<p>Well, I guess that shows that high test scores do not guarantee admission.</p>
<p>They help in the process, but Princeton is clearly a univeristy that uses hollistic admissions.</p>
<p>Yeah, in no way do high scores guarantee admission, but lower than average scores at those schools will minimize your chances because of the sheer competition. I like to think of it realistically; if the admission rate is around 9%, that means around 9 students are admitted out of every 100 applicants. Would those scores help you become one of those lucky 9? Probably not, unless you have something else amazing going for you...</p>
<p>@@nhsharvard:
absolutely an IQ test is a better predictor than the SAT.</p>
<p>[q] The SAT is not as good of an indicator of a person's intelligence as much as the SAT 2. The SAT 2s show a student's hard work and dedication.[/q]</p>
<p>I don't agree at all. Intelligence has to do with reasoning ability and that doesn't come across on the SAT IIs. Of course more intelligent kids will most likely have learned more or retain more information and thus do better on the SAT IIs. The only subject test that has anything to do with real intelligence, in my opinion, is the Math subject test.</p>
<p>In regard to your point about high GPAs and low test scores, assuming that the high GPA was earned in all/most AP and the rest honors classes, one would have to look at the rigor of the school. I used to go to a private school where I had to study 4 hours a night to get straight As in all honors courses. At my new school I barely study at all (I'm taking 6 APs and 2 honors courses this year both semesters) and I have straight As. Just goes to show that GPAs can not be normed nationwide. That was actually the reasoning behind the SAT: to have a test that put everyone on a level playing field.</p>
<p>Now about the disadvantaged backgrounds comment, just my personal opinion. Yes, to an extent you can say that these kids have not had access to study/prep materials to prepare for the SATs and thus there scores are lower. When most kids prepare rigorously for the SATs they only see score increases of 70-150 points. Now if someone is getting a 1500 on the SATs (say that they tried to do well and didn't just take it as a joke) I really don't see any amount of test prep or money getting him/her a 2200 or a 2300 etc.</p>
<p>Sorry I've turned this into an SAT discussion.</p>
<p>To back up gukki5 - I like SATs over SAT 2's. One reason is: sure you can take test prep for SATs, but you also can with SAT 2's.</p>
<p>My main thing is though, coming from a crappy high school, I feel like other people that are taught better will do better on SAT 2's, while EVERYONE (basically) was taught the material for the SATs. While they don't measure intelligence, they better measure potential. I score well (averaged over 750 for sat's and sat 2's), but I feel like my SAT scores should be more important than my SAT 2's because if you looked at SAT 2's as more important than SATs, then students at worse schools would be at a huge disadvantage and have NO chance at attaining admissions.</p>
<p>i have pretty similar SAT scores and science ECs, rank 2/550
i got into MIT, columbia, and duke w/ these stats
you'll be fine :)</p>
<p>Mz innocentz: Congratulations! Just out of curiosity are you an URM or legacy?</p>
<p>thank you, i'm a national achievement scholar (black), no legacy anywhere (immigrant parents), upper middle-class (not considered "disadvantaged")
hook- started a community service program and have been doing extensive research for the past 2 yrs</p>
<p>I disagree with the idea that the SAT I measures intelligence. While it is true that it does a good job of approximating a student's potential, many other factors must be taken into consideration. </p>
<p>Also, it is absurd to compare the SAT I to the IQ test and suggest that it primarily measures reasoning ability. People with IQs of 140+ can do poorly on the SAT due to testing problems. While the IQ test does actually measure the reasoning ability of the person, the SAT measures their knowledge of grammar, geometry, and algebra among other things. </p>
<p>Gukki5 suggested that the SAT IIs can be studied for more while, the SAT cannot. This is also false. People spend a ridiculous amount of time and money to prepare for the SAT and it clearly does make a difference. There are people who after tutoring and additional studying raise their score 200-300 points. I do admit that there a very intelligent people who can score highly without any studying. One of my good friends got a 2330 without any preparation. On the other hand, this can also be done with SAT IIs. I got an 800 on the WH without studying.</p>
