<p>I've grown to accept the general consensus is that all scores 750+ are about the same, but at fairly competitive schools (ie. Harvey Mudd), how much difference does 20/40 pts make? Is it worth retaking a test you got 760 on?</p>
<p>I don't think so. I got 760 in bio, and am not going to retake -- I don't want to put in more time on something that will only affect my admissions chances minimally.</p>
<p>Competitive schools ALSO accept the general consensus that all scores 750+ are about the same. They know better than to discriminate between a 760 and a 780 as part of admissions decisions.</p>
<p>what's the diff. between a 780 and an 800 on the math II test?</p>
<p>For Harvey Mudd:
If it is a 760 math IIC, it is different from an 800. For Mudd admissions, 760 is NOT the same as 800 in math IIC. I'm just being honest here.</p>
<p>Also if you are applying to Harvey Mudd, you want to make sure that each of your SAT scores is above a certain level in order to get the $10,000/year merit scholarship. If one of your sections is below, then it is definitely worth the retake.</p>
<p>For what I read on the Harvey Mudd website, it must be 700 and above. Same with UCSD 6-year pre-med program. That is the minimum required.</p>
<p>750+ is required for the math section though.
<a href="http://www.hmc.edu/admin/finaid/grants.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.hmc.edu/admin/finaid/grants.html</a></p>
<p>Usually 30 points on a subject test is slightly significant. 40 or more is definitely a significant difference.</p>
<p>atomicfusion: if that's Mudd's rationale, then I'm glad I'm not applying there, because that's rather stupid. (Though I doubt they see a large--or even small--difference between a 760 and an 800. And no, I don't care that you're a student there.)</p>
<p>A 30-point difference can be statistical error, according to CB. 40 - 50 points means ALMOST nothing. More than that means something. Although for Math 2c, they might expect an 800, given the lenient curve.</p>
<p>^^ yes, but ask yourself: why is the curve so lenient? Though it's lenient, it's that way because it's more difficult; so a 770 in mathIIC is as good if not better than, say, an 800 in mathIC.</p>
<p>
[quote]
atomicfusion: if that's Mudd's rationale, then I'm glad I'm not applying there, because that's rather stupid. (Though I doubt they see a large--or even small--difference between a 760 and an 800. And no, I don't care that you're a student there.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ummm okay. The median IIC score at Mudd is 770. So a 760 is going to just be typical to the adcoms, but an 800 will give the applicant a chance to stand out. Also if you knew what you were talking about you'd realize that there is a huge difference in percentile on math IIC between 760 and 800. It is not the typical SAT II test. But yeah, what do I know!?</p>
<p>
[quote]
^^ yes, but ask yourself: why is the curve so lenient? Though it's lenient, it's that way because it's more difficult; so a 770 in mathIIC is as good if not better than, say, an 800 in mathIC.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is completely wrong. Look at the percentiles of the scores and you'll see it's harder to get an 800 on the math IC.</p>
<p>^ that's because the students who are able to achieve an 800 on Math IC take math IIC instead. it's not harder; only that less qualified students are taking it</p>
<p>But what about other subjects aside from math? Granted Math IIC might be just a little bit different, college applicants submit more than just Math IIC. Specifically, I'm interested in the Physics subject test: does the discrimination between a 760 and an 800 impact admissions?</p>
<p>There is less of a difference between 760 and 800 in physics. I would think that it wouldn't really matter that much. However, tech schools do look more at science sat IIs than other sat IIs, so it is weighted more overall.</p>
<p>What about a 740? Would that be not as respected as a 750+ at top universities?</p>