<p>I got my December subject test scores today. It was the first time for me taking the SAT ||. Anyway, I got
Math lvl 1 - 770
Math lvl 2 - 760
World History - 600</p>
<p>What do you think, are they good enough for Harvard?
P.S. I can't retake the SAT ||, not enough time, I am retaking SAT | in January</p>
<p>To start, best just to mention this on their site:</p>
<p>[Harvard</a> College Admissions § Applying: Frequently Asked Questions](<a href=“http://www.admissions.college.harvard.edu/apply/faq.html#11]Harvard”>http://www.admissions.college.harvard.edu/apply/faq.html#11)</p>
<p>Thus, in theory, if you needed any two scores, you’d be in good shape sat ii wise, however, for Harvard admissions, as noted above, you cannot submit both math scores, thus, they will take your lvl 1 and your WH. Thus, you have one great score and one okay score.</p>
<p>Thanks 
But one question: Should not I submit both Math scores to Harvard anyway? Because, as I have understood, they don’t allow me to submit only Math lvl 1 and Math lvl 2, but as it appears, I can submit Math lvl 1 and WH as required ones and Math lvl 2 as a supplement.</p>
<p>Yes, I would say submit them all.</p>
<p>are you kidding? why are you wasting our time?</p>
<p>Normally a 760 is a good score for the SAT 2, but the curve for Math 2 is really generous, so it’s not too impressive.</p>
<p>The curve for math2 is not only generous but it is also a very unreliable way of admissions to know where you stand in the subject you chose. If you don’t have an 800 in it I would strongly advise not sending it as your top 2 to an IVY. Send it as a supplement. The SAT2 is supposed to show how proficient you are at two subjects of your choosing, obviously your strongest subjects, compared to the rest of the nation so the most important thing about each test is not the score but actually the PERCENTILE. The Chinese test has a national average of 750 so one would think getting a 740 on any test is very good but that would land you in the 40 percentiles in the Chinese test which would get you somewhat the same praise as someone with a 590 in Literature because those are the percentiles that match. Very misleading and should be taken to light by applicants. </p>
<p>This applies to math2 as well as an 800 is only in the 86th percentile while for example a mere 740 in Biology E is 90th percentile. Make sure you look at the percentile tables to see just how impressive your score is. Colleges don’t care if your score begins with a 7 or not. They want to know for a fact that they are taking the top percentage of the students in the country so to be brutally honest, none of those scores are in the least bit impressive. Study and retake. </p>
<p>-golden</p>
<p>He cannot retake. A 760 for maths 2 is not bad - it is not great for Harvard, but not bad. The reason the percentiles differ so much is that the collegeboard tries to keep a 700 in subject a the same as a 700 in subject b</p>
<p>How can that be you may ask when 700 in Korean may be the 20th percentile whereas a 700 in eng lit may be the 95th?</p>
<p>It is because some subjects are very self selecting - most people take maths 1, so the people who take maths 2 are Good math people. People who take physics are good physics people. Whereas eng lit - the most popular sat 2 test - is taken by everyone because it sounds easy (myself included).</p>
<p>SO</p>
<p>760 in maths 2 == 760 in Korean == 760 in lit even though the percentiles may be 75, 50, 95… Due to the collegeboard correcting to self selection in the test takers</p>
<p>So, the 660 is not good. The others are not bad, but not great. Since you cannot retake I would submit them all</p>
<p>golden honestly doesn’t understand math.</p>
<p>The pool of Chinese SAT2 test takers is higher selecting than the Lit SAT2 (for obvious reasons). Since these test takers are naturally better their average score should be higher. A 760 Math II = 760 Lit = 760 Chinese = 760 etc…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let’s see you get into any top schools with a sub 740 Chinese SAT2 and then come back and tell me I don’t understand math. I’m not trying to spew nonsense, I’m simply saying that a lower math score (as well as a lower Chinese/Korean score) is just not as impressive as the same score in another subject with higher percentile ranking. You’d be foolish to disagree; I’ve had numerous guidance counselors and private college advisors tell me this.</p>
<p>^ You did not read our posts. Greed summed up mine perfectly - the collegeboard takes into account self selection of test takes. </p>
<p>You have made no argument against this except to say that “people” have told you so. I must tell you something about my position too: You’d be foolish to disagree (with it); I’ve had numerous guidance counselors and private college advisors tell me (that it is the score, not the percentile that matters).</p>
<p>If you can REFUTE our argument, then please do. If you are just going to make unsubstantiatable references to what other people have told you as a point against what we are logically arguing then I agree with Greed:
‘golden honestly doesn’t understand math.’</p>
<p>You are implying that in college admission departments there are secret tables of comparisons between the 20 SAT subject tests. Why would they have that? Why would the collegeboard not just send in the percentiles if that is the case, why bother converting to a 200-800 score? </p>
<p>SELF SELECTION</p>
<p>The 200-800 score is what the colleges look at.</p>
<p>Let us take an example: By your (logic?) an 800 in math 1 would be better than an 800 in math 2 - percentiles 99+ and 90 respectively. This is obviously baseless, because the math 2 is the harder test, so why penalise the top top students who nail the harder test? Math 2 has a nice curve and math 1 has a horrible curve to ensure that these two 800’s represent a similar achievement.</p>
<p>Think, don’t just say “Well some people said this thing and they appeared to know what they were talking about and I listened and then I saw this argument and I though hey people said this and they seemed to know what they were talking about so I will say it.” Substantiate, reason, argue.</p>
<p>Ok, I think you are misunderstanding me. What I was simply saying, which I assume was interpreted differently by both of you was this:</p>
<p>It is detrimental to your college application to have scores below or near the national percentile vs. another score of the same numerical identity in a different subject which has a much higher percentile ranking. </p>
