<p>I thought my scores were fine until I started looking at the threads on CC. For Wharton, I was told that if you didn’t have a 2300, you shouldn’t waste your time applying. That kind of mentality made me a bit unsure about my score. But after seeing what everyone has been saying on this thread, I feel a bit more at ease,</p>
<p>I’ll be blunt, a ~2050 certainly won’t help your application and without any significant hook you’re definitely at a disadvantage when juxtaposed with the thousands of qualified applicants.</p>
<p>I hear that a lot: “significant hook.” What kind of hook is significant. I’m a pakistani-muslim-canadian, in Maine (the least diverse state). I’ve lived in Milwaukee, Chicago, Ottawa, and rather tiny hamlets in New Brunswick and Maine. I am a fantastic orator- something my teachers praised in my reccs. I have volunteered A LOT ( just received the President’s Volunteer Service Award). I have held an internship at a medical clinic. Placed 25th in the nation for a national chess tournament once. TONS of ECs and leadership positions. I have plenty more hooks that I won’t bore anyone with, but I don’t really know what a “significant hook” would be like. Do you have any examples, Jersey13?</p>
<p>significant hook like URM ( under represented minority), ( since you are pakistani you would be considered asian unfortuantely), legacy, national/ international recognition, or recruited athlete. These are just some and people always debate the “significance” of these hooks because there have been a lot of URM legacy peeps who have been rejected.</p>
<p>When will people at CC realize that GPA/transcript is twice as important as the test scores?</p>
<p>That a 4.0/2100 is much more impressive than a 3.7-3.8/2400, assuming that SAT II scores and such are the same, and assuming that there’s not significant grade inflation. </p>
<p>Maybe you all should realize that people with 2300+ scores got in because people with 2300+ scores are more likely to have higher stats in other categories as well, be better writers, and succeed more in school? I honestly don’t think colleges care about SAT scores too much once you get into the 2000+ range. Sure, it helps, but as a Yale adcom said, they measure academics, ECs, and perhaps most of all, character. SAT scores don’t make up half the equation.</p>
<p>You still have a chance with a 2100. Though, and I say this with all due respect, the chances of getting in are prbly a lot lower than they would be if you did have a 2300+. Just take a look at the chance threads and u’ll see what I mean. Virtually every white/asian applicant has a 2300+ if they were accepted. Maybe it is because they were overacheiving students and did well in other things too. However, I honestly dont buy that. I think test scores are right behind your transcript in importance and that 2100 will hurt you greatly if you don’t have any major awards/hooks to save you. Though, I am no Adcom and may be wrong.</p>
<p>
When everyone on CC is just like you - a 4.0/2100 student who wants it to seem like he has a better shot and therefore subconsciously belittles the weighting of the SAT score.</p>
<p>HYPS gets tons of applicants who are top in their grade-inflating easy public schools because they work really hard, but aren’t really the “smartest” or most “well-reasoning” student at their schools by far (I’m sure every one knows kids with this phenomenon, but it is hard to explain). Consequently they often end up struggling through college w/ B averages because they can’t handle the extreme jump in academic rigor. SAT scores are a decent way to observe whether an applicant is this kind of student or not.</p>
<p>That said, I have no idea what the cutoff is. All college admissions offices keep their own statistics on this (charts of SAT or high school GPAs on x axis, college GPAs on y axis), so they probably all have their own SAT ranges that they find to be the cutoff for a normal, unhooked applicant.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Even though a score close to 2100 is amazing, the OP is aiming for Harvard, where the scores are closer to the upper limits than his is. In this case a 2100 is kind of a cause for insecurity.</p>
<p>Ya…overall a 2100 is great relative to most of America. However, when applying to harvard, you are up against the best of the best…most of whom do have that 2300+</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not nearly twice as important. A person with a 2100 has an extremely low shot of getting into a top tier school. I’d take a 3.8/2400 over a 4.0/2100 any day. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sadly, there is a massive difference between 2100 and 2400 and even 2200 and 2400. Even a 100 point difference will help you (or hurt you) significantly in admissions. I don’t know where CCers get the idea that scores stop mattering at some arbitrary cut-off.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>30,000 people apply to Harvard, I think the number of 2300+ scorers is less than 10,000. Furthermore, not all of those 10,000 apply to Harvard so the vast majority of applicants have scores below 2300.</p>
