<p>This June I scored well on the SAT. However, if I had gotten three more questions right, I would've gotten a perfect score. I am wondering if colleges really look badly on kids retaking the SAT who have 2300+ scores. I am not using my exact score so I don't come off as arrogant or egotistical.</p>
<p><em>Important</em> Yes, I do have a life. The problem is I was very unfocused in 9th grade and my 3.7ish GPA and low class rank reflect that. Also, please don't try to dissuade me from taking it by saying that it is "unnecessary" in terms of admissions chances. The data doesn't lie; admissions chances have been shown to exponentially increase as you approach a perfect score. Also, I would be retaking it with the plan to score perfectly.</p>
<p>Oh and btw - All of the colleges I am looking at practice "superscoring" for what its worth.</p>
<p>Admissions chances increase as you move by block. For instance, an 1800 is not the same as a 2200. But your chances do not significantly increase from a 2300 to a 2400. In fact, I’d daresay it would not significantly change from 2250+. </p>
<p>It is quite possible that retaking such a high score would reflect negatively on you. You could be the type of grade-grubbing, perfectionist that colleges do not want. If you’re already perfect, what more can you build upon? </p>
<p>In either case, your time would be MUCH better spend on improving your essay. Take the time you would use to prep/retake the SAT and use it to improve the essay. Time used in that way would impact your admissions chances more than such a slight increase in score.</p>
<p>See graphs on page 8. They do increase, very significantly, as you approach a perfect score. (I am being obstinate here because I don’t want people to continue laboring under the delusion that it doesn’t make a difference).</p>
<p>Anyways, thanks for the advice. I certainly do not WANT to retake the SAT, but I do want to increase my chances in anyway possible.</p>
<p>There are no graphs on page 8. I do see three graphs on page 6, with admissions data from Harvard, MIT, and Princeton. Your reading of the graphs is somewhat exaggerated. Depending on what scores you get on what sections, you would still be scoring at the 99th percentile from 2310+ (taking 760 CR, 790 M, 760 W). Increasing your score from 2400 would still put you at the 99th percentile, because it is statistically impossible to get anything higher. Therefore, retaking a 2310 would not yield significant returns. </p>
<p>Competitive colleges do not place much weight on freshman grades, provided that there has been a strong upward trend. Also, it is very unlikely that such a small increase in your SAT scores would outweigh a 3.7 GPA, no matter if you get a perfect. </p>
<p>Now, I understand that it is your decision and you are probably already set on it. I’m just telling you it’s a waste of time, from both experience and observation.</p>
<p>I think this is a distraction. Especially if you plan to apply to schools that take holistic very seriously. If you have a problem with 9th, the solution isn’t a 2400. It lies in the rest of the CA.</p>
<p>Agree with lookingforward for sure. I don’t see anyone laboring under an illusion. I see someone who is perhaps a little miffed that they were “almost perfect” but not quite.</p>
<p>@93tiger16 Sorry I wasn’t clear, I was referring to the eighth page in the overall pdf, but those were the right graphs. And I haven’t yet made up my mind, because you guys are making me doubt.</p>
<p>@lookingforward It certainly could be a distraction as it is traditionally hard for people to get “outside their own heads,” if you know what I mean. By the rest of the CA I am assuming you mean College App, and if that assumption is correct, then which parts specifically? Were you referring to “out of my control,” parts, such as the EC’s? Or the essays?</p>
<p>@keepingitlight Haha perhaps I am! Anyways I’d argue that people are laboring under illusion. As you can see, twice in this thread people have said something generally congruous to “beyond 2300 won’t help,” or “2250+ makes no difference,” you get the gist. The rest of the website is rampant with this idea. But, as you can see from the data that I posted, the idea is false. In fact, moving from the 99th percentile exactly to a perfect 100 percentile (which there obviously isn’t, but in this case I’m just referring to the top 250 kids who get a perfect), at Princeton, in whatever admissions cycle this study was done in, would take you from a ~18% chance to a ~37% chance. An almost 20% increase! This past year (2012), the 99th percentile was ~2210 composite. That means, assuming a simple linear relationship, increasing from 2300 to 2400 would give you a (very) approximate 10% increase in chances. As the previous data shows, there <em>IS</em> a positive relationship between admissions and SAT scores between 2300 and 2400. Thus, when a very large contingent of the College Confidential community is purporting a view opposite to this data, I wouldn’t be taking any liberties in saying that people are under an illusion. Anyways, I’m probably just confirming your view that I’m miffed but I thought I would make my point, (and also slack off on an essay I’m supposed to write for my GC rec).</p>
<p>Alright I’m going to go back to what I really should be doing. I am currently thinking I won’t take it again but maybe I will change my mind. Who knows.</p>
