<p>GOld or silver medal either in IMO, Ipho, IBO, IChemO,…shall suffice. Really, I don’t know many ppl who are rejected with these at top schools</p>
<p>i would say you at least have a 90% chance, although of course there are no guarantees</p>
<p>@silverturtle:
</p>
<p>Where did you get this statistic? I’m just curious, since I haven’t seen it and it seems odd.</p>
<p>lidusha, I estimated the number based on the available data:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>297 people scored 2400 on the SAT (source: <a href=“http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/sat_percentile_ranks_composite_cr_m_w.pdf[/url]”>http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/sat_percentile_ranks_composite_cr_m_w.pdf</a>). Add 50 for superscored 2400 = 347.</p></li>
<li><p>There are no data on how many people get perfect ACT scores, but I’ll estimate that it is about 30% of those with 36’s (which might be somewhat conservative, as of the five 36’s that I know about, none of them are “pure” 36’s). (Source for 36 figure: <a href=“http://www.act.org/news/data/08/pdf/National2008.pdf[/url]”>http://www.act.org/news/data/08/pdf/National2008.pdf</a>) 428*.3 = 128. 128 + 347 = 475. Removing 50 people to account for overlap = 425.</p></li>
<li><p>Let us estimate that 45% of these people have perfect Subject Test scores. 425*.45 = 191. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>(- I’m not sure if you’re including GPA, but I would imagine that about 50% of those people have all A’s. 191*.5 = 96.)</p>
<ul>
<li>Let’s say that 40% of those people apply to MIT. 191<em>.4 = 76. or 96</em>.4 = 38. In either case, the number is very likely under 100 and is certainly not much higher than 100.</li>
</ul>
<p>The problem with SAT as an indicator of whether someone should or shouldn’t be accepted is that with everyone I have met, the SAT isn’t a very good indicator of anything. For one, getting an 800 in math and an 800 in reading are two completely different matters. There is an exact amount of info to learn to get a perfect math score, and knowledge beyond is not tested whatsoever, so you could be a fields medalist getting an 800 on the SAT is no better than a 10th grader finishing Algebra II and getting an 800. The reading is far more grey in the area of whether or not you “know enough” for the 800. </p>
<p>Anyway, my point is that I rarely am super-impressed with kids that have perfect SAT scores, and generally its because their parents raised them to get into top schools or their schools tailor to teaching SAT concepts (as for me, grammar was never taught to me for the entire 4 years of English in high school). I just feel that SAT scores indicate very little.</p>
<p>BUT, something like IMO gold, or Siemens/Intel finalist is easily enough to make you a sure thing for MIT or Caltech (I have yet to meet someone in this category not accepted to one or the other at least), I mean as long as your record shows this wasn’t the ONLY thing you did in high school.</p>
<p>Basically, scores are the product of doing enough stuff in high school to get you in, not the reason you get accepted.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t understand this statement. Could you clarify?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Students at strong high schools are certainly over-represented among high-scorers (as one would expect). However, I think that your generalization has far too many exceptions to be meaningful. I don’t think that any reasonable person would argue that all perfect scorers are smarter than all other scorers, but to single perfect scorers out as generally less deserving of admission than other high scorers is unfounded with respect to both logic and evidence, though I’m not sure whether that was your point. </p>
<p>In any case, no one could consider my midwestern, mediocre public school to be an SAT powerhouse (only a few students take the SAT each year), nor did my parents ever try to push standardized tests or top schools on me. Yet I was able to score 2400.</p>
<p>Naturally, however, I think winning an IMO gold medal, for example, is far more significant an accomplishment than scoring 2400 on the SAT.</p>
<p>Sorry, the first statement is a little awkward, but what I meant is that if you learn chemistry (just an example) really well while working in a lab or taking AP chem at your school, your SAT II score will show that, the same for grammar or literature, etc.</p>
<p>Also, it was not intended to mean that ALL perfect scorers come from such, its just that a MAJORITY (and this includes 2300+ as well) come from these places. Of course some people are just born to do amazing on the SAT :P. But maybe this information (meeting people like this) is skewed in my case.</p>
<p>My main point was that there may be a correlation between competence and SAT score, but really its not nearly as strong as most think. From the people I have met, the ones who have gotten the most out of high and seem to have to brightest futures weren’t the ones with super-good SAT scores, they were too busy worrying about much more important things than that.</p>
<p>ANYWAYS, focus on doing other stuff than SAT OP. Chances are it will help you so much more. Like I said, I’ve seen Intel and Siemens to be pretty much a ticket in for everyone I’ve met. </p>
