<p>I've read that admissions test scores are only used as a screen at very selective schools, but it seems like a perfect score on the SAT &/or ACT would be viewed as a hook. In the same way that schools will overlook lower scores because of something else that grabs them, I would assume that schools might overlook a lackluster essay or something else that they don't deem to be stellar because a student has maxed out on the admissions test. This would seem to be evidence that the student didn't have the opportunity to fully demonstrate their potential because of the limitations of the test, especially if they got the score on their first attempt. Does anyone have experience with this?</p>
<p>"Are perfect SAT &/or ACT scores a hook?"</p>
<p>No.</p>
<p>To some extent, it depends where in the food chain the college is. At Harvard, Amherst, etc., the answer clearly is that it's not a "hook", although I expect that on average kids with very high test scores get harder looks than similar kids with more mundane test scores. For many state universities, though, high test scores (which need not be perfect) essentially guarantee admission and merit scholarship. And there are places in between.</p>
<p>Here are charts showing how frequent those scores are: </p>
<p><a href="http://www.act.org/news/data/06/pdf/National2006.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.act.org/news/data/06/pdf/National2006.pdf</a> </p>
<p>(see table 2.1) </p>
<p>Please note that NO college knows whether or not a student who submits only one test score got that score after only one attempt, especially on the SAT I, because scores can be cancelled, genuine released tests can be taken for practice, and scores of SAT tests taken for Talent Search programs (or otherwise below ninth grade) are not reported by default.</p>
<p>See the thread started by Xiggi. It gives some stats for this year's Harvard admits.</p>
<p>There are several posts from adcoms on various threads all saying roughly the same thing: once you get up in the top fraction of 1% (see tokenadult's post), the difference between 750 and 800 is usually 1-2 questions; that sort of difference has virtually no predictive ability when it comes to academic success in college.</p>
<p>A few schools ARE test-happy, e.g., USC, and will overlook a middlin' gpa for high test scores.</p>
<p>I don't know if it's a "Hook" necessarily, but it definitely helps. Like bluebayou was saying, there are some test-happy schools...</p>
<p>Just from my own small observation (which is definitely not completely accurate), but it seems that Caltech, Duke, USC go a lot by scores.</p>
<p>The question was whether a perfect score is a "hook".</p>
<p>The answer remains no, especially since it represents a total of 3 hours or so out of a student's life. </p>
<p>It might actually be at a fourth tier school, though they might find your application suspect, and put you on the waiting list. ;)</p>
<p>USC is sooooo test-happy, that they give high test scoring kids big bonus points and scholarship money. A 4.0w Val who is commended will get nada from 'SC (but will get accepted), whereas a 3.5 with much lighter schedule but NMF from the same HS will also be accepted AND be awarded nice merit money. Free money over four years for "three hours out of a student's life" is a big hook, IMO.</p>
<p>But, NMF is only based on two hours of a student's life. :D</p>
<p>
[quote]
But, NMF is only based on two hours of a student's life. :D
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Plenty to grin about indeed, even if there was some influence on the score from other things the student did in life before test day.</p>
<p>A high score represents a very large number of hours spent reading, learning, thinking, and doing schoolwork. "3 hours of one's life" is the rhetoric of SAT-haters.</p>
<p>Across-the-board perfect scores (one-shot results of 1600 SAT, 800's on subject tests, 5's on AP's, etc) certainly have some psychological impact. They leave no room for speculation except as to just how far off the top of the SAT/ACT/AP scale the candidate is. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, in that each further perfect score reinforces the correctness of the others, whereas with one or two tests it could have been preparation or luck. </p>
<p>Perfect old-SAT when only about 300 people a year achieved it, would certainly have been a "hook". Perfect SAT or ACT today puts you in a pool of several thousand, and many more thousands considering the variation in scores. I think in both cases some additional 800's would be needed to remove doubt that 1600 is the correct measurement.</p>
<p>I remember our info session at American U, when a young man raise dhis hand and asked about test scores, and the dean said they look at everything as a package, but that wasn't to say that someone with a 1400 (out of 1600) SAT wouldn't move to the top of the pile, so it can be a hook, but depends on the school. The elites get so many kids with perfect or near perfect scores, that it doesn't matter. I remember 2 yrs ago that the posters on the Yale site showed more kids with perfect scores being rejected than others.</p>
<p>
[quote]
A high score represents a very large number of hours spent reading, learning, thinking, and doing schoolwork.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Possiby. </p>
<p>But, how does one explain the number of academic slackers who score high each and every year? Or, how to explain the direct correlation between test scores and income? Or, how to explain the correlation between test scores and only a few Myers-Briggs personality types, regardless of IQs? Or, how to explain a huge merit scholarship for one additional bubble completed correctly vs. zero merit scholarship for the extra correct bubble?</p>
<p>
[quote]
[quote]
A high score represents a very large number of hours spent reading, learning, thinking, and doing schoolwork.
[/quote]
how does one explain the number of academic slackers who score high each and every year?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>They did the first three of the four items listed. For the smarter ones the fourth, schoolwork, won't matter.</p>
<p>A 2400 will get you nowhere. Sorry kid. Personal experience.</p>
<p>National awards and extracurriculars will get you much, much farther.</p>
<p>
[quote]
how does one explain the number of academic slackers who score high each and every year?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Please define "academic slacker," and please give the number you are thinking about. </p>
<p>I think there is a well known answer to the question I think you are asking, but I want to make sure I understand you correctly.</p>
<p>token:</p>
<p>what's the answer?</p>
<p>A good friend's kid, now at USC, had a 1540 SAT (old test) and a 2.9 gpa. IMO, that is academic slacker. :)</p>
<p>I think I read on another thread earlier today that Harvard turned down 3200 students who had 2400 on their SATs? It doesn't have the clout it once did, at least not at that type of school. </p>
<p>1540 averages 770 on each section if by "old test" you mean w/o the writing section. The disparity between that and the GPA is interesting, but without knowing the courseload, or anything about the good friend's kid, I don't think any of us could label it slacking. I mean, perhaps all courses were AP, the student has a learning disability, and worked nights to save money for a grandparents kidney operation? I exaggerate, but I hope you understand my point. </p>
<p>Out of curiosity - why are you wanting validation on a label you've given your good friend's kid? I support my friends' children - I don't label them.</p>
<p>How could Harvard have turned down 3200 kids with 2400 SATs? There were fewer than 1000 kids last year who got 2400 (at least in on a single test -- but I think that's how Harvard counts things). I'm sure that the number of 2400 kids went up this year, due to more familiarity with the reconfigured test, but more than 3x? . . . and all of them applied to Harvard? . . . I don't buy it. (That doesn't mean I don't believe that Harvard turned down lots of 2400 kids. I know that's true.)</p>