I disagree. Though Yale doesn’t publish very specific data on standardized testing for admitted applicants, some of its peer institutions do (Brown, Dartmouth & Princeton). In those three cases, there is a statistically significant difference in acceptance rates for 2300+ scorers when compared to 2200-2300 scorers (for Princeton) and 800 section scorers compared to 750-790 scorers (Brown & Dartmouth) that cannot be attributed to correlation between standardized testing and overall strength of application alone. Obviously many, many different factors are involved in the decision, but I disagree with the notion that there is some sort of “threshold”.</p>
<p>Edit: Didn’t see Mifune’s post. My point still stands.</p>
<p>MrMeursault, I uniformly agree with your assertions. I’ll post the relevant hyperlinks that support the general argument (including those from the institutions you referenced):</p>
<p>The fact is that there may not be much difference between a 2320 vs 2350 , but the difference between 2200 and 2300 does exist in top schools, unless of course the lower scorer has substantially better and stellar ECSs. My point was to give a sense of number of applicants vs available seats and be realistic about expectations. I did not want to start a debate on the importance of SAT scores.</p>
<p>This is a standard debate. Certainly, whatever it is the SATs measure, it’s not completely different from what elite college admissions people are looking for. There’s no question that the classes they choose skew high on standardized tests. But that doesn’t mean that they are using small differences in the standardized tests as a decision factor – otherwise the difference in admission rates would be much higher. </p>
<p>Look at the Brown numbers: Someone with an 800 on the Math SAT I had 3x the chance of admission of someone with 650-690, but more people in the latter category were actually accepted, and 4 out of 5 800 scorers were rejected. So, sure, a high Math SAT score looks meaningful, but it sure doesn’t look like a major decision factor.</p>
<p>Or, to put it another way, what do you think the admission rate is on people who write essays that make an adcom think “That was a great essay!” Probably not 100%, but not likely below 80%, and much, much higher than 20%. How about the kid about whom the chair of the Math department at Exeter (or Stuyvesant, or TJ) says, “This is the best math student in this year’s class, and one of the six or seven best in the past decade”? That’s going to be a 100% admission rate.</p>
<p>To get over the hump, an applicant has to blow people away in at least one dimension, maybe more. He or she has to get the adcoms excited. It is impossible to do that with test scores and GPA – there are just too many people who have both. They are nice, confirmatory factors if there’s Wow! elsewhere (and people who have Wow! elsewhere tend to do OK on the SATs), but they don’t generate any Wow! on their own.</p>
<p>Surely you meant “more people in the latter category actually enrolled.” Four hundred and ninety-one (491) with an 800 Math score were accepted from 2,131 applicants (23%), while 404 were admitted from a pool of 4,612 candidates (8.8%) within the 650-690 range. (Brown’s data)</p>
<p>Even so, the raw enrollment numbers by score distinctions are defective in their explanatory potential for two basic reasons. Firstly, the quantity of applicants applying with an 800 and 650-690 naturally favors the latter group, given that scores within the 650-690 range are simply more prevalent. Secondly, it doesn’t account for the rate of enrollment. For those with an 800, merely 40.5% enrolled, while 56.9% of those in the 650-690 range opted to attend. It’s sensible to infer that those with the 800 score were ordinarily more qualified applicants overall and thus had a more favorable range of college options than those composing the 650-690 group, which – as would be expected – resulted in a lower yield. </p>
<p>Also, could the inverse correlation between the acceptance of higher-scoring applicants and admissions yield produce a notable affect on admissions behavior? Studies suggest that the answer is yes although not at the upper score thresholds. (If anyone is interested, I can Google one and post it as a hyperlink.) </p>
<p>According to hearsay (since, to my knowledge, no statistics are released on the matter), approximately 40% of all 2400 scorers obtain admission to HYPS. The natural (read: unthinking) response is that the SAT furnishes a poor causal effect, when in essence that rate of admission is roughly five- or sixfold relative to the collective applicant pool. Similarly, one would view a profound difference if the admissions data were segregated by 600-2340 and 2350-2400 distinctions.</p>
<p>Two common arguments are embedded here – that the SAT as an admissions factor is merely correlated with merit displayed elsewhere (referenced in the parenthetical) and that the score set is not sensationally attractive in itself (“only a test score”). The former is a means of attempting to invalidate the causal effect of the SAT itself while the latter endeavors to diminish its explanatory value as a criterion. I argued against these points [url=<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1064547885-post209.html]here[/url”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1064547885-post209.html]here[/url</a>]. </p>
<p>The SAT is largely a metric distinct from the remainder of the application and a unique method of assessing intellectual aptitude. That’s its purpose and, for the most part, it does an exceptional task of doing so. In terms of argumentative authority, the “it’s just correlation” rationalizing can only marginally account for the observed discrepancies.</p>
<p>Moreover, perfect and near-perfect scores are not commonly possessed even among HYPS applicants. 2400s regularly constitute less than 1% of the applicant pool, while scores of 2350+ can only be expected to comprise approximately 6%, by virtue of their rarity. The argument that steepening scores produce disputable value in their admissions effects (to the most selective institutions) remains without support from quantitative evidence, statistical explanations, or valid acausal models.</p>
