<p>Does anybody have these kind of statistics?</p>
<p>Although everyone talks about how Harvard likes to reject 1600s, they still get in at a much higher rate than the average applicant. (maybe 30 to 40 %) I don't think that there would be much difference between a 1600 and a 1580 or 1560. If anything it might be a few percentage points higher for 1600s.</p>
<p>I disagree. I have heard alot od stories where a 1600/ val. student got rejected from all the top schools he/she applied to</p>
<p>I entirely doubt that a 1580 would have an advantage over an "otherwise equal" 1600.</p>
<p>Unfortunately we do not live in an idealised world so "otherwise equal," does not exist and statistics need to be taken and interpretted for what they are. There is a slight negative bias, even stigma, attached to 1600 students which is why they get rejected from so many top colleges. I would not be surprised at all if some data indicated that 1580s or 1560s get accepted at a higher rate than 1600s.</p>
<p>SHOW ME THE DATA if you believe it is an advantage to have a 1580 rather than a 1600. Of course, by the SAT standard score scale, a 1580 is indistinguishable from a 1600, really. (That is, a standard score of 1580 is within the error band of a score of 1600, and vice versa.)</p>
<p>cryptic fate, there are probably lots of stories (although they probably aren't talked about as much) about how people with 1580s or 1560s are rejected too. I don't really see your point.</p>
<p>You never get rejected for being a valedictorian with a 1600...</p>
<p>never? are u sure about that HH05?</p>
<p>You never get rejected for being a valedictorian with a 1600...</p>
<p>There has been ALOT of rejectees who were valedictorians as well as scored 1600 on the SAT. Just check the CC stats Roster for HYP.</p>
<p>I think what HH05 means is being a val with 1600 SAT HELPS not HURTS. Of course, the ones who are rejected are simply to academically focused to do otherwise, or at least that is the sterotype.</p>
<p>ooooh ok I understand now. Thanks for the clarification sinbad. Yeah i'm pretty sure i'd agree with that. I find it hard to believe a school would deem a student "overqualified" in order to humble itself.... that just doesn't make sense.</p>
<p>I'm willing to bet that 1600s get in a few percentage points above 1560 or 80, simply because no one ever talks about the "valedictorians with an 1560" who didn't get in. In any case, no one can guarantee anything without statistics, so hearing stories is meaningless.</p>
<p>I realized that the revealed preferences study had information about admission rates related to SAT scores, and that study shows "monotonically increasing" chances of getting in as SAT scores go up for most colleges, including Harvard and MIT. In other words, a 1600 is more advantageous than a 1560, and so on down the scoring scale.</p>
<p>Yeah, that's pretty much what I meant. No one says "but this kid is a valedictorian with a 1600!" and then rejects him/her based on that.</p>