high in relation to your GPA.</p>
<p>I’m almost positive I wouldn’t even have been waitlisted at my dream school if my SAT score wasn’t in the high 2300s (my GPA is 3.3). Conversely, a 1700 may keep you out of the most selective colleges even if you’re a model student and a remarkable person.</p>
<p>But for the vast majority of applicants in the 3.8-4.0/2150-2400 range, numbers don’t seem to matter very much.</p>
<p>It feels very strange: I saw lots of 2400 rejections, but I got in with a 31 ACT.</p>
<p>Story matters. :)</p>
<p>Not worthless, but not sufficient either. One of my son’s friends was just admitted to Harvard (and everywhere else he applied) with a 2400, but he has a whole lot of other things going for him too. The 2400 is not what makes his resume impressive.</p>
<p>At Harvard, the personal qualities and a track record of success is more important than numerical factors–so long the threshold has been met</p>
<p>It is “or”, not “and”. If you have the correct “personal qualities” Harvard can be very much your friend, even if you lack a track record of success. Of course, once you have been embraced by Harvard, then that very embracement becomes in the eye of many sufficient evidence of a track record of success.</p>
<p>Triumph of the tautological.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly. Admissions committees seem to be less and less impressed by the kid who got a 2400 on his fourth try and took 7 subject tests on top of that, all with perfect scores. In fact, I think that kind of profile can be harmful to an application - they want you to do well on these tests, but they don’t want to see that they have consumed your life for the past three years. And this is where I think a lot of kids go wrong… they practice and perfect the art of test-taking, because it feels secure when you get that perfect score. 800 = success, and it’s a done deal. But they fail to see the importance of other extracurriculars or academic pursuits and what it means to be REALLY invested in those. You can’t put a number on leadership. You can’t study for passion. So I think some people cling to standardized tests because they’re the only thing in their application that they feel like they have complete control over. But in reality, retaking that 2250 is probably a waste of time and money. I completely understand why committees are more interested in the kid with a passion and a 2150 than the kid with a 2400 whose passion was filling in scantrons with the College Board logo on them.</p>
<p>Of course, there are people out there with 2400s and numerous subject tests that do have a demonstrated passion for learning - not just test taking. However, too many applicants seem to spend too much time trying to beat the system, when the system no longer favors those who try to beat it.</p>
<p>^ great post!</p>
<p>So there’s no difference between a 3.85 valedictorian with a 2250 and a 4.0 valedictorian with a 2400?</p>
<p>Yes there is ^ It’s called extracurriculars.</p>
<p>^Saugus</p>
<p>If both had exact same race, experiences, essays, position, etc then they would take the 2400er im guessing, but in cases where it’s 2100 vs 2400 or 3.8 vs 4.0, ECs and Passion > Numbers</p>
<p>You can’t study for passion.</p>
<p>You’ve hit the nail on the head with this one. Can I quote you on this?</p>
<p>So should I retake my 2240? My Math+CR is below median…Math = 730, CR = 710…Writing is perfect though but I’m pretty sure HYPSM doesn’t give a damn about Writing. BTW Im Asian (Chinese).</p>
<p>The 2400 has taken on a sort of mythical, Grail-like quality, but when you think about it, it’s just a 100 on a test. All of us growing up got 100s sometimes, got 98s other times, sometimes got a 95. Did we really feel that the 100s were that much more special than the other scores? No, they were all As. And for Harvard, Yale and Stanford, 2400, 2300 and 2200 are all As as well.</p>
<p>It’s important that you’re within the middle-50% of their SAT range on each section of the SAT, and it’s ideal to be nearer to the 75% mark. Still, it’s been a very interesting admissions cycle–I wonder if the CC anti-2400 phenomenon is representative of the entire system.</p>
<p>I don’t necessarily think that anyone with a 2400 and perfect scores has spent their whole life consumed by these tests. I got a 2400 superscored (2380 in one sitting) and perfect scores on 3 subject tests, but I was also an area all-state musician, president of an established club at my school, very successful in math and quiz bowl competitions, and passionate about my academic interests. I also had a “story” - my domestic life has been far from perfect and I haven’t had access to most of the luxuries that people in my zip code take for granted. It still wasn’t enough for Harvard and I was waitlisted. My interviewer even admitted to me he was surprised I wasn’t accepted, which means my interview was good at a minimum.</p>
<p>So no, I don’t think a 2400 means much anymore, but I also don’t think it’s fair to say people with those scores must be lacking in other areas. There’s a lot going on behind the scenes of college admissions that we don’t see, so I’m not going to take it as a personal insult that Harvard said no in the end.</p>
<p>Son’s friend took the SAT once and said the best thing about getting a 2400 was not having to take it again. I agree with gadad that getting a 2400 really isn’t more special than getting a 2300. On any given day with any given version of the test, someone who is capable of getting a 2300 could probably get a 2400 and vice versa.</p>
<p>Hmmm that’s an interesting way to look at it, gadad. I agree with you.</p>