<p>As a side note – and the following is directed at no one, in particular – the “threshold” school of thought is pervasive on this website and by consequence of a seeming majority, tends to gather more supporters. This website predisposes people to inaccurate perceptions of the typical applicant. The statistical profiles of candidates to the most selective universities are not genuinely representative of those presented by the College Confidential population. In reality, the statistics on CC constitute the anterior end of the spectrum, which isn’t always maintained in perspective. (And, of course, indubitably contributes to the higher rate of success among decision-posting CC members relative to the collective set of spot-seekers.)</p>
<p>In the end, there’s no way of knowing how much gravitas the SAT carries. Personally I think it’s a terrible test and close to being as useless as an IQ test and, as Stephen Hawking said, the latter is for ‘losers’. Accordingly, I don’t think it should count for much more than “yes, they got over 2x00, that’s fine. Moving on swiftly.” I’d put the x at 1. </p>
<p>I read something a while back, although I can’t remember where, that said something along the lines of:
-below 2100 is a negative
-2100 to 2300 is neutral
-2300+ is a small positive to the app.</p>
<p>Which I think sounds sensible, but again, impossible to know.</p>
<p>From what I’ve seen, the difference between people scoring 2100 and 2300 is immense, in terms of their mathematical and English skills. Even before I gave it, i thought it an accurate measure of the skills it tests. But again, that’s just my experience.</p>
<p>^ I would disagree with that theory. To call the SAT an accurate measure of one’s Math skills would highly incorrect as the math is elementary. The Math Level 2 could still be called a more accurate measure of how much math one knows. IMO The test as a whole is just a measure of how much practice one has put in and is not an accurate judge of one’s ability at all.
That said, I do not mean to say that an impressive SAT score isn’t a pre-requisite for an Ivy(or other similar schools) applicant.</p>
<p>mifune: The Brown website to which you linked showed more students accepted with 650-690 Math SATs than with 800s. By a fairly slim margin. Of course, 1.5x as many of them enrolled. You are right to point out that accepted students tend to have higher SATs than enrolled students, and that’s why I was using accepted students to illustrate my point. The fact that in some other year there was a small difference the other way doesn’t change anything.</p>
<p>Your post about this was interesting. (As are most of your posts. Regardless of what you think, your test scores are much less impressive than reading what you have to say.) The big problem with your line of argument is that it is limited by what is easily quantifiable, and you (wishfully) dismiss everything that can’t be analyzed that way. Of course SATs and GPA correlate better with admissions decisions than practically any other metric – they are both trying to measure something very much like what colleges want to measure, at least for some significant portion of the class to be admitted. </p>
<p>I think you will have to acknowledge that at Ivy League colleges there is going to be a meaningful chunk of every class admitted for reasons having little to do with intellectual and scholarly capacity, although they will be expected to clear a qualifying bar in those regards, and clearing it comfortably won’t hurt. The SAT doesn’t begin to measure leadership, or interpretive sensitivity on the violin, or ability to sack quarterbacks. And somewhere in the admissions process people care a lot about all of those things. Now, even a Yo-Yo Ma isn’t going to get admitted to Harvard with a 500 Math SAT, but by the same token Harvard isn’t going to turn down Yo-Yo Ma for a less impressive cellist because the other cellist got an 800 on his Math SAT and Ma only got 680. (NB: I don’t know what Ma’s Math SAT really was. This is a hypothetical.) Ma is a red herring, because there’s only a handful of applicants like that per decade, but every year there are hundreds of people admitted primarily for some quality that isn’t even addressed by the SAT, and in their cases the SAT is probably only a qualifier.</p>
<p>As for everyone else, here’s what you said at the end of your argument:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Two things are obvious. First, you are ignoring about 80% of the information presented in people’s applications because you can’t measure it precisely. And you are assuming that all that information is useless for distinguishing among applicants, when it is enormously useful and persuasive. Not, perhaps, for distinguishing the 10,451st applicant from the 10,452nd, but very much so for telling whether an applicant “gets a ticket to Hollywood” (as on American Idol). In other words, the people who get into serious contention (including you) get there because their non-standard-continuum information is compelling, and other people’s isn’t.</p>
<p>Admissions officers have no trouble at all “evaluating other criteria on non-standardized continuums”. They don’t have to rank everybody in order – all they really have to do is identify the most interesting 10-15%, and then separate that group into sheep and goats, at random if necessary. (I’m sure no one actually does it at random, but everyone acknowledges that at the margins what they are doing isn’t much different from a lottery.) </p>
<p>Second, in the end you are expressing a wishful view of the world, arguing that it is as your intuition imagines it. So am I, by the way; it’s just that my intuitions are perhaps more shaped by experience than yours. (Or so I believe, anyway. Shocker!) I bet you have never culled a small number of candidates from a large applicant pool. I have, though not for college admissions. Numbers are boring; narrative is compelling. What wins is narrative. The numbers contribute to the narrative, but they are not narratively rich on their own.</p>
<p>1) Isn’t there a correlation between high SAT scores and high socio-economic standing?
