<p>
</p>
<p>It’s time to take a step away from CC.</p>
<p>I don’t even see how this is a question. As someone who has both (GPA not definitive yet of course), a 4.0 is not even comparable in difficulty to a 2400. The school I attend is quite competitive as well (USNWR T100) and my classes are pretty rigorous. 4.0’s are a dime a dozen in competitive college applicant pools.</p>
<p>“I mean, an 800 in CR and math is easily obtainable for most people, its just the grammar that kills you, because the writing is so subjective.”</p>
<p>"It’s time to take a step away from CC. "</p>
<p>No, I’m serious. (but good point 
)</p>
<p>The math section of the SAT goes up to Algebra II. Its not hard. Almost everyone has the capacity to do Algebra II level work. The only thing separating most people from an 800 is stupid mistakes (-4, in my case).</p>
<p>Critical reading is…well, READING. Almost everyone can do that. Obviously some people are better than others, but its not like people are capable of reading and understanding what they read.</p>
<p>Writing…yeah, the essay is extremely subjective. Grammar, ok thats cut and dry, but an essay is extremely subjective and is a poor test of how good a writer you are. Not to mention your score is correlated with length…</p>
<p>So, I’ll admit, an 2400 is not possible for everyone, BUT i think with practice, 3 years of math, and reading a couple books (well, a bunch ), its within the realm of possibility for a lot of people (not that I want to minimize the accomplishments of those have the magical 2400, congratulations!)</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the SAT is a lot of luck, the difference between a 2400 and 2250 is like 6 questions, so there isn’t a lot of margin for error.</p>
<p>
Not missing a single question on the mathematics section requires a pretty intense level of concentration and test taking endurance.</p>
<p>
The vocabulary tested on the SAT is vastly different than what is used in colloquial speech, and many people actually find it quite hard to understand the subtle messages in a text.</p>
<p>
Realm of possibility does not equate to likely to happen.</p>
<p>The average high school junior probably has no idea how to reflect a graph over the y=x line or how to define obsequious. Despite the fact that they have completed algebra II and read a few books.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s not the lack of understanding of the necessary math that causes most people to do poorly on the Math section; it’s an inability to reason and problem solve, two relatively rare skills. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re committing a gross exaggeration by using the word most. There are people who consistently make fewer “silly” mistakes than other people, and I think that’s a valuable skill, not just “luck.” (If it were luck, it would not be consistent.) </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then why don’t they all do well? Your point would only be valid if the College Board has made some mistake in its reporting of average scores. </p>
<p>If the majority (as you implied) of people could do very well on the SAT if they would just stop making silly mistakes or getting unlucky, then significantly more people would score 2400 than currently do. I don’t want to sound rude, but it appears as though you are projecting your rationalization of making “silly”/“stupid” mistakes.</p>
<p>@jersey, how do you do quotes? Sorry, I’m a long time stalker, and just started posting.</p>
<p>I’m not saying get a 2400 is easy, I’m just saying that its easier than a 4.0</p>
<p>I don’t know how it is at your school, but through 5 semesters, NO ONE has a 4.0 at my school.</p>
<p>(we had two girls with straight A’s through four, but one got a B in AP Bio, and one got a B in Trig; I’m in both of their classes, haha).</p>
<p>Admittedly, we didn’t have a 2400 either, but we did have a guy who missed two questions per section (2270, or something), and I’m not so sure he won’t get a 2400 when he retakes it.</p>
<p>i guess my point is that a 4.0 takes day in, day out grueling determination (at my school), where as a 2400 is just Algebra II+reading a couple books+ four hour testing endurance+luck.</p>
<p>Jersey+Silverturtle, i know you both got 2400s, and after reading your posts on the forum, i think you are both very smart, i’m not trying to minimize your accomplishments</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I don’t really think this is a matter of opinion. Fewer than 300 people a year score 2400; way more than that (I don’t have the data, but I doubt you’ll argue) have 4.0’s. The former must be harder – case closed.</p>
<p>I guess I’ll have to agree with you based on data, I was only speaking from personal experience. (I can admit when I lose :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Based on an average curve and a 10 essay:</p>
<p>Critical Reading: 800
Math: 760
Writing: 760</p>
<p>Total: 2320</p>
<p>
Great evidence you’ve got there.</p>
<p>Clearly you have difficulty separating your personal experience (only making a few mistakes on SAT, not seeing many 4.0s) from the average student’s (having no idea on many questions, but going to schools with many 4.0s).</p>
<p>I think people vastly underestimate the difference in ability in the upper-range of SAT scores.</p>