<p>First your math1 vs. math2 argument is flawed because we both know math1 focuses on elementary concepts when compared to math2; that’s why most colleges don’t even take math1, and again, I was not trying to say that percentiles are the SOLE determining factor which I think is the main misunderstanding here. I understand self selection and obviously the 200-800 number obviously means something and has significance, but I was indeed saying percentile is definitely a factor. </p>
<p>My reasoning is plain common sense. If you submit a score in which over 60% of applicants in the nation are going to have a higher score than you with a vast majority of them probably being in the same applicant pool of that college, that is obviously a disadvantage because colleges aren’t going to say “Oh well we understand Chinese kids are really smart; we’ll give this guy a break and give him the same prestige as someone who scored in the 95th percentile in another subject” when over half the kids in the entire United States that chose that test can score higher than him. However, if you have another score that is numerically identical but somewhere in the 90-95 percentile of the nation so therefore only a maximum of 5% of applicants can have identical or superior scores that bodes better for you. If you are seriously trying to argue that those scores are indeed completely identical in the college admission process your argument is so off base and flawed it would be a waist of my time to even come back and post in this thread.</p>
<p>Let me take an extreme example. Consider the poor IDIOT who came LAST in the International Maths Olympiad. What an idiot he must be - of course not. </p>
<p>So, your “plain common sense reasoning” makes no sense when we take into account selection bias (which you still don’t seem to understand?)</p>
<p>[Let</a> me google that for you](<a href=“LMGTFY - Let Me Google That For You”>LMGTFY - Let Me Google That For You)</p>
<p>“If you submit a score in which over 60% of applicants in the nation are going to have a higher score”
NO
60% of TEST TAKERS, not applicants. And this is where my extreme IMO example is important - is it better to be beaten by 3000 people taking SAT 2 physics (think my numbers are right here) and be in the 50th percentile or to be beaten by 70 000 people to be in the 50th percentile in eng lit. Also note that the average physics taker will be better at physics that the average lit taker at lit (see self selection again). So that is why these 2 achievements may be worthy of the same score.</p>
<p>5% of 140 000 people taking eng lit > 50% of 6000 people taking physics.</p>
<p>Percentiles are misleading. Cboard corrects fully for this. The number is all that matters. But I guess you will not be coming back to this thread because I am still holding to my ‘off base’ argument and it will be a ‘waist’ of your time. </p>
<p>Actually maybe it is better to close it here. OP’s question has been answered and this doesn’t seem to be going anywhere. If you have something interesting then I would be interested but I guess from here on in we would be just re hashing old arguments.</p>
<p>Happy new year</p>
<p>^u tha man u simply nailed it.I agree wit ur xplanation</p>
<p>^ Your support and belief mean the absolute world to me.</p>
<p>^lol</p>
<p>10 char</p>
<p>To start off my two cent contribution to this argument I will make the claim that both of you are extremely arrogant and will not cede to any argument presented before you with which you initially disagree with. </p>
<p>I will then continue my two cent contribution by pointing out that both of you are correct in some of your points. Yes, scores do probably matter more to an admissions officer than percentiles do. After all, each school has a different set of people applying. For example, MIT may take a look at a 750 in lit and say “wow, this applicant is not only skilled in math and science, but also in English”. At the same time, a college focused almost entirely on English may look at a 750 in lit and say “ok, decent”. That same admissions committee would regard a 750 in math 1 as incredible. Do you understand? Essentially, admissions committees will interpret the number- percentiles wont make a substantial difference to them.</p>
<p>However, there is something to learn from percentiles- mainly, the common difficulty of the test in relation to the test takers ability. </p>
<p>Still, an admissions committee must look at the application holistically. </p>
<p>Would someone agree that a 750 in Math 2 from a kid who never sat through a Calc course is much more impressive than someone with the same score who did? Of course. </p>
<p>Would someone also agree that an 800 in Chinese from a China native is not nearly as impressive as an 800 from a black American who never learned Chinese at home?</p>
<p>I would have to agree with myself (obv.)</p>
<p>But, I look slightly less arrogant because I agreed with both of you. Hooray for me.</p>
<p>I have concluded my two cent contribution. More hoorays.</p>
<p>^ I think you’re making way too many assumptions about how admissions works. e.g.
“Would someone agree that a 750 in Math 2 from a kid who never sat through a Calc course is much more impressive than someone with the same score who did? Of course”</p>
<p>I sure as hell would want a kid who took calc and did well in math 2 over a kid who didn’t take calc and did well in math 2. Calc isn’t even covered in the math 2 test; therefore, the kid who has the more rigorous schedule wins.</p>
<p>In summary, there’s no need to call people arrogant. We can have a debate without name-calling.</p>
<p>How about we all calm down and be happy that college apps are almost done and a new year with great prospects has begun?</p>
<p>@OP - Your scores are pretty good, except the World History is probably a bit low for Harvard. I would bump it up a bit but if you can’t it probably won’t hurt you too much.</p>
<p>You have just said that scores are important in context - which (and this is a nice thing for me to be able to do) is completely correct! </p>
<p>But then you agree with what I say?</p>
<p>“Essentially, admissions committees will interpret the number- percentiles wont make a substantial difference to them.”</p>
<p>So… you have just agreed with me, but tacked context onto the end?</p>
<p>and you Mentos are a dirty dirty little &@<em>#&</em>$ (#$<em>&(# $ (</em>$ (@# $ 98& #$<em>(& _#@(</em>)</p>
<p>(how can you have an argument without name calling!@!!!) :)</p>