2) What about students who take SAT prep courses to artificially inflate their scores?</p>
<p>Guys… let’s try not to stress about this too much. We already submitted our apps so there’s really nothing we can do but wait. The moral of the story is: a good SAT score doesn’t hurt, a bad one doesn’t help.</p>
<p>Then one would need to explain why a 2090 is insufficient and why a 2100 demonstrates a level of intellectual competence that is no less meritorious than scores in the higher end of the spectrum. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s merely someone’s misinformed opinion. It’s not a mystery and certainly not the way in which test scores are utilized (basic cutoffs, binary distinctions, or simple determinations based on an arbitrary score or percentile).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I rechecked and found that I was actually reading the Critical Reading chart as the Mathematics diagram. More students who achieved in the 650-690 range on the Math and Writing portions of the test were admitted to the college than those comprising a very precise category (those who attained an 800), although that doesn’t hold true on the Critical Reading portion (the one in which I mistakenly viewed as the chart referenced). However, the quantity of applicants admitted in each score category is vastly less significant than the rate of admission. Viewing the crude number of admits is statistically meaningless in its ability to express the genuine numerical trend, which is neatly encompassed by the admission rate at the respective distinctions. 800-scoring applicants uniformly outcompete their 650-690 peers by nearly a 2:1 rate at Brown. (The disparities are far more pronounced in Amherst’s data, for example.) If the the entire test were combined into a single category, this variance would roughly approach a 3:1 ratio (2400 v. 1950-2070, respectively). One also needs to perceive that that ratio – despite the notable discrepancy in favor of higher-scoring students – is fundamentally skewed by the fact that those composing the 1950-2070 range are those admitted from SAT-lowering preference categories (i.e., legacies and children of institutional benefactors, under-represented minorities, athletes, and students with manifested talent in disciplines that cannot be directly quantified by any objective metric).</p>
<p>I’ll post a study published in December 2005. Many will have seen this previously and it was the primary basis of a thread I created this past February. The study delves into the revealed preferences among the nation’s top-tier colleges. At Harvard, MIT, Yale, and Princeton, admissions probability correlated with a swelling nonlinear reliance on combined SAT scores (see graphs on page eight): </p>
<p>The issue with the “threshold,” “correlation,” and “diminished or non-casual” arguments are their utter absence of all quantitative support and inferences that run counter to the data. In expectation of the defense that these positions do not easily lend themselves to statistical validation (and hence cannot be undergirded in that sense), one needs to construct an acausal model that qualitatively coincides with the data rather than merely supposing that one exists. The only method of actually arguing about this subject is actually asserting some sort of quantitative evidence. Otherwise, such arguments become circular and riddled with tangential assertions or anecdotes that don’t address the essence of the matter. The “threshold” and “correlation” contentions are devoid of backing from not only data but also valid descriptive models. Contrarily, the argument for the causal effect of increasing SAT scores on admissions probability is actually buttressed by quantitative evidence, plainly and with substantial clarity. </p>
<p>The argument regarding Yo-Yo Ma and similar cases within non-academic priority categories does more to actually detract from the general argument than assist it. It does a fine job of noting the obviousness that standards are lowered for select applicants possessing certain attributes. Indeed, this overall has an effect on the statistical profile of matriculating students and invariably lowers it quantitatively. But in fact, purely meritocratic admissions would be a tactless maneuver for the sake of institutional health and from the standpoint of reputation. (It’s assumed that we are speaking of the most selective universities who do obtain the interest of the world’s best students.) Admitting exclusively on the criterion of academic stardom would decrease athletic competition (an economic detriment), reduce interest from the ordinary, astute and well-rounded students (which compose a large fraction of the pool), and diminish the representation of ethnic diversity (and hence largely forfeit desirability from a critical demographic). No one should dispute the fact that exceptions apply, but it’s only applicable to a minority of the matriculating body. As is clearly contained within the Revealed Preference Rankings study hyperlinked above, admissions are strategic and the most academically qualified individuals will not always be admitted. The one thing that does not vary, however, is interest, general competition, and overall favoritism for applicants comprising the upper score echelons. The SAT compensates for the absence of a standardized curriculum and supplies the only cognitive measuring scale that applies to the entire applicant pool.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The first statement is true, though not exactly relevant. Some admissions officers will claim that applicants’ SAT scores become irrelevant after a certain extent, including one MIT admissions officer who participates/d on this website. However, as MIT’s profile suggests from my post on the previous page and from its admissions behavior (displayed within the graphical depiction in the above document), this isn’t exactly supported by the data. </p>
