<p>"Whatever number you said is just as rough estimate as the other one unless one can really proof it with stat. "</p>
<p>I know. So the only real stats we have are the ones provided by the college board and there’s nothing that indicates the number of 2400 super-scores is anywhere near 2000.</p>
<p>^ There is no indication it is not either.</p>
<p>"There is no indication it is not either. "</p>
<p>Right, except logic and reasonable assumptions.</p>
<p>^ That depends on each person’s standard, again, unless there is data to support.</p>
<p>I think we can safely say (using logic and reasonable assumptions) that the number of students getting credit for a 2400 is closer to 2000 than to 500 (considering there were 6.8k+ that scored an 800 on writing, 11k+ CR and 13k+ on math This Year Alone).</p>
<p>Indeed, it would be a reasonable guess to have several times more superscore 2400 generated in each test than single sitting 2400. It is kind of like combining lotto tickets for a jackpot. I would love to see if we can do that in lotto. ;)</p>
<p>At most there are 6835 because that’s how many scored 800 on writing as you note. You’re suggesting that it’s likely that at least 30% of these students have 800s in Math and CR also. I think it is highly unlikely but I’ll guess we’ll never know.</p>
<p>I personally know one who has 800 in W and M but not CR, so we can cross at least one off the list. :)</p>
<p>Yes, we would not have the answer. But your logic is a little bit off as the third 800 section score can be in any sections and they may have received 800 in Writing in any of the previous test within the year or two which are much more than the 6835. Out of the total 30k single section 800 in each exam, would there be 5% that can complement the other 2 section scores of 800 from previous test? May be. At least it is not as unreasonable as you said.</p>
<p>A lot of this quibbling over the number of 2400s–and I realize I participated in it too–is really beside the point. </p>
<p>The important question is, “Is a 680M disqualifying?” The consensus seems to be that it is not. </p>
<p>The next most important question, actually still unasked, is probably, “Is a 680M problematic for colleges add selective add those named in this thread?” I don’t actually know. But because of the way colleges report SAT scores in their common data sets, I strongly suspect that a 700 is more than 20 points better than a 680, and less than 40 points inferior to a 740. And because applicants are allowed to test several times and use their highest math score, I would expect a large number of applicants to the colleges in question to be submitting SAT math scores of 700 or higher.</p>
<p>“I strongly suspect that a 700 is more than 20 points better than a 680, and less than 40 points inferior to a 740.”</p>
<p>That’s ludicrous. This is implying that college admissions officers are imbeciles and are easily mesmerized by shiny objects, that they are incapable of thinking and reasoning.</p>
<p>
Uh, no. That’s why I pointed out that was This Year Alone. Superscoring occurs over more than one year. When you add up the potential scores across three years…</p>
<p>I agree with Sikorsky that a score in the 700s is looked at differently from a score in the 600s, even one so close.</p>
<p>*low for Dartmouth where it’s at the 25%ile (and Yale and NU are probably worse). * And, all the other similar comments.</p>
<p>Do we know what this student wants to major in? If it’s STEM, the competition will best her, in that regard. If it’s not, her other scores and the A in BC calc will go a lonnng way toward showing we have a bright, motivated kid who just doesn’t have a better SAT M number.</p>
<p>All this talk of SAT score this and that, how many, who says, etc-- it entirely forgets that it’s not all about stats. Do we need to start that argument again? She will need a well done application package, with the right personal qualities and strengths, a consistently good self-presentation, no fluffy nonsense. That is her challenge. No assuming the 680 puts her behind an 8-ball and no assuming her hs standing or status is all it takes.</p>
<p>(Understand that all we know here is her stats- not her engagements or impact, her perspective or maturity.)</p>
<p>Let me turn the 680/700 argument around: you think she’d magically look better if she had a 700, but had stopped at pre-calc or honors calc? Umm.</p>
<p>“Uh, no. That’s why I pointed out that was This Year Alone. Superscoring occurs over more than one year. When you add up the potential scores across three years…”</p>
<p>Almost no one takes the SATs over a 3 year span. And if you assume a person takes the SAT over multiple years, then you have to subtract some of the 800s for this year because they weren’t taken by 2014s then, right? So you have to take the numbers for one year and apply it to the applicants for one year, as it will average out.</p>
