<p>I will translate the above post-- SAT I is much more important.</p>
<p>Ephemeral 2: in that case are you implying that APs are useless, since they like SAT IIs are all about regurgitation? plus, i don't think SAT I really tests you on reasoning, except maybe the comprehension part</p>
<p>2200ish Reasoning with three 800s on subject tests would be my choice.</p>
<p>I don't think APs are useless. I think they show an important part of the application - how hard a student is willing to work.</p>
<p>I don't think the SAT tests "reasoning" skills at all...but that's just me.</p>
<p>
[quote]
2200 SATI and 2400 SATII show the all-too-common applicant who works ridiculously hard and is definitely intelligent, but was unable to master, for whatever reason, much "easier" content tested on the SAT I.
[/quote]
blah 10 char</p>
<p>may i remind you that my 2260 comes from missing 2 out of 54 math problems, 4 out of 67 CR problems, and 1 out of 49 writing problems? because the SAT I has a harder curve does not mean i did not "master" the material</p>
<p>i hardly call that "unable to master 'easier' content"; more than anything, i missed those problems because i was stressed out by people like you who emphasize the importance of SAT I's and because i could not stand nearly 4 hours of sheer concentration. some may argue that is part of the gauge of intelligence, and i agree somewhat. but realize, mastering the material is definitely not the issue with 2200+ people.</p>
<p>2400 sat1, for sho</p>
<p>well i have a 2400 SATII and a 2310 SATI so idk if i would trade but i dont think i will</p>
<p>Bumpin' this. </p>
<p>My current situation, interestingly, is 2390 SAT I/2250 SAT II, although I'm taking two more subject tests (long story, but I need to) next month and might possibly raise that to like 2300 SAT IIs, lol. <em>knock on wood</em> (2380 is the highest I could possibly end up with, technically, but I am not even considering that within the realm of possibility.) </p>
<p>I don't know anyone else with much higher SAT I than SAT II; usually, it's the opposite. D: Sighhh.</p>
<p>Higher SAT I is better.</p>
<p>I know YOUR opinion. ;D 'Sides, you have amazing scores on both... I hate youuu.</p>
<p>Oh, that's true...;]</p>
<p>Although, I'm pretty sure you'll do fine on both. Physics is pretty easy if you just take the practice test questions on the CB website, the practice test from CB, and read/memorize all the formulas [url=<a href="http://www.erikthered.com/tutor/facts-and-formulas-3-ref.pdf%5Dhere%5B/url">http://www.erikthered.com/tutor/facts-and-formulas-3-ref.pdf]here[/url</a>].</p>
<p>well id say it depends on the scope of the schools youre looking at. I think its been established that at schools such as HYP that subject tests certainly mean a lot. And, i mean, ive never really been able to even prepare for standardized testing. in that situation, i would say that my 2400 SAT II is certainly much more meaningful than my 2310 SAT I, which i got without ever preparing for the SAT (save the sopho PSAT). i think adcoms at many top schools realize that subject tests are less coachable and therefore more meaningful.</p>
<p>now, regardless of that, that brings up the very annoying point (to me anyways) that all the subject tests except like lit are so freakishly easy that theres no real reason to get less than maybe a 780 on any of them. so its a tossup, but i think that subject tests should mean more.</p>
<p>AMCIW YOU'RE THE BEST OMG THAT IS AWESOMEEEE</p>
<p>
Uhhh, really? Because everyone I know who has actually bothered to prepare for SAT IIs has gotten 780+, whereas some people study and study for the SAT I but can't break like 2200.</p>
<p>^ SAT II's are MUCH more coachable than the SAT I. Try taking a random SAT II "raw" and see what happens...then study for six months, take it again, and I guarantee your score increases 300+ points out of 800. The same would not hold true for the SAT I.</p>
<p>I could be biased though, I have a 2400 SAT I and 2270 SAT II (800 World History+770 Math II + 700 Science)</p>
<p>well, thats exactly my point.</p>
<p>ill use me as an example since ive taken all my tests completely raw, getting a 2310 SAT I (720CR/800M/790W) and a 2390 SAT II (800 M2/790 USH/800 Physics). </p>
<p>for SAT I, your performance is largely based on whether or not youre familiar with the test. When i saw my first CR passage part thingy (oh gosh, shoot me for admitting this), i started to freak out because i hadnt a clue as to how to pace my time in the context of the various kinds of problems in CR, and thus i did fairly poorly. i can say however, that math was easy since it was really straightforward, and for writing it wasnt too terribly difficult. the thing that got me however was the no errors, and so i had to wonder how many they would probably put in a section, whether no errors were seldom (such as how the "answer cannot be determined" in math level 2 is there a lot but almost never the answer), and so that aspect of writing sorta got me.</p>
<p>thats why i think the act is the most practical test to take raw. the questions in each section are completely homogeneous, and are relatively straightforward. seeing how in the national ranks people do not tend to do better on the act than the sat, the act isnt easier, its just less confusing. i have no doubts regarding my english abilities (36/36 on ACT english/reading). its just apparent to me that doing well on the SAT requires a level of preparation that that doesnt necessarily mean that youve learned anything, but that youre simply adapted to the SAT I well enough that you can transcend all of its confusing aspects. </p>
<p>now, on the other hand, for SAT II, the tests are purely a measurement of how much you have learned. for the post above mine, learning does not equate to coaching. learning simply means that youre expanding your realm of knowledge, and as a subsidiary effect can do better on subject tests. so, id say that other than chem (im studying for this because of those blasted TFCE questions), theres no coaching involved in subject tests. students are readibly able to study for these tests on their own, and so i would hope that in the eyes of an Adcom they are much more useful.</p>