<p>And what criteria are being referenced exactly with the term “narrative?” The essay? (At least that’s the only portion that resembles a narrative. Enlighten me if that isn’t the intention.) The assertion that “narrative is compelling” and that it invariably succeeds as the chief admission factor is exceedingly difficult to support, not only by itself but in light of varying details. Moreover, it ignores the wealth of data present showing the robustly causal effect of SAT on admissions probabilities and the fact that the SAT score set is the primary distinguishing attribute of a school’s statistical contour. The sentiment that “narrative is [more] compelling” certainly cannot be inferred from the available statistics.</p>
<p>There is also the common argument that because many schools are dropping their SAT requirements (e.g., Smith, Wake Forest, Denison), the SAT imparted little contribution to the application in the first place. However, its nothing more than a strategic ploy to enhance admissions, not a purely selfless, benevolent action. By eliminating testing requirements, schools are able to a) obtain more applications, b) admit fewer students (and hence lower the acceptance rate all while maintaining its appeal to a diverse demographic range), c) discourage those with comparatively substandard scores from submitting, and d) enjoy an elevated standardized testing profile.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Dismissing the statistics as entirely non-explanatory and my assertions by arguing that I’m ignoring “80% of the information in an application” and such isn’t exactly true – or fair, for that matter. Other factors, such as grades, written statements, commitment and dedication, enthusiasm of potentially attending, work ethic, leadership, and so forth are much more difficult to comparatively assess. If GPA and class ranking systems are considered, one’ll witness a less significant (and in many cases, a flattening) dependency of GPA or class rank once inside various distinctions. So the notion of a diminished consideration of grades may and seemingly does apply. But that’s not the situation with standardized testing.</p>
<p>As some previous posters said, SATs are to me comparable to an IQ test; Perfect-SATs people are not more “intelligent”, nor do they make better college candidates than, lets say, a 1800, 2000 or 2200. The only thing it says, it is that, on a scale from 0 to 2400, they are able to concentrate and succeed on this type of test up to an ability comparable to what a score of x/2400 can actually “tell”. SATs are made full of traps and slow-down questions, aimed at people with no sufficient knowledge of this type of test. </p>
<p>The proof of the pointlessness of the SAT: you can substantially increase your score by doing the test over and over. I am sure I would end up by having a 2400 by doing it 10 or 15 times. Its just plain brain-stuffing. </p>
<p>SAT2 at least have the merit to measure some kind of “knowledge”. But again, we are still very far from any measurement of critical thinking and analytical skills, skills that I believe are what make a good thinker and student. Is is possible to asses that through standardized test? Maybe. Maybe not. </p>
<p>And the SAT’s history is kind of… interesting.</p>
<p>I did not do so hot on the SAT IIs. I took them a month after classes in the subjects I had chosen ended…I ended up getting 5s in those classes, though.</p>
<p>There actually is a profound difference between a 2400 and the scores listed. The degree of exactitude, cognitive endurance, adeptness, and diligence vital to a 2400 score is quite significant in relation to that required for an 1800. For instance, if one progresses from merely attempting to procure a 93 average in every course to obtaining every single point, it will quickly become evident that there is a very remarkable difference with regard to overall dedication and ability.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The assertion that the SAT is a bag of tricks is an old chestnut, but it honestly isn’t true. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s neither proof nor do scores improve indefinitely. Very few will obtain a perfect or near-perfect score after an intense sequence of instruction or repetition. Practicing is often necessary to prepare oneself well and to have familiarity with the format and general content.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you alluding to Social Darwinism and/or the misuse of test scores to support racist ideology? The oarsman-regatta question? How would any of that be relevant to the modern SAT?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you implying that the AP exams you completed had validity (by virtue of scoring higher on them) but the corresponding SAT Subject Tests somehow did not?</p>
<p>A 2400 does distinguish an applicant from, say, a 2100–but that’s not to say the 2100 is less intellectual, adept, or “smart.” I hold onto the belief that perfect SAT scorers have a certain personality trait, or an intense pressure to perfect their scores. I don’t mean to get into a lengthy argument, but I just wanted to give my two cents.</p>