2400 SAT I and 2200 SAT IIs or vice versa?

[Poseur]

<p>

@trickysocksman

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.

Yeah, I agree with you about the second part. If SATs were representative of intelligence, we'd be living in a strange world, lol. But as for the first part, I don't really see a distinction between paid prep and at-home prep. I mean, some people on these forums spend hours and hours preparing (one girl took 70 practice tests 2-3 times each!), which I think gives them a significant advantage (which they DESERVE for their hard work, don't get me wrong, but it's still an advantage) over people like us who took it without preparation. In fact, I think they have more of an advantage than people who spend money on classes (my sister, for example, who I'm sure benefited from the coaching and the practice but not as much as someone who took 65 more practice tests, lol.) </p>

<p>

@trickysocksman

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.

Ahh, you're amazing. Don't worry about it, 2310 (especially in one sitting) is frickin' great, and if you look around here, like I said, you'll see people who've tried several times and never done nearly that well. The general consensus on here is that everything 2300+ is the same, although 2400 has that certain mystique, lol. In fact, statistically, 2310 ~= 2400 (assuming the breakdown is 770 770 770, which I know yours isn't, but still) because each section has an error of +/- 300. :] Sooo yeah. Don't worry about the people who pour thousands of dollars into prep; they still can't hold a candle to you. </p>

<p>

@trickysocksman

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.

Haha, word. I'd be ecstatic if I did well on such knowledge-based tests... great job. :] </p>

<p>

@trickysocksman

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.

Well, I'd be interested to see an applicant with subject tests in the 1900s and a really high (2200+) SAT score. That's probably rare because of the curving of the tests, though. </p>

<p>

@trickysocksman

i suppose that in the end these nuances in scores are all completely negligible, so long as a candidate consistently has 700+s.

I hope so I hope so I hope so!!! :]]] </p>

<p>And yep, it's just interesting to see what people think. No one really knows what the adcoms think (and it probably varies from school to school, and even admissions officer to admissions officer!) but it's interesting to get others' input.</p>

<hr>

<p>edit to your edit:

@trickysocksman

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.

So I guess our conclusion here is that both the SAT I and the SAT IIs are... inconclusive. XD</p>

[trickysocksman]

<p>hmm, i do have to debate with you over the difference between specialized tutoring and self-studying for the SAT. coming from a 3000 kid school where the avg score is a 1450, the valedictorian of the last two years have had around 2100s, and were able to take pride in the fact that we send 25% of our graduates to a U of Cali campus, ive seen that people that i know who have gotten specialized tutoring have done consistently better than people ive known who just study on their own. heck, i havent had many friends who have taken an SAT class get less than maybe a 1700 on the SAT, which at my school is very impressive.</p>

<p>now of course, in my situation, it could just be that your point is valid and that the scope of my observation would logically be of students who arent analytical to develop their SAT taking skills on their own. i just dont know enough about the SAT (like whether there are certain strategies, etc.) to be able to really know how much of a difference tutoring really could make. personally, however, ive never heard of any place where you can get tutoring for a subject test, so eh.</p>

<p>but when it comes to ur original question, i think that you have to consider which SAT IIs youre taking, which i think has been mentioned earlier. i think its really impressive that you, poseur, have done really well on lit (of course i cant relate cuz ive never seen the test, but have only heard of death stories about it, emphasis on only). and i hear that the sciences and the histories are relatively difficult too. but when it comes to foreign language, then it gets kinda hazy. i mean, im chinese, and if i ever took the chinese test (oh gosh i would just shoot myself, ive already got a 5 on the ap test, and that was the most retarded ap test in the history of the world), of course it wouldnt be really impressive, and i think that holds true for all languages. the people i truly admire are the ones who take a language in which they arent natives in. </p>

<p>with regards to people getting accepted to top schools, i really dont know much about it. all i know is that schools like caltech kill people for math 2 scores under 800 and things like that, and so i just wonder how that would correlate. id think that for most public schools (since some of them function on a point system), it doesnt matter. all im interested in knowing is whether colleges emphasize SAT Is or SAT IIs more. but of course, they may consider them the same or just not really care either way, but its interesting to think about though.</p>

<p>now, of course, i speak lightly about this topic on the assumption that for any school i dont get into when i apply there some day that it wont be because of my scores, but its an assumption that i believe to be true. and if im wrong, haha, then ill be screwed but ill never know it. standardized tests suck.</p>

[Poseur]

<p>First of all, whoa, great job doing so well when the average at your school is so low! o__O </p>

<p>

@trickysocksman

heck, i havent had many friends who have taken an SAT class get less than maybe a 1700 on the SAT, which at my school is very impressive.

