<p>Title.
For example, I just got my own results back, and I got 780 on Physics which seems great at first but apparently that's only an 86th percentile. Meanwhile, I got 750 on US History which seems worse, but it's actually a higher 91st percentile. Which seems better/ is it necessary to retake the physics test? I've heard different opinions on this matter. Some people say colleges only look at the raw scores, while others say getting an 800 in Math II and 800 in Bio are very differently held.</p>
<p>Those are great scores and definitely nothing to be gained by retaking. A very high achieving group of students are taking these tests so the percentiles are skewed. </p>
<p>@gibby Don’t Ivies claim to be “holistic” about everything? For example, if they strictly use the AI Calculations, why would they explicitly say that an 800 in a native language is less impressive than an 800 in some other test?</p>
<p>Holistic means that your acceptance is based upon other factors besides test scores. </p>
<p>Colleges uses test scores to gauge if you can do the work on their campus. At the ivies, the higher your AI score, the less an Admissions Director will question how you would do on their campus if admitted. Once your test scores are used to calculate the AI, other more subjective factors come into play, such as your transcript rigor, GPA, teacher recommendations, EC’s and essays. </p>
<p>I like the scattergram as it nicely highlights how more than half the class had an unweighted 4.0 GPA at their high school regardless of test scores. To me that implies that Harvard (and probably the rest of the ivies as well) put more weight – or slightly more weight, however you want to read the data – on a student’s unweighted GPA at their high school rather than test scores. </p>
<p>@gibby I understand scores aren’t everything but that wasn’t my question. If schools calculate AIs by simply plugging in numbers, why would anyone bother taking the more difficult subject tests? Isn’t it wildly unfair that an 800 in a native language be counted equally as one in for example Biology E where an 800 is a 99+ percentile?</p>
<p>Much of the college applications process is unfair. Some students attend feeder high schools that send 1/4 to 1/2 of their students to ivy league schools, while other kids attend high schools where no one has gotten into an ivy in years. Other kids have parents who can afford to pay to have them tutored for SAT/ACT tests, while others employ consultants to help with essays, etc. The entire process is unfair from so many angles – that’s just the nature of the beast. </p>
<p>From everything I’ve read – and with 2 kids at ivy league schools, I’ve read a lot – the ivies use your 2 highest SAT Subject Test scores regardless of percentiles. The exception is if you take an SAT Foreign Language Subject Test in your native language – then that score is discounted. For the rest of the SAT Subjects tests – be it Math 1 vs Math 2 or Bio E vs Bio M etc – just the top scores are used and not the percentiles.</p>
<p>FWIW: At colleges like HYPSM which receive 30,000+ applications, Admissions officers have about 12 minutes to read a file – that includes looking over your transcript, course rigor, test scores, EC’s, teacher recommendations and essays – and then making notes on the applicant. Admissions Directors probably spend LESS than 20 seconds looking at test scores and they have more important things to access.</p>
<p>I thought the Ivy academic index was only for athletes, didn’t think it was in any way relevant to non-athlete applicants?</p>
<p>Edited to add, I see that term is now also used for the number admissions may use as a quick view of the credentials for each applicant. I was aware of the number, just didn’t realize it was called an AI in a non-athletic context.</p>
<p>OP, for exams like Math II, Bio, Physics and Chem, the students taking them are usually highly qualifies and high achievers. More students take lit over Math II which explains the difference </p>