<p>From a baseline of the high 2000’s, I was in the high 2200’s by the end of the first day, the mid 2300’s within a few weeks, and 5 months later I was finally popping 2400’s. When I took my SAT the first time, I missed 1 question on a 170 question test that took place over 5 hours. The second time (with three more weeks of continued drill), I missed none.</p>
<p>The difference in ability between even the mid 2300’s and 2400 is HUGE. Sure, you could get lucky and blunder your way into 2400, but if you actually earn it, it’s a tremendous effort. You need to know virtually every word in every vocab list you can get your hands on (because they only need to have two words in the test bank that you don’t know to kill your 2400), be able to get inside somebody else’s head and interpret a passage as they would, do math word problems without a single slip (because misreading a single question would also kill your 2400), be able to apply ambiguous and amorphous grammar concepts in a subjective setting (which requires an intimate familiarity with the prejudices of the test writers), and pop out essays that are “insightful” on command about any subject.</p>
<p>There’s a reason I think 2400’s are entitled to anything they want. It requires the sort of precision - the ability to do what you know how to do perfectly over and over again - that we value in surgeons, financial managers, military planners, engineers, programmers, accountants, and much of the rest of our elite.</p>
<p>A 4.0, at most, requires the ability to pay attention, take notes, do your work on time, and cater to what the teacher wants on tests. It’s not even a competition.</p>
<p>@christiansoldier: Amen. There is clearly a difference in knowledge/dedication.</p>
<p>Your 2400 is definitely superior to my 2360. I lost the 40 points in writing, which I did the least prep for: differences are far more than just luck.</p>
<p>christiansoldier: what you describe - the difference between a 2350 and 2400 - seems to be the result of differing amounts of effort, not differing amounts of ability.</p>
<p>Also, the fact that you devoted so much time to mastering a somewhat trivial test reflects positively on your intellect and dedication, but somewhat negatively on your priorities. I realize the SAT is crucial, but you spent 5 MONTHS studying with the intent of raising your score from a 2350 to a 2400?</p>
<p>I realize I’m off-topic on this thread, but your fetishization of the 2400 is somewhat alarming.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As tests go, the SAT is hardly trivial. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re misinterpreting christiansoldier’s motivation. He did not work for the extrinsic incentives that he assumed would result from having that magical 2400 (as would be suggested by fetishization); as a competitive individual, he was intrinsically motivated to “beat” the test – a quality that, if channeled effectively (which he has not demonstrably proven or disproven thus far), is quite valuable. All the negative associations we have with many aspects of college admissions are coloring people’s interpretations of competitive individuals’ strives to exceed exceptionally in such a context: if an athlete, for example, worked tirelessly for months to improve his or her time by a small – perhaps trivial – amount, the perception would be quite different, though without warrant.</p>
<p>This new threshold menality in college admissions (e.g., “once you get X, colleges don’t and shouldn’t care if you score better; don’t waste your time and instead go improve your ECs”) is dangerous in that it may generally encourage compromise and suppress competitiveness.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s nice. The thing is, top colleges are not supposed to be just glorified job training. They’re supposed to be about giving you a good education, first and foremost. Spending months poring over vocab lists and doing practice problems does not by itself qualify you for that.</p>
<p>@christiansoldier: Is it honestly that hard to get a 2400? It would seem that most people who attain perfect scores have innate abilities in one if not all sections. I admittedly don’t have a 2400, nowhere near it, and considering my math scores, I’m likely completely incapable of it, but I got 800 on two sections of the SAT with very, very little effort.</p>
<p>
What, precisely, is wrong with suppressing competitiveness on things that don’t matter? Grades on the 4.0 system aren’t even REPORTED to the kind of precision we’re talking here.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I intended for generally to modify both verbs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Here’s something relevant to the initial purpose of the thread.</p>
<p>It certainly seems reasonable to me for it to be much less possible for a <em>particular individual</em> to get a 4.0 than a 2400. High SAT scores don’t necessarily mean that the student has the school and life skills necessary to get high grades. Plenty of students score over 2100 without having GPAs anywhere near 4.0. I don’t see why it would be any different at the very top.</p>
<p>Unless you get grades that are at least roughly in line with your scores (when adjusted for the difficulty of your school and coursework), stratospheric SAT scores seem to me more likely to hurt your application than help you. You’ll just look like a slacker. </p>
<p>I have to admit my family is full of late bloomers, who had boatloads of high board scores (including three pre-recentering 800s) but not a 4.0 among them, at any rate not until graduate school.</p>