<p>In the Jian Li ordeal, Princeton's dean of admissions Janet Rapelye said that half of the perfect scorers (i'm assuming combined score of best from each sitting?) are rejected...</p>
<p>do you think that that's actually true?</p>
<p>and what do u guys think she meant by perfect-score... 1 sitting or combined?</p>
<p>well thats still 50% acceptance, which is WAY better than the acceptance rate of normal applicants.</p>
<p>and yes, I do believe that's true (I tihnk she meant combined, by the way). Scores can only get you so far. I think people tend to put too much weight on the SAT scores. In my opinion, once you have about 2250+ SAT combined, then your essays are much more important than your scores.</p>
<p>When they say cumulative, do they mean wholly cumulative? Like, I have 710 cr 680 m 790 w on one test, and then 690 cr, 770 m, and 730 w on the next, amounting to a cumulative 2270. Will they look at my SAT as 2270, or will they look more closely at the individual breakdowns?</p>
<p>I was told by Princeton that they take your best individual scores. How did you improve so much on the math? Good job.</p>
<p>Also, I also agree that perfect scores or being valedictorian, can't be all the applicant is about. Princeton and the ivies get tons of these candidates. I know perfect scorers (white) who did not get admitted.</p>
<p>i have a 2400 and i was deferred ed</p>
<p>The math score was due to a bad day; I didn't study at all between the tests (the first was the Oct 2006 test and the second was the nov 2006). You know, sometimes you make careless mistakes, and sometimes you get everything right.</p>
<p>Though the Oct 14 SAT math seemed drastically harder than any other SAT math I've ever seen...</p>
<p>I hope Penn weights the ACT as much as it does the SAT 1 or I'm officially ******.</p>
<p>A good ACT score should offset a mediocre SAT score no matter what. They are both just standardized tests, so a good score on either signals something good about an applicant.</p>
<p>But it cant hurt to do well on both.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In my opinion, once you have about 2250+ SAT combined, then your essays are much more important than your scores.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Kids who have perfect critical reading and writing scores as well as a bunch of AP classes in humanities subjects (like US History or English Literature for example) tend in general to be very competent writers and normally have excellent essays. In fact, I would submit that there is a strong correlation between test scores, GPA and essay quality since all three criteria, while different, ultimately reflect certain intellectual/academic abilities. </p>
<p>My personal opinion (I may be wrong on this one though) is that perfect scorers normally get rejected or deferred by the Ivies on purely non-academic/subjective criteria like EC's, or not being a legacy/athlete/URM, or not being deemed "well-rounded" enough (whatever that means !). I understand that many people in the States (including those who run the top universities and most families) believe that this kind of "holistic approach" to admissions is the right thing to do, but I must admit it seems all very obscure and arbitrary for someone who comes from a different cultural background, e.g. from countries like Japan, England or China, where admissions are based mostly (almost exclusively) on academic achievement only.</p>
<p>Well, keep in mind that "holistic admissions" applies to them too. A considerable number of those perfect scorers/high grade kids from China do get in. The same goes for perfect scorers from all cultural backgrounds. Half get rejected, but half get in.</p>
<p>coolness_rookie is right on the money. After a certain point (I'd say 2200), SAT scores don't make that much difference. What we should really take away from this statistic is that if you have a 2400, you should do a reality check to make sure that your test scores are not coming at the expense of other things the adissions office values just as much.</p>
<p>I agree with Weasel. I know that not all perfect-scorers are robots or spend all their time studying, but at least at my school most kids seem to be divided into two groups: those who are smart but who are very involved, and those who are excellent academically but don't play a sport or anything. In an admissions officer's eyes, I think it would make sense to take a kid who was excellent academically AND very involved.</p>
<p>That didn't really make sense in relation to the perfect score thing, but I think that Weasel's comment that you "should make sure that your test scores are not coming at the expense of other things" is wise advice. A lot of people think that if they can raise their score 100 points they will have a much better chance of getting in, and to be honest, I don't think that it makes that big of a difference after that vague 2200 barrier.</p>
<p>2400 is a huge difference from a 2200. The confidence intervals aren't even connected at that point, making the 2400 totally out of the 2200 person's league, which is why so many 2200 scorers get rejected, but only half of 2400 scorers.</p>
<p>A difference of around 100 points however, usually doesn't make THAT much of a difference, but you're deluding yourself if you think that there isn't much of a difference between a 2200 scorer and a 2400 scorer.</p>
<p>I think bruno has a good point, which I have also considered in the past....</p>
<p>good writers have the advantage in college admissions, because they are "talented" at 2 of 3 sections of the SAT....</p>
<p>and also, they can write amazing essays.</p>
<p>strong math/science students will invariably get 800 on math, mathIIC, and science subjects, to the point that it becomes a much less notable achievement. furthermore, there is such powerful competition in this area that there is very likely to be a large number of still stronger candidates...who have done more things, such as INTEL, USAMO, etc. and being good at math or science lends nothing to essay writing--the only subjective piece of information that you, personally, can provide to colleges... =/</p>
<p>I thought that tests wouldn't make much of a difference after you are in the 99th percentile. My main problem is that tests are not all that indicative of your abilities. My twin who has taken all the same classes as me got a 34 vs my 28 the first time I took the ACT, with almost no prep. I prepped a little and ended up with a 32 (33 superscored) after almost half a year of AP english (OK, I went from a 25 the first time to a 34 the last time, lol)
He also did much better on the SAT 2s with no prep. The most crazy thing about my brother is that he has a 3.6 or so vs my 3.9, yet he does so much better on standardized tests.</p>
<p>The point is, I am a bad test taker, he is a very good one. I hope that universities can see this.</p>
<p>For my own personal curiosity, are you guys fraternal twins or identical twins?</p>
<p>Fraternal. We do have our differences, but there are a lot of similarities.</p>
<p>I agree with the difference between people who are humanities-inclined and those who are math/science-inclined. You don't HAVE to be one or the other, but a lot of times it works out that way. I, for example, scored 800 my first time on both Critical Reading and Writing, but then I got a 650 on math. While it probably would have been better to get 800s on CR and Math than CR and Writing, it's right that good writers are good at 2/3 of the SAT.</p>
<p>and basically if you are bad a writing, you get the shaft and are bad at 2/3 of the SAT. that means me. :( Yay for getting a 25 on english the first time I took the ACT (24 english/writing combined with my 8 essay.)</p>