Correlation does not imply causation. Maybe these students are already more intelligent and motivated, which leads to (a) their signing up for the prep classes *and<a href="b">/i</a> their doing well on the SAT. </p>

<p>

@trickysocksman

but when it comes to ur original question, i think that you have to consider which SAT IIs youre taking, which i think has been mentioned earlier.

That's true. And yeah, I did well on Lit, which is one of the hardest... but I also got a mediocre score on Math IIC, which is the easiest... so yeaaahh they cancel out I guess? Lol. (And I'm good at math... 5 on Calc AB, always at or near the top of my math classes, etc. Just to get that straight.) But yeah... I guess it's kind of irrelevant to talk about "SAT IIs" as a collective entity since they're all so different.</p>

<p>

@trickysocksman

all im interested in knowing is whether colleges emphasize SAT Is or SAT IIs more. but of course, they may consider them the same or just not really care either way, but its interesting to think about though.

Word. Unless we get an admissions officer in here addressing our questions directly... speculation is all we can do. XD</p>

<p>

@trickysocksman

now, of course, i speak lightly about this topic on the assumption that for any school i dont get into when i apply there some day that it wont be because of my scores, but its an assumption that i believe to be true. and if im wrong, haha, then ill be screwed but ill never know it. standardized tests suck.

Haha, same here. I mean, I guess my relatively low SAT II scores could hinder me, but I'm thankful to have had the luck I've had so far with collegeboard; I'm definitely not complaining. But you are golden... frickin' 2300+ in both. >:[ Great job!!!</p>

[b_smom]

<p>I've always wondered what admissions people actually do with the SAT II's. After all, I've never seen published averages for SAT II's for any college. I did ask an admissions counselor once what colleges did with the SAT II's. All he could say was that admissions people "love" SAT II's. I suppose it validates a students grades as different high schools vary significantly.</p>

[shiomi]

<p>OMG...Poseur and trickysocksman, nice essays :O...</p>

[Juanmarco]

<p>I think its harder to get an 800 on SAT I math than SAT II math level 2, because of the curve. If you make some careless errors, you can still get a perfect score on the SAT II math, but one mistake on the SAT I math takes you down to 790 or 780.</p>

[trickysocksman]

<p>how the heck do you do that quote thing lol.</p>

<p>hmm, with regards to what you said about students getting tutoring doing well, i addressed your concern by saying that iono if there is a causal link between tutoring and doing well on the sat, but simply that from my observation it has. and if there isnt a strong case for that, id say that there is definitely a correlation between income status and SAT scores. my school has many socioeconomically disadvantaged students and the highest score i know personally (a 2250, so just figure the revelation i had when i first came onto CC, lol) was by a rich kid who had prep classes. now on the other hand, the past valedictorians that i have known are like me, not affluent enough to be willing to enter prep classes, but still smart enough to pwn subject tests and ap and ib tests. so, for that reason, weve had a number of students get into ivys as well as caltech (the closest crazy school to us) despite potentially less than stellar scores.</p>

<p>and yeah, the SAT IIs are so diversified that its hard to compare them. Im a math/sci guy, and so my USH test is solely for arguing my point that i am in fact well rounded. however, from what i heard from that fitzsimmons guy at harvard or whatever his name was, the things that you can learn from subject tests scores make them of general importance along with the SAT I, so id assume theyre all relative and go to corroborate one another. </p>

<p>for that reason, id say that for you, poseur, you seem to fine with your stellar scores. for me, however, im just self-conscious about my CR score, and for some reason believe that my ACT scores dont make up for that haha.</p>

[Arachnotron]