<p>There was a guy here who got 2380 and was bragging on how he was going to retake. He did and got the 2400. 93tiger: I’m afraid to say but he’s one of your classmates now.</p>
<p>I’m just glad he didn’t end up at my alma mater!</p>
<p>Hopefully I didn’t come off as a braggart! If I did, I really didn’t mean to - it’s a genuine question. I think my case is different than the typical braggart’s because I have a low class rank and gpa.</p>
<p>A candidate with 2400 may be stronger than one with 2300, but someone with 2300+ and retake the test would show his/her score obsessiveness disregarding the outcome particularly if that is a third or more attempt.</p>
My God. Probably gonna be one of those people who walk around campus acting like they have a stick up their a$$. In any case, please, OP, just note that that small increase likely did not make a difference. He/she was going to get in anyway based on other things, i.e. essays, ECs, etc. </p>
<p>But anyway, OP, I don’t see how the study made a 100th percentile. One would have to score above everybody else and that’s not possible; somebody else is always going to get a 2400. I guess you could have a 99.99999… percentile extending to infinity, but let’s not get into the statistics of it. </p>
<p>My point is, if you are in the 99th percentile, which you probably are if you’re in the 2300s, then your chances don’t change much if you increase your score within the 2300s. Now, if you get a 2400, that might change it a bit according to the graph, but there’s no guarantee that you can or will get a 2400. A couple small mistakes can ruin that - especially on the math portion. My advice: don’t bother.</p>
<p>CR 99 percentile is 760-790, 99+ is 800.
M 99 percentile is 790-800.
W 99 percentile is 760-790, 99+ is 800.</p>
<p>(So where does 100 percentile come from?)</p>
<p>Also, the graph for Princeton is a little odd, with admission chances falling from 93 to 98, with 99 being similar to 95, and 100 being higher.</p>
<p>However, your 3.7 GPA and “low” class rank are likely the bigger impediments to gaining admission to a super-selective college than the difference between a 2300-2390 SAT and a 2400 SAT.</p>
<p>The study is ten years old which probably makes it obsolete. The 10% gain from 2004 has likely been whittled down to almost nothing due to a larger application pool, higher scores, holistic admissions and lack of confidence in the SAT by Adcom. The 2014 gain is likely very small maybe a point or two, if any. Now the problem lies in that there’s no guarantee that you will do better. One bad testing session could take away a lot while a perfect testing session will provide very little. In my opinion it’s a poor investment, keeping in mind that most top schools will likely see all your scores. </p>
<p>To answer your question, the school could conclude that the applicant is short on critical reasoning skills.</p>
<p>as you can see from the data that I posted, the idea is false
You’re basing this on a study that tries to rank colleges by student preferences. Best I can tell, it’s based on a select group of high achievers in a hs class nearly 10 years ago. </p>
<p>Trying to come up with a proof a 2400 has a better guarantee than 2300 is futile. The vast proportion is rejected. </p>
<ul>
<li>I edited this and lost a comment to look at Brown’s breakout. P used to offer the same. Over 80% of vals/sals or 800s do not get an offer.<br></li>
</ul>
<p>This is where the holistic rubber meets the road.</p>
<p>I have registered for the October test. After 10 hours of time invested I have scored perfect on two tests in a row.</p>
<p>At this point I feel like the small time investment of continued practice (I’m guessing another 20 hours) is worth the possible pay off of some sort of increased chances.</p>
<p>Any other advice considering I haven’t had to lose tons of time studying?</p>
<p>I think it will make no difference to the colleges whatsoever. It won’t improve your chances nor will they hold it against you if you took it again.
BUT…Since you seem to think it will help you or may help you, will you regret it if you don’t take it and then don’t get accepted to some of your schools? If the answer is yes, then just take the test to calm your own mind and end all this endless speculation…</p>
<p>I might be too judgmental in this (compared to BeanTownGirl), but to me it’s a marker for “applicant can’t think of a better use of his time” and/or “applicant can’t deal with imperfections.” Even if it’s only 20 hours, it is still 20 hours.</p>
<p>Full disclosure: my son got very close to 2400 at his first sitting, would have laughed at anyone suggesting a re-take. His reaction to his score: awesome, that’s done, what’s next?</p>
<p>If they see that you retested from a 2300+, they’re likely to think that you haven’t got your priorities straight and don’t understand what education is about. If you’d scored 2400 on your first sitting, it’d be another matter. 3rd sittings to break 2000 are considered acceptable. 4th and more are very much frowned upon.
Fact is, even with your interpretation of the data, you don’t know how many got rejected with perfect scores BECAUSE they took the test several times and/or retested after a 2300+. Every adult who’s had experience with admissions will tell you and has told you it’s a terrible idea.
But if you’re hellbent on doing it and spending time on it rather than on ECs or essays (or sleep), then it’s your choice and your problem.</p>