<p>but, of course, i have doubts about what im saying above because of what im seeing in this thread. now im wondering if i should retake the SAT I just cuz of my 720 CR -__-. or does my ACT scores make up for that? anyone?</p>
<p>^nerd :O... </p>
<p>just joking ;)</p>
<p>@ GeoffreyChaucer: High five. :D</p>
<p>@ trickysocksman: I see where you're coming from, and I agree that the SAT is coachable (lol, I took it cold and my -10 points on it were due to the essay, which I had no idea how to approach until I researched it afterwards... I don't think I even knew at the time that it was the first thing on the test, and I probably freaked out when I saw it, comparable to your reaction to the CR.) But my argument is that there's a ceiling. Haven't you seen all the people on the website who study and study for the SAT I and end up with, say, 2200 (which is a GREAT score, don't get me wrong, but compare it to you and me, who got 2310 and 2390 taking it cold.) However, I don't know anyone who studied hardcore for an SAT II and didn't get their desired score (780+.)</p>
<p>It's great that you did so well on your subject tests without studying for them. But we're sort of coming from two opposite ends here -- we both took our tests more or less cold (although I studied a little for Math IIC) and, based on how we did, have differing opinions as to the "preparability" of each type. </p>
<p>
Yes, I agree with this. But do you realize that each of us has a different educational background in each of the subjects tested on the SAT IIs? I mean, I'm not BLAMING him, but as an illustration, I had a really bad Precalculus teacher and I believe that part of my inability to get an 800 on Math IIC was due to that poor background in the subject. And look at, say, French. Even if two people have taken the subject for the same amount of time, they've covered different things in their classes. (In fact, I went from a 590 to a 720 in a few months, a result, I presume, of just having covered some really important things in class in those few months!) And what about World History? Could someone whose year-long AP World class only covered the curriculum up to the mid-1800s do as well as someone whose class covered the entire curriculum? That's why there are preparation books, which tell you EXACTLY what you need to know to get a high score. Thus, the subject tests are extremely coachable. </p>
<p>Maybe, as people who took the tests with little to no preparation, we're not exactly following the topic of the thread, instead arguing over which is more impressive to score well on RAW. I agree with you that it's very impressive to do well on the subject tests without preparation (seriously, you did freakin' amazingly), but I'm not sure which is MORE impressive to me. After all, as I addressed in the above paragraph, a lot of it depends on how much you've actually learned. (Although JUST secondary to that is your ability to retain and apply information, which is very important. But it IS secondary because you can't retain and apply information to which you've never been exposed!) </p>
<p>And please don't freak out about your 720 in CR -- that's excellent, and many people would kill for it. And yes, your 36s on the ACT more than make up for it, lol.</p>
<p>wow poseur, i got pwned haha.</p>
<p>in any case, the argument that you bring up begs the question of what constitutes coaching. my definition of coaching would be the kids i know who spend thousands upon thousands of dollars in a formalized tutoring place to get help specifically for the SAT. in this situation, in comparison to those students who earnestly work freakishly hard on themselves but cannot achieve the scores that they desire, i fail to see the SAT being a genuine reflection of how smart a student is. rather, i see it as moreso as a competency check at any school. </p>
<p>i do hope im right anyways. i mean, id hope that my inability to get tutoring or a book for the SAT that matter due to my financial situation isnt overshadowed by the likes of those students who are familiar with the test and get ridiculously high scores after potential 2 or 3 attempts. </p>
<p>now of course, this isnt to discredit the SAT in any way. i havent a clue as to how subject tests play into the admissions process relative to the SAT. personally however, id just be more satisfied doing well on a test that provoked knowledge of things i specifically learned in school rather than doing well (i guess i can say i did well on the SAT) on a test that haphazardly scared the crap out of me, lol.</p>
<p>and my offer of proof? ive seen people get into HYPS with 18, 1900s, but ive never seen anyone get in with similar subject test scores. but of course that might be a result of how higher scores are generally more attainable than higher scores on sections of the SAT, which seems to not apply to poseur, lol.</p>
<p>i suppose that in the end these nuances in scores are all completely negligible, so long as a candidate consistently has 700+s. so, i suppose overall though SATs and subject tests dont really mean that much for admissions anyways, and thus it doesnt really matter, but its definitely something to argue about.</p>
<hr>
<p>oh gosh, you added stuff after i posted. darn it.</p>
<p>i mean, yeah, a lot of times subject test scores are largely contingent on the teachers that youve had, and so in that situation i can see how slight variations in scores account for little as to how smart a student is and rather their educational background, as you stated.</p>
<p>of course, id view a freakishly high SAT score as being more impressive than subject tests. in regards to the history and science subject tests, both of them can definitely be coached in the sense that you have books that prepare specifically for them and disregard any useful info that wont be specifically tested on them. i suppose in that situation they can give insight into a students' specific strengths, but overall are extremely similar to the SAT in how the eventual score cant really reflect on the quality of a student, so its never of such high importance.</p>