<p>720 CR is fine. It's not worth retaking a 2310 to get it up. It just isn't.</p>

[Poseur]

<p>[quote=username*]* stuff you want to quote here [/quote*]* </p>

<p>:)</p>

<p>And yeah, the correlation between income and scores is very real and very unfair. :[ Congrats on overcoming barriers 'n' what not. </p>

<p>Your ACTs definitely "make up for" your CR. Are you considering retaking, or are you just worried about its effects? 'Cause you shouldn't be worried. But here's what I tell everyone who's considering retaking a test that really won't make a difference in admissions: if you want to retake it just to prove to yourself that you can do better, go for it. (That's what I did for French and it worked out very well, lol.)</p>

[Poseur]

<p>Hmm, yeah, true. I forgot about the fact that colleges might actually look down on a retake because they'll think, "This kid must have nooo life." </p>

<p>So yeah, don't retake lolz.</p>

[trickysocksman]

<p>lol, i cant even take it again if i wanted to just cuz 40 something dollars is too much (life was terrible for me last month when i had to find like 300 something dollars for junior year IB tests). i just wonder if act and sat scores in respective sections are comparable, or if its that theyre not comparable but used and considered interchangeably.</p>

<p>the thing that kills me about my score is that for CR, i only missed 6 questions, and 3 of them were "easy" questions -__- <em>epic fail lol</em>.</p>

<p>and its not fair, the SAT is so boring to take. compared to AP tests, its so dull in terms of the interesting kinds of questions that they ask and what not. im just waiting for the end of this year when i get to get out of class to take ap tests haha.</p>

<p>and taking sats/subject tests are also fun cuz then i get to see some kids that i know from other city schools (since our school is the only testing location around.. YES). id take more if they didnt cost so much lol.</p>

[cit]

<p>i have a higher sat 1 score than sat 2 scores and i'm fine with that.</p>

[Poseur]

<p>Lol.</p>

<p>I'm done with testing.</p>

<p>2390 SAT I, 2250 SAT II. (3660 total over 5 tests, lol, so an average of 732.)</p>

<p>SWEET.</p>

<p>:/</p>

[lolcats4]

<p>^ that's very good. </p>

<p>I'm done as well with my 2320 SATI and 2400 SATII, thank goodness it's all over :)</p>

[amciw]

<p>Lolcats, out of complete curiousity, how many subject tests have you taken? Isn't it true that top colleges want 5 for homeschooled students?</p>

[lolcats4]

<p>Only Pomona and Columbia want four. Washington and Lee is the only college I've heard of that requires 5 (lol...).</p>

<p>I have taken 4 - Physics, Literature, Chemistry, and Math II (780 on that one lol)</p>

[amciw]

<p>Oh, okay. Its seems to me as if more than three is "recommended", though, even at places that only say three.</p>

[Richarddd.Li]

<p>I know that everyone says 2200+ on SATI is competitive enough, and that any higher won't really boost your resume any further. But a 2400 is simply amazing - the one kid who managed to get that last year at our school was featured on the news and everything.</p>

<p>Then again, many people who may be science/math people (myself included) may want to instead show their strengths in subjects that they wish to persue, by getting perfects on the SATIIs.</p>

<p>Either way, this is a tough decision, haha. Thank god we'll never have to actually make this kind of decision =p</p>

[bicyclekick]

<p>poseur</p>

<p>you're fine, ok?</p>

<p>you've got stellar scores AND exceptional rank and EC's and an interesting personality which should make for some compelling essays</p>

<p>you really shouldn't worry about minutia like this (is 2200+ on SAT or on SAT subject tests better, etc.) because either way your scores are great, i think you seem to have forgotten that you got a 2390 with NO PREP.....it took me and many others 2 tries to get to 2200....</p>

<p>if you don't get into your top choice, you're definitely getting in somewhere great, and no matter wherever you go, you will bloom and make that college a better place (that goes for you too trickysocksman), so relax, enjoy your christmas/hanukkah/kwanzaa vacation days, and wait for your mailbox to be inundated with acceptance packets and scholarships in march/april :)</p>

[Therifleman62]

<p>I'd rather have 2300 on both :)</p>