<p>I guess, but not always. Sure, smart kids will mostly do well on these tests. Not so smart kids will mostly do poorly on these tests. But there is always the smart kids who do poorly and the not so smart kids that do well. The SAT and ACT are just multiple choice tests. Do they have some worth in measuring students’ abilities? Sure. But a lot of it is just how good you are at taking tests. A good test score will only get you so far in college admissions (to selective colleges at least).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My opinion is that the SAT/ACT are remedial tests. A smart person who is reasonably advanced (in the top track at high school) should do extremely well on them. Whether or not they make zero mistakes vs. 2-3 mistakes doesn’t say much about someone’s potential, though, so a subscore of 800 doesn’t indicate to me that that person is more talented than someone with 750. I think that when you get beyond a 50 point difference on a subsection, it does mean something in terms of real abilities, although MIT admissions does not seem to agree with me. For their rhetoric, it sounds like anything above 700 is treated the same. </p>
<p>Saying some people are “not good at tests” is kind of an excuse, though. If you are good at math and have taken algebra and geometry, I don’t understand why you wouldn’t ace the math section, for instance. Similarly, if you’ve taken a decent AP course in a science, you should have no problem getting a 750+ on that SATII.</p>
<p>
That’s more like a pretext, not an excuse.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think it’s more true on the SAT IIs than on the SAT I, where losing a few points can severely drop your score at shocking rates. As an anecdote, my highest score on the SAT I back in the day was definitely not the math section, although it was not hard in any way, but I got an 800 on the II.</p>
<p>It definitely means something, although to be honest, I’m more of a fan of free response “justify your answers” type tests. Probably the 700+ rule means it means something, but nothing that is valuable enough to seriously change your admissions outcome. Whether or not it should is of course its own discussion. </p>
<p>Personally, I think the 700+ guideline is too loose, but ideally there would be better tests (the SAT II is too calculator-gameable, and a good vs. somewhat worse score on the I seems to depend too much on not making a careless mistake in the time limit). I think it depends a lot on which test we’re talking about. The difference between a 700 and a 750 on many subject tests seems to be some extra time with a review book, and taking the test after a course that doesn’t expressly prepare you for it could result in a much less favorable result. This seems to be why I cleared 750 consistently on the tests, while some around me who probably could have didn’t.</p>
<p>I always thought the AP tests are fine. They’re not too hard, and they could be tougher (particularly some – others seem to be pretty tough), but they are basically the right idea, because what they cover doesn’t feel random, and they definitely make you concentrate and know the basic things well enough for most non-math-specialists.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What kind of potential? Depends a lot on that. </p>
<p>A 2400 (as opposed to 2300) can reflect general excellence in test-taking and very clear thinking under time constraints, and that can be valuable. But the key is it has to reflect all-round excellence in school, and the score by itself can be hard to analyze.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Honestly, it’s kind of nifty. It’s not what I value most, but I honestly can’t see myself getting a 2400, even if I’d tend to score high. </p>
<p>I think the most interesting thing is how people’s achievements relate to their actual talents, and a 2400 is objectively not that easy to achieve. I wouldn’t glorify someone with one as a genius, far, far from it. But I’d be interested what led to that 2400.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Reading the official prep book. Taking all the practice tests in the official prep book.</p>
<p>Is that general advice, or your particular story? I’m not sure I could get a 2400 that way, because I tend to make mistakes a lot more often than not. I’d probably make mistakes on each of the practice tests too.</p>
<p>
Or maybe just knowing Math and English well enough?</p>
<p>Scoring 2400 (or close) is not only easy but also a good sign of if someone can set a goal and achieve it. If someone is looking for ‘future promise’ it is a good measure too. But the drawback is that it is very objective 
and too many people qualify by that measure. So adcoms look for something that ‘stands out’ or ‘unusual’ so that they can get a good mix. If you are accepted you can’t be normal. Something stood out and begged attention. No doubts. So, basically it all depends on how well you can market yourself. It’ll not only help you now but also in the future.</p>
<p>Meant “not easy …and, not " not only easy…but”</p>
<p>So it depends on how you define the word “normal” in terms of MIT admissions.</p>
<p>By normal I meant , good GPA (3.9+) and good SAT 2250+ , but no awards, no valedictorian, no top ranks, no “research”, no URM, not an athlete, no summer job, no summer college classes, no extensive travel, no summer volunteering, no ‘founding clubs’, not a club leader, not an entrepreneur etc.,. Just normal, studious brilliant students who are just good at studies but may not be interested in other areas or seek out opportunities by themselves either due to lack of awareness/environment. This also includes shy/childish/late bloomers/introverts and others who don’t have proper guidance.</p>
<p>Well, it sounds like by “normal” you mean people who do well in school but aren’t involved in activities or in their community otherwise. If that’s the case, then “normal” will probably not get you in.</p>
<p>If by “normal” you mean people who did well in school and were involved in those activities they cared about/were interested in (that may or may not include the ones you mentioned) but were not superstars and were not URMs, etc., then those types of people are admitted regularly. The point is to demonstrate that you’re passionate about things, that you’re an active part of the world around you, and that you care. IMO, this can be demonstrated in some way regardless of your background and environment.</p>
<p>(This is all, of course, how I see things and I’m just a freshman and really know nothing about admissions)</p>
<p>That is my point. Just being passionate about your studies is not good enough. And there are many like that. Just look around yourself and see how many of the passionate professors went to non-elite schools for undergraduate but still turned out to be passionate in their profession ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Does top rank and/or valedictorian really help that much in absence of awards? Maybe if from a buzzword elite preparatory school? By the way, I think you make a very good point from what I observe about general trends, although I’m not sure how much the remarks apply to a given specific school.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It has been expressly suggested to me when discussing this before with others that if those activities were too centered on learning for personal pleasure with the absence of much else, there weren’t too many rewards for that kind of thing. Basically, “normal” and does-well-at-school certainly can fall within the category of “normal and passionate.”</p>
<p>Usually Valedictorian status is unknown at the time of college admissions so valedictiran and top ranks mean the same for this purpose. Yes I think it can help in some cases when the colleges look for diversity, especially geographical. Also by normal I mean being passionate in studies but not standing out from the crowd by other means due to several reasons.</p>
<p>Definitely agree that context matters when judging accomplishments. I have seen kids who had every advantage and were valedictorians fail to get into any top schools while kids with very significant obstacles who were maybe top 3% barely got in to many top schools. However the kids with the obstacles also had great personalities and did some pretty kickass things even though they were not anything like international awards. They were just really unique uses for their talents, signs of maturity and responsibility, ways they solved problems, etc. alongside a true, happy passion for science and math. It’s truly not all about a list of awards or stats. It’s the big picture.</p>
<p>Just passion for learning won’t be sufficient and what counts is how you standout from the rest of the crowd. I think big picture is sort of vague and hard to define.</p>