<p>I graduate in 2011. I just got back my May subject tests; I took US History and Biology and got 710's on both :/
I really think I must have made a couple of dumb mistakes on biology because that is definitely one of my strongest classes. The 710 in US I was actually okay with.</p>
<p>I suspect I'll get around a 760-780 on the next one I take (English Lit). Would that compensate for the 710's?</p>
<p>Are these tests hugely important to Yale? Should I retake? Opinions welcome...</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is this based on practice tests? Literature is perhaps the most difficult exam to score high on. </p>
<p>710 is not a great score for those tests, but it certainly won’t render you unaccceptable. Retake Biology if you feel you can improve, though note that a mere couple mistakes would not lower your score to 710. You should also realize that Yale requires only two tests.</p>
<p>Thank you. Yes, that estimate was based on practice tests. Are they unreliable? I didn’t realize that lit was more difficult to score high on.</p>
<p>Which company’s practice tests?</p>
<p>I don’t see why you would need to retake and those scores seem impressive. I remember when I was applying to schools I was very nervous because my scores seemed so low compared to many people here on CC. You should be proud of those 710s and I’m sure they wouldn’t hurt you. Personally I got into Yale with SAT IIs of 640, 650, and 680.</p>
<p>Good Luck!</p>
<p>I wouldn’t retake your subject tests. They’re not that important. My friend got a 710 in World and he was still admitted to everywhere he applied (including Stanford and Princeton). Really if you’re above 700, you’re fine.</p>
<p>I agree with eating food that you’re really fine with scores above 700. I was admitted to Yale with one subject test between 750 and 800 and three between 700 and 750. However, if you are currently planning to take English lit alone, you might as well retake one or both of your tests to try to improve your scores. Again, this isn’t really necessary, but if it would make you feel more comfortable, I’d go for it. Anything that makes you feel more comfortable during the long and torturous admissions process, in my opinion, is worth it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, of course: no specific score is required. If the OP increases his or her scores, however, his or her chance of admittance will likewise increase.</p>
<p>@bluecoast I saw in another thread that you were accepted off of the Waitlist. Do you mind posting your stats, etc.?</p>
<p>Here are bluecoast’s stats:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Any hooks? I don’t mean to be rude or anything. I’m just curious.</p>
<p>^ I don’t know. He or she is certainly numerically subpar among unhooked acceptees.</p>
<p>Speaking of numerics: </p>
<p>I’ve heard that once you reach a certain threshold for GPA and SAT score, it doesn’t really matter anymore. There isn’t any difference between a 2370 and a 2390 SAT score. And there isn’t a real difference between a 4.1 and a 4.2 GPA. </p>
<p>Does anyone know if this is true?</p>
<p>^ Logically, it shouldn’t be true; higher scores positively correlate with higher abilities. Moreover, there is no evidence that it is the case, and there is significant evidence that schools discriminate across the entire scale.</p>
<p>@nolagirl - I have heard conflicting opinions on that. We have to look at the reasons for which colleges consider GPA and test scores in the first place – they want to make sure that you’re capable of succeeding and grasping the material at their college. This implies that once a score is above a certain threshold, any increase does not matter. However, I read a book that looked in depth at the admissions process, and the author wrote that admissions officers try to choose the highest scores possible (without sacrificing other factors) in order to increase their median scores for the college guides and boost their rankings in usnews. That doesn’t mean, however, that a person with a 2400/36 is automatically going to get picked over you. Indeed, we see many 2400s getting turned down by top schools all the time. If you don’t have perfect scores but have other things that the colleges want – first generation, significant research/artistic/whatever achievements, etc – you will not necessarily lose out to someone with higher scores.</p>
<p>From the 2013 Yale SCEA results thread:</p>
<p>Total sample size: 148</p>
<p>Asian sample size: 58
Average SAT score for an Asian acceptee (17 were accepted): 2347</p>
<p>White sample size: 52
Average SAT score for a White acceptee (16 were accepted): 2353</p>
<p>The acceptance rate over various ranges for Whites and Asians: </p>
<p>2310-2400: 47% (29/62)
2210-2300: 10% (3/30)
600-2200: 0% (0/16)</p>
<p>These results do not suggest that schools look for one’s merely being qualified and then ignore the score.</p>
<p>While it is undeniable that Yale and other top schools accept a greater percentage of the applicants who score the highest, correlation is not causation. It is likely that students who get the best scores also have the highest grades and most extraordinary academic and extracurricular achievements. The only way to analyze the effect that test scores ALONE have on admissions is to compare admissions stats of applicants that are exactly the same in every way except for test scores – a basically impossible task.</p>
<p>^ Please see <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/sat-preparation/865226-addressing-few-concerns.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/sat-preparation/865226-addressing-few-concerns.html</a>. (Causation is discussed on page 2.)</p>
<p>@eliana Unfortunately, I have no hooks. If anything, I’ve got a major anti-hook.</p>
<p>^ What are you referring to?</p>