<p>The problem is that it's not really information. It's just ignorant.</p>
<p>It is probably the equivalent of visiting campus and asking the same questions of students you might happen to meet. Not by any means a systematic survey, but better than nothing at all.</p>
<p>posterX, you have yet to demonstrate why the NMSC percentages matter.</p>
<p>Close. It's 1) Juilliard 2) Harvard 3) Yale</p>
<p>Oops.... didn't see the second page to this thread.</p>
<p>ummm...NMS is from PSAT scores...not even the real SATs.</p>
<p>Whats the point of using that? I know plenty of kids, including myself, who just didnt care on them and then did great on the SATs.</p>
<p>NMS depends on both PSAT and SAT, as well as overall academic record.</p>
<p>But you qualify based on PSATs. I didn't care or no about National Merit and did a solid 40-50 points better on the real thing (I'm talking like, add my SATI + SATII writing, I'm 400-500 points higher than my PSAT with 0's tacked on. I didn't study for any of these).</p>
<p>Beyond that, there has already been much discussion as to how the test is flawed (I think it's not HORRIFIC, just certain sections tested more than others. Unfortunately, said section no longer exists [analogies]).</p>
<p>PSAT's just made me nervous for no reason. I took that test twice, and both times, it forecasted a realistic goal of 2100; I scored over 200 points higher on the real test, albeit with a little practice. So either the SAT is "learnable", or the PSAT's suck. Both seem possible to me.</p>
<p>Those figures are outdated, AdamKidabra.</p>
<p>the SAT is learnable, anyone who's done a tutoring program or self-studied has to agree.</p>