<p>I’m just saying that I think people realize that a 100 point difference might be only three questions or so. Or the extremely subjective weighting of the SAT writing section essay. (Yes, I 'm a bit bitter about this myself, but you can google around for some pretty badly written essays that have scored 12s because they perfectly emulate the kind of formulaic writing that the graders are looking for)</p>
<p>I really think that Harvard is looking less for applicants who academically stand out as opposed to those who personally stand out. I don’t think there’s much of a difference between a 2100 and a 2200 or a 2200 and a 2300. Yes, there’s a difference, but I personally feel that they take the academic factors into account so that they’ll know you can take the course rigor. Many white/asian applicants are accepted with scores around 2100/2050 or so. Not quite as many, true, but they are accepted. Yes, I’m a bit biased about this, but Yale outright says that they care more about the transcript than test scores. Other schools should believe the same. It’s all about the following principle: the best way to judge future performance is past performance. If you’ve got someone in there with a GPA below 3.75 and a 2300+ SAT score, it might say that that person doesn’t work quite as hard as someone with a 2200+ SAT score and a 4.0 GPA, without taking into account grade inflation, etc. It’s only a few questions. </p>
<p>And yes, I’m a bit biased, and you can see my scores on my chance threads - but I really don’t think they’ll care between a 34 and a 35. A 33 and a 35 and a 32 and a 34, there’s a little difference. But after a while, people need to realize that a less than 40 point difference on the SAT or one point on the ACT really doesn’t matter much at all. </p>
<p>After they get a sense of your academics, they’ll want to know a few things: depth of EC involvement, essays (perhaps the most important), and teacher recommendations. These, I will argue, are much more important as a distinguishing factor in admissions, than a point on the ACT or a 30 point margin on the SAT.</p>
<p>"I really think that Harvard is looking less for applicants who academically stand out as opposed to those who personally stand out. "</p>
<p>I think Harvard is looking for both, but that being an academic standout in Harvard’s pool means far more than having high stats. An academic standout might be, for instance, a student with sky high stats and an article published in a professional history journal, top awards in National History Fair, and an outstanding recommendation by a history professor.</p>
<p>Ancalagon4554, </p>
<p>The whole reason a vast majority of colleges require standardized test scores is because they are standardized. HS GPAs and ranks are flawed by a large number of variables for which application readers cannot account for. Why would you take a 4.0/2100 when often the 4.0 is heavily inflated, resulted from an easy course load or just from an incredibly easy high school. I would prefer a 3.7-3.8/2400 over a 4.0/2100 any day.</p>
<p>“An academic standout might be, for instance, a student with sky high stats and an article published in a professional history journal, top awards in National History Fair, and an outstanding recommendation by a history professor.” - I agree 100%. But that would also show a passion for history: ECs and awards would reflect that, maybe even the essays as well. SAT isn’t everything. For Princeton, the 2100-2290 range still has an above average acceptance rate (11% as opposed to 10 or 9 percent). Granted, the 2300-2400 SAT range gains many more applicants, but colleges don’t rely on test scores alone. Colleges also know that standardized tests tend to favor the upper class applicants, those who can afford really good test prep. True: a 2300+ will definitely make a difference, but there’s nothing to say that a 2100 with other great stats is at a huge disadvantage.</p>
<p>“Why would you take a 4.0/2100 when often the 4.0 is heavily inflated, resulted from an easy course load or just from an incredibly easy high school. I would prefer a 3.7-3.8/2400 over a 4.0/2100 any day.”
Of course, but I wouldn’t take a 3.6/2300 over a 4.0/2200. SAT isn’t everything. Keep in mind that many adcoms do know the schools in their region, so they’ll know when a 4.0 is tough to pull off. Of course, they won’t know them all, but they’ll know the big names.</p>
<p>“URMs still have a tough time getting in with 1800s and 3.0s” </p>
<p>Asians have a tough time getting in with 2400’s and 4.0’s.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And GPA isn’t everything. Keep in mind that the adcom would know BOTH schools, so it’s quite possible that adcoms would realize the 3.6/2300 comes from a much tougher school, while the 4.0/2200 is simply an average student at a sub-par school.</p>