<p>Lastly, in response to what chicagoboy said, I would like to point out that while it is true that a person at a below average school may be at a disadvantage when it comes to the subject tests, the same thing can be said for the SAT I. For instance, my school has an excellent chemistry teacher but an atrocious english department. Because of this, the chem SAT II was far easier for me than the reading and writing parts of the SAT.</p>
<p>Personally, I think that both the SAT I and the subject tests have their merits. Both should have important roles in the admissions process. However, I feel that it is somewhat absurd to view the SAT as an accurate measure of intelligence and the SAT IIs as measures of how much one studies.</p>
<p>GBH - my point is that the material on the SAT 1 is at a low enough level than anyone in high school should have been taugh that, or will be able to learn it. A crappy english department will still teach grammar correctly, and the things they don't teach will be easier to learn. For example, in school i wasn't taught much vocab, but was able to study this for the SAT. With a crappy chemistry teacher, someone would not learn the material, BUT would have a MUCH more difficult time self-learning the chemistry than they would the english.</p>
<p>That's definitely a good point, but I was in fact never taught grammar during high school or middle school.....really, no joke.</p>
<p>However, subject testing provides more of a variety of options for a student.</p>
<p>I agree grammar is not that hard to learn, but high school does not teach students a lot about grammar and vocabulary.</p>
<p>High school Language Arts is more focused on comprehension and analysis.</p>
<p>I do not think topics, which are not really taught in high school, should be used as testing topics for a college entrance test, such as the SAT.</p>
<p>I don't want to be the bringer of bad news, please remember it never hurts to apply, but why would they accept someone low in one of those categories when they have so many applicants. (Unless the applicant has out of this world EC's or something)</p>
<p>i got 1300 my sat
and 3.8~4.0 my GPA but i took esl class
can i go to umass boston ??</p>
<p>This is the Princeton forum, so it's not the best place to ask your question. Try posting in the What</a> Are My Chances? forum.</p>
<p>I know someone who got into princeton with 2050. (<em>gasp</em> he beat you by like 30 points! lol) what I mean is, your score isn't THAT bad. and you said ur confident of ur essay and EC's rite? so, you have a good chance!
BUT, if you can make it to a 2030 then you can probably get a 2100 easily, because SAT scores CAN hurt your chances. also a 2100 looks alot better than a 2030!</p>
<p>rre200 i don't think your SAT scores a low, but I think your GPA would definitely help you</p>
<p>what about high sat score compensating for low gpa??</p>
<p>sat: 2300+; Gpa 3.4~3.5?</p>
<p>You don't have much of a chance unless you go to an elite high school which is known to practice grade deflation.</p>
<p>The SAT does not require expensive tutoring sessions in order to improve one's scores. I'd actually assert that anyone who believes that he or she has the wherewithal to attend a school like Princeton already has the faculties to take the SAT. It is then simply a matter of getting accustomed to the test. A smart kid can buy the Official SAT Study Guide (the collegeboard book) from amazon.com for $12, read a little about the format/essay, take the 8 practice tests, and do perfectly fine. I know a 2400, 2390, 2370, and 2340 (one of those scores is mine, three are those of schoolmates) that basically went through the CB SAT guide and took the test and got those scores the first time. I hardly think that this preparation is discriminatory towards lower-income people or otherwise unfair. $12 is chump change.</p>
<p>On a side note, I decided to try SAT II classes for two subject tests. I felt ripped off. If you're smart, it's actually an impediment to have someone try to talk you through the SATs. The best way is to study material/format yourself and just plow through. While SAT prep classes can certainly help someone score a 2050 needed for BC or a school on that level, 2300s are not (rarely) made in SAT tutoring classes. If they were (and I'm sure HYP have data, as this is rather important to them), HYP wouldn't use the SAT anymore.</p>
<p>For those that argue that the extent of one's preparation can unfairly inflate one's scores, I offer a simple argument: anyone that goes to school on a Saturday morning and takes a test that is obviously a huge factor in college admissions without any kind of preparation has to have their drive and responsibility questioned. People talk about "cold" testing like it should be to somebody's credit that they got a certain high score without studying. This drives me crazy. While the SAT is a reasoning test, and in theory should not be affected by preparation, anyone that just lackadaisically takes such an important test should have their mentality questioned. This is a big deal! Don't you want to get ahead and give yourself the best possible opportunity? Life doesn't reward people that expect to walk in and be given credit adjusted to the decreased amount of effort put in. And everyone has time to prepare for the SATs - can anyone really assert that they are too busy for a few hours each weekend for a month to spend on the most important test of one's life so far?</p>
