382 Class of 2010 Students Aced SAT

<p>It’s weird. The only people I’ve known in my entire life to have gotten a 2400 on the SAT have been on this website. Seems pretty rare.</p>

<p>And it’s probably because each year people that do get a 2400 don’t retake the SAT obviously but that’s what they claim. Also, it doesn’t seem like a thousand people claim it (although that would still be reasonable, since an x amount gets it every year and this board has been around for a while consisting of such users). Most of the people on here don’t get perfect scores but are definitely in the 2000+ range, which is very good.</p>

<p>380 got a 2400 on the SAT and 580 got a 36 on the ACT. How many people got both?</p>

<p>Males reason better than females according to the data :)</p>

<p>This thread actually made me feel very good about myself :)</p>

<p>Heh, nothing wrong with a little boost in self-esteem :P</p>

<p>Our year is most likely going to be higher than this. I’m estimating somewhere in the mid 400s. Maybe even higher.</p>

<p>Oh well, assuming that the total number of people is approximately the same (1.5 million or so? That’s actually a lot more than what I thought), even with a few hundred or more people the percentage would still be really small</p>

<p>Obviously the percentage will still be extraordinarily small, but far more people are studying for the SAT as time moves on, thus shifting the score curve to the right.</p>

<p>^True
Unless, of course, collegeboard readjusts the curve as time passes
It’s kind of ironic since it’s called the Scholastic Aptitude Test, but clearly it’s not completely a true aptitude test</p>

<p>Actually as of a few years ago, SAT ceased to function as an acronym.</p>

<p>Oh haha, that’s really interesting, I had no idea</p>

<p>Apparently, the fact that it said standard APTITUDE test annoyed quite a lot of people.</p>

<p>Well yeah I would be angry too. The SAT doesn’t really measure inherent or born ability as the word aptitude suggests.</p>

<p>I wonder whether the increase can be explained in part by what seems to be an increasing inclination to retake even if you get a very high score on your first (or second) try. While there’s obviously skill involved in getting a 2400, there’s also some element of luck - avoiding the careless mistake, not getting the odd question that just happens to stump you, etc. Someone who gets a 2300+ is certainly capable, with a little luck, of getting a 2400. In the past, there would have been a general consensus that if you got a 2300+, there was no point in retaking. But now there seems to be some number of 2300+ scorers who go for the retake. CollegeBoard will likely never disclose this level of detail, but it would be interesting to know how many of the 2400’s were on the first try, and for those who got 2400 on a retake, what were the scores on the prior try or tries.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>If a college wants to know, they’ll ask applicants to submit ALL tests taken. But, for high scorers, the scores are not important. Retaking a 2380 is good for CB, maybe for the college, but not for the applicant IMO.</p>

<p>Guys, don’t ridiculous. 400-500+ getting 2,400 aren’t that many people compared to hundreds and thousands of students that get lower than a score of 2,000. </p>

<p>But, if the number of test takers acing exceeds 500, then I hope College Board considers making the exam harder or adding a whole new section. Of course, if that ever happens, I wouldn’t have to worry since I am graduating this upcoming year. Haha, evil in me >:)</p>

<p>Does this only account for test-takers in the US? Before I go around jumping for joy and tell my parents.</p>

<p>^
Why does it matter?</p>

<p>If it only accounts for domestic test-takers, then the number of people who beat my scores will probably be higher, and I wouldn’t be as ecstatic.</p>

<p>^
2400 scorers still beat 99.99999% of test takers</p>

<p>“…and they all seem to be members of CC.”</p>

<p>LOL! My sentiments exactly. :)</p>