<p>Also, @eastafrobeauty, there is one black female in ALL of Caltech. They truly do not have any sort of affirmative action at the school, so URM and gender are completely irrelevant in this case.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is shocking.</p>
<p>I met her at PFW and ran into a friend of hers here at MIT, who told me that. Apparently they made her stay in Avery (the house for mostly visitors and such) her first year for “safety concerns” or something along those lines.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think this refers most to the SAT IIs. Frankly, I didn’t take the SAT II in physics because I never really had background in that stuff, yet I did AP Physics back in the day. Yet my biology class prepared me well for the biology SAT II even in my first year of high school. </p>
<p>As for the SAT I, I think someone who scores 2400 without much preparation and went to a non-obsessive-prep type school is probably a really good test-taker, and that’s actually a good thing. You have to be really precise, not make mistakes, spot little points quickly, etc.</p>
<p>However, I think it depends WHY someone got a high score or didn’t. Sometimes someone won’t score high for something which may be a sign of a good thing - e.g. if they can’t read and glance at the key points in a critical reading passage quickly, it just may mean they have a slow, methodical reading style, which may be a <em>good</em> thing depending on their major and interests. Taking apart a passage, finding <em>something</em> to take away from it, for example, and analyzing it, are very different from spotting main points and scanning. </p>
<p>I know a decent number of cases where high SAT scorers (2350+) were very average thinkers, but had generally good reading/writing skills and certainly weren’t dumb.</p>
<p>^ Good points. I should add, however, that most of those intelligent but inefficiently careful readers tend to benefit significantly from effective preparation and test-taking techniques.</p>
<p>Those are all very good points, and I agree completely. But trust me, schooling helps a lot more than you’d think for the SAT. Like I said, grammar isn’t taught in every school, and it is near impossible to really know it well by yourself, IMO. We tend to not realize all the things we actually learn while in school.</p>
<p>But yes, being able to perform on the SAT is a good skill, but probably not the most important, and definitely not the only worthy test-like ability. I wish there was some standardized test for proof-writing ability :P</p>
<p>^ You’re right on there. I was actually slightly on that exact inefficiently careful reader side myself, and I did have to practice critical reading, and it paid off. I’m the kind of person who understands the gist of novels quickly, but never had the patience to read long passages for detail – this of course didn’t matter in high school English classes, which were based extensively on writing essays for us.</p>
<p>The reason that I’ve found the slight dreaminess can actually help rather than hurt in some situations - the good test-takers who do NOT enjoy methodically analyzing things may not have the patience to sit down with stuff that is blatantly confusing and figure it out using hours. A combo of brutal willpower to understand things along with interest in a certain subject matter helps there.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>(I’m using myself again as an anecdote, but…) I was not taught any grammar in school and consider myself to be very skilled in the subject; the SAT, moreover, does not explicitly test any grammatical terms. Nonetheless, I agree that a knowledge of grammar is very helpful, which is why I took the time to write a free and exhaustive grammar section in my SAT guide (stickied in the SAT Preparation forum).</p>
<p>Well there is an entire grammar section :P</p>
<p>But that is just an example, and I understand that my statements don’t speak for everyone. I am just saying that at my school English class was barely a class at all and I don’t know where I was supposed to learn the “material” required for a stellar performance on the test. (I got 680 for both verbal and writing, so not completely horrible.)</p>
<p>Anyway, this is really getting off topic from the original post, lol.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My finding this to be particularly true for the Writing section is what inspired me to go so in-depth with grammar in the guide. Beyond merely the effect of educational inequality on students’ performance on the Writing section, the number and ungrammaticality of the colloquialisms that many students are exposed can significantly hurt students from certain family backgrounds or regions.</p>
<p>Well that would have been helpful before I applied to colleges, but regardless I got into MIT and Caltech like I wanted, so I really can’t complain.</p>
<p>Colleges like MIT and Caltech expect students to have utilized/maximized opportunities in and outside of school as well. Translation -> a just perfect GPA and SAT score will compare not so well against a student who has couple of Bs , taken the most challenging courses and done well in math/science reserach activities when he or she could avail those opportunities. A near top student ( few Bs and SAT around 2300 ) with these additional qualifications that show passion - something relevant to these schools- is more desirable and sought after than a vanilla student with mere stellar scores.</p>