<p>Dufus, there is a flaw behind your logic. </p>
<p>Just because the middle50% ranges at harvard are 700-790 for V and M does not necessarily mean that 25% of the students have SATs under 1400 and 25% have scores over 1580. Not very many students are all that well-rounded. A person scoring 800 on the math section may only score 710 on the critical reading section. Likewise, a person scoring 640 on the math may have scored 790 on the critical reading.</p>
<p>Dooit's point is corrrect in one sense, but I'm not sure it matters for the issue at hand. Just adding the individual CR and Math scores to get a combined score does have a slight bias: in reality, the true combined score will be slightly higher at the 25% figure and slightly lower at the 75% figure. There is data on certain individual college sites (e.g., Rice) or CDS reports (e.g, Washington and Lee) -- which list 25/75 for CR and M and also an actual combined 25/75 that bears this out. The difference aren't huge, though, maybe 20 or 30 points. And it doesn't really change the issue of trying to derive a median at H (or Y or P) from a 25/75 range; it just jiggers the numbers.</p>
<p>I've seen the SAT 50% range at Harvard published as 1400-1580 without reference to the individual M and V scores. I wasn't adding them together.</p>
<p>Actually I have made reference to the fact before that some of the "lower" SAT scores at Harvard may be because of some of the people have 800M and 660V. I don't think it is all URM's, legacies, athletes, development cases, VIPS, and ED applicants. Some people have reacted to this with the "well rounded" student argument. For the purpose of life, well rounded is probably good, but probably not for getting into Harvard.</p>
<p>Typically the admission guides say that a 1550 is as good as a 1600. Some people on CC have extended this to say that a 1450 is as good as a 1600. I don't think this is true. The overall %-accepted at Harvard is about 10%. Based on some data about perfect SAT scores that CB published a few years ago, the %-accepted at Harvard for perfect SAT's was 40-45%. This sounds really bad, but you can also see it as meaning that applicants with perfect SAT's have four times the chance of an average applicant.</p>
<p>dufus3709:</p>
<p>But if you are referring to 1400-1580 on US News or Princeton Review or one of those Ivy League we'll help you get in sites, those numbers are themselves a product of adding up of the separate CR and M scores. On the CDS, most schools report only the separate CR and M 25/75 numbers; they do not report an actual combined 25/75 figure; US News/Princeton Review add it up to give a proxy combined. If you have some other source for the 1400-1580 maybe then it is a real combined, not a proxy.</p>
<p>Your little hypothetical table re H just begs the question. Once your table leaves off, then you have a huge drop down to 1400; who says the percetnages work that way? Most to the point, your example simply doesn't jibe with the actual data from Princeton -- 1450 median SAT for ED this years. You can say, well the ED is really low and the RD will be so much higher as to get you up to a 1540 (or 1530) median. But your just saying that -- and the RD numbers really would be preposterours, given that the ED admits account for 50% of the class. And there is the Swarthmore data; you could make the same type of table for Swat you did for H, and it would not work out to the real number: 1440 median.</p>
<p>Why do you keep saying 1450 median for SAT for ED for Princeton this year. The article said average. There isn't a mathematician on earth who says average if they mean median.</p>
<p>After the hypothetical table goes down to 1-3% for each SAT score, it would level off. At that level, SAT scores are not so much a factor as hooks.</p>
<p>Maybe you should believe what you want and be happy. :)</p>
<p>I'm not afraid of the people that got in-its possible that ccers have way better stats then non ccers. Its the people with perfect scores that get rejected that scares me. those arent affected by a small pool like the people who got in. well, no matter what, im nervous.</p>
<p>OP's point is very true...use CC as a reference site, but definitely dont base decisions only on it! college admissiosn officers arent always going to only want what the stereotype of applicants are. if youre close to being in range of scores, you have SOME chance</p>
<p>dufus3709 --</p>
<p>Oh please. I hardly think the news@princeton article was written by a mathematician. What else to you think numbers like 720, 730, and 720 are if not medians? You think you add up all the SAT scores for ED admits, divide by 599 and get those round numbers. </p>
<p>Your are the one who declared that the median SAT at H,Y,P is 1530 (or 1540 or 1550). My only purpose is to suggest that you should not throw around as fact what you don't know. It is not helpful to this Board.</p>
<p>I don't know what the medians are at H. And neither do you. And what numbers we do have about medians at elite schools do not support your hypothesized distribution that yields a 1540 median. It is not me who is believing what he wants.</p>
<p>(None of which is to say I disagree with your points about what counts for getting into to H or that a 1450 is not quite the same as a 1600. )</p>
<p>
[quote]
What else to you think numbers like 720, 730, and 720 are if not medians? You think you add up all the SAT scores for ED admits, divide by 599 and get those round numbers.
[/quote]
Why would it come out to a number like 1453? It would be something like 1453.7346575665356543, but they would round to the significant number of digits.</p>
<p>(Actually, the CB once did report scores to the unit place so that people would have scores like 782V 698M. In 1970, they started rounding to the tens place. Not a bad move.)</p>
<p>As I see it, your argument is based on the supposition that a news article must have meant median when they said average because they would never have rounded to the correct number of significant digits.</p>
<p>Sorry, but I don't see any point to this. Actually I still think that the OP was a troll. I'm signing off of this thread so that it can die.</p>
<p>I find it outrageous that college adcoms will admit students largely based on their so-called "uniqueness"</p>
<p>academic performance shouldn't be everything, but admitting an applicant for their passion in "grooming a horse and winning the national horse beauty pagent" is absurd, not that adcoms will ever do such thing. </p>
<p>Where can one draw the lines in being unique? Can such term even be applied to a high school teenager? </p>
<p>I guess the adcoms ultimately do admit that human factors are deeply related with the admission. Its either that the adcom likes you or not.</p>
<p>I hope that the fact that I'm more unique than most people gives me an advantage.</p>
<p>I'm also really good with grammar and usage.</p>
<p>dufus, i read that book too! isn't it good?</p>
<p>tlkqaf:grooming a horse and winning the national horse beauty pagent" sounds pretty cool to me. i'd love to make friends with that kinda talent.</p>
<p>hahah one of my friends actually has 2 horses in her backyard :)<br>
but she doesnt let anyone ride on it :(</p>