<p>At the same time, there are a lot of SAT IIs that math/science people are good at, while the people who are good at writing seem to have fewer options. I didn't do that badly on Math II or Biology (740 and 730), but I didn't do wonderfully either. </p>
<p>I think it's kind of a grass-is-greener thing. You envy (well, envy is a strong word) the writing skills and the high scores on those parts of the SAT and ACT, but I envy high scores on the math sections and math subject tests and also in math classes.</p>
<p>Bah, I do bad on things that I can make stupid mistakes on, IE the ACT math. I got a 33 on math, which is my best subject, but I got an 800 on the SAT 2 (second time, first I got a 710 without taking math for a year and didn't do any prep) mainly because I could miss a bunch of questions. I hope they look at the content of my essays and not the style which may be lacking. My scores are pretty misleading, as I have a 34 ACT English, which is my highest subscore, yet I consider it my weakest subject. I hate standardized tests.</p>
<p>Agreed. I wasn't arguing that the difference isn't statistically significant. My point was that I believe that the focus of the admissions committee shifts primarily to EC's and essays once your SAT scores surpass the 2200-2250 mark.</p>
<p>I hope so very very much that standardized tests end up being not that important. I'm in the range, but I wasn't great on them. Except Princeton doesn't say average ACT, so idk. I'm in the top 25% for almost every other school.</p>
<p>Two of my classmates got perfect scores on their third and fourth takings, respectively, while several others earned 2360, 2370, 2380 etc on their first try and threw in the towel. I wouldn't put too much store by the high SAT score... sometimes it's just perseverance. =)</p>
<p>I don't know about 2200, but I think over 2300, or 2350 at the very least, SAT scores are moot.</p>
<p>j07, did you end up retaking the SAT I? My son took it once and scored 800 on reading in writing but 690 in math. If it doesn't mess up his foresics schedule, he might retake later this month and see if the math can be increased. I know it probably shouldn't matter since he isn't going into math/science; but I was just worried that since this is Princeton, anything in the 600's might be so hot.</p>
<p>I re-took the SAT I and got a 690 on the math...so I raised a GRAND 40 points. NOT! I was a little annoyed by that, but I decided that it didn't make a huge difference with a 2290 composite. Also, I just didn't have enough time to take the SAT again.</p>
<p>I know what not having enough time is. I didn't even know what SAT Subject Tests were until this year. and I have meets every weekend, so it made testing a pain. I wish our councilors did something useful, instead of making getting into Michigan the holy grail.</p>
<p>SAT calculates analytical skills and ability, not how hard you try or how hard you work in school, which is why you're brother does better than you.</p>
<p>They indicate "possible" ability.</p>
<p>Ungst, sucks for you. Thing is though, most of us in public schools research the things ourself, including me. You can't really blame your counselors in a big public high school, they have to meet needs of most students first.</p>
<p>And ungst, spending one weekend taking SAT IIs is well worth the time, unless of course you prize your athletics over academics.</p>
<p>"SAT calculates analytical skills and ability, not how hard you try or how hard you work in school, which is why you're brother does better than you."</p>
<p>I also have to say that is BS. These tests try to measure that, but the fact is that they only measure how good you are at their test, and some people are just bad at taking them.</p>
<p>Ungst, there's a reason why colleges require the SATs..every "test" measures something, which you can infer from the way the test is structured etc and statistical data. A test measuring how good you are at the test, is a contradiction due to circular logic.</p>
<p>But this isn't an "SAT, good or bad" thread so we'll just drop that.</p>
<p>^It is not a contradiction; the statement "a test measures how good you are at the test" is a tautology. The value of the test then is determined by the degree to which familiarity with the test structure, preparation, etc. improve performance--ideally, they wouldn't help at all.</p>
<p>Exactly. If the test truely measured my abilities, I would not have been able to raise my score 4 points by spending a couple hours reading a book. These things are not perfect. They are a benchmark, and it is my hope that the admissions officers see them as that.</p>
<p>This discussion is making me wonder if my son is right in thinking that he should just stay with his 2290 (800,800, 690math) instead of missing a debate tournament to retake it.</p>
<p>Personally, I wouldn't retake it if I were him. It's funny though, because I would have to miss a debate tournament to take mine! It's really strange that your son and I have the EXACT same score, even broken down the same.</p>