<p>To conclude, adequate SAT studying for smart (well, I don't mean to be disparaging - those whose intelligence can be translated to standardized tests, which is the vast majority of people) kids can be had for $12 (ok, plus $4 for shipping, I apologize), so stop complaining about that. SATs are very important for most applicants, although a 20x0 will not keep you out of contention. But if you are unhooked and have anything less than stellar ECs, it's going to be a tripping point. SATs are an adequate measurement of what they try to measure, and Princeton knows this.</p>
<p>I tend to disagree about someone's income status not affecting their SAT scores. Most people who are low-income tend to go to crappy, public schools. At these crappy, public schools teachers spend more time getting the class to calm down instead of teaching, which causes the teacher not to be able to finish the course by the end of the year, so many students in these schools don't learn what most people consider to be basic math. For example, I went to a friend's house to study for the ACT with her and a couple of others. We basically just took the first two sections of the test and then scored it and went over what each person did wrong and why. Well, when I was helping them with the math portion, they just didn't understand it because they have never been taught it. Within the first 10 questions, which are usually the easiest they had problems. When I told them that an easy way to solve (a+b)^2 (since some didn't get why you would factor it) was to just memorize that it equals a^2+2ab+b^2, they were amazed and some said how they liked doing it "my way." This is something they should have been taught before but most likely weren't able to get to because of either students being disrespectful, or the teacher just not teaching it to them for whatever reason. So, if they don't know simple things such as this, how can they expect to apply their knowledge in a problem, that will test reasoning based on skills like that.Also, crappy, public schools also tend to have crappy teachers that could care less about the student as long as they get a paycheck. They don't care enough to see why some of the students in their class can't understand a certain type of problem, and would make the student feel dumb if they ask a question. </p>
<p>Also, basic math, such as algebra, starts in middle school. Most of these kids also went to crappy middle schools or didn't have a good algebra teacher, so they know very little about simple concepts such as distribution and combining like terms. How are they suppose to apply that knowledge in a word problem if they don't know the skills themselves.</p>
<p>Now, while I agree that low income kids are at a disadvantage, if a student really wanted to, they can rise above that and just teach themselves as you and your friends did. However, I would say that it would be almost impossible (if not impossible) for a student who has always been to inner-city schools, with crappy teachers, and rowdy classmates, since elementary, to get a 2200+ on the SAT. But I do think they if they really was aiming for it, and wanted to try hard enough, they can get at least a 2000+ by, as you said, getting the Blue Book, and maybe asking a teacher if they can stay after school one day to go over some of the problems, and why they got it wrong. I say this, because I am doing this. I understand that some of the teachers in my school are crap, (and just like some of the previous posters stated we aren't taught grammar at all) however, I have had the advantage of going to a pretty decent middle school and elementary school. Also, I am in gifted, and the gifted students, along with the AP students, tend to get the best teachers, while other students are stuck with teachers who couldn't teach, much less control their classroom, if their life depended on it.</p>
<p>So basically, IMO, SAT does depend a lot on income-level since income-level has a lot to do with the quality of a school that a student goes to. However, as you said, if a student was motivated, I believe that a student can get 2000+ on the SAT and I believed, that if explained properly a school like Princeton, would understand, if anyone from an inner-city school even decided to apply (which 99.9% of the population of inner-city schools don't).</p>