<p>“I agree with Sikorsky that a score in the 700s is looked at differently from a score in the 600s, even one so close.”</p>
<p>Then I hope you and Sikorsky never get a job in college admissions.</p>
<p>You guys are too funny. Re LookingForward - I agree with you. The reason we never pushed our daughter to study her brains out to possibly improve her SAT math score by a measly 20 points or so is because we did trust that at least one college would look beyond the 680 math and see the woman behind it – she is authentic and true to herself; her extracurriculars are focused and show depth and most importantly, show the impact that she has had on the community around her. She despises kids who “play the game” in her mind. It is difficult sometimes - we have to remind her that she needs to at least “be in the game” – but if she feels that she is doing something solely so that it looks good on an application? - she refuses. So… my question regarding stats was more of a bigger picture – not that I feel in any way that my daughter’s stats define her. I have to believe that she will end up where she belongs, and that as long as all of the colleges on her list are ones that fit her criteria (she has an 8-criteria evaluation system that she uses, yes indeed, cough) … that she will be happy at whatever school chooses to admit her. That being said, indeed, her wish to continue her work in international community health would be best suited at some of the “reach” schools that are larger and are able to offer some incredible majors or minors in her area. The smaller liberal arts colleges (except Macalester) typically don’t have the bandwith to offer such a program.</p>
<p>DS got an 800 in reading but 670 in math last spring with very little prep. He was disappointed, we were happy. I let him make the choice, and since he’s going for a coue of Ivys and top tiers, he decided to study this summer (for once!) and try again Oct. 5…he feels like he was much better prepared for the math. I think OP’s daughter is competitive with the 670 but there IS something about that magic 700 mark…</p>
<p>“Couple of Ivys”…sorry, phone typing:)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I will assume, Maynard, that this is just your own charming, hyperbole-infused way of saying, “Gee, Sikorsky, I don’t quite follow your thinking here. Could you explain it?”</p>
<p>Since you asked so endearingly, I’ll be happy to. When colleges and universities report the SAT scores of their current freshman classes in their common data sets, they report them in bands: 750 and up, 700-740, 650-690, 600-640, etc. In the common data sets, then, a 680 looks more like a 650 than it does a 700. And a 740 looks more like a 700 than a 750.</p>
<p>Why does that matter? Because those reports from the common data sets are the same reports that get reposted on the College Board web site and a bunch of other sites that aggregate college information.</p>
<p>Should be this way? No, of course not. But higher education shouldn’t be about marketing, either; that doesn’t mean that’s the way it is. Very many highly ranked colleges and universities care about the perception that they enroll top-flight students, and one way they reinforce that perception is by publishing their enrolled students’ test scores. And it just so happens that the way they publish the data is in the bands described above.</p>
<p>Sikorsky, when colleges fill in the tables on the CDS, that’s all they’re doing: filling in a template given to them that tells then to group the scores in a particular way.</p>
<p>The CDS table says absolutely nothing about how any college looks at SAT scores. It may reveal how the author of the template felt about 680 vs. 700 vs. 740 but nothing about the college that had to fill it out. </p>
<p>While there may be something magical about the 700 cut off to parents and students, I’m not so sure colleges which deal with thousands of scores at a time see it the same way.</p>
<p>I agree that in the strictest sense the CDS says very little about the use that college admissions committees make of SAT or ACT scores.</p>
<p>But I also understand that the people who do the admitting in the winter months are the very same people who spend each fall on the road recruiting applicants. I know that they know that the information they put into their CDS does get republished at College Board and elsewhere, and that ambitious, high-performing students look at the data. And I believe that the publication of data on SAT and ACT scores probably even has more bearing than it ought to have on those college rankings in USNWR and elsewhere, which in turn surely have more influence than they ought to have on application patterns and the perception of “prestige.”</p>
<p>I’m not saying I like any of this. And I’m also decidedly not saying there’s something “magical” about 700. All I said in the beginning was that I suspect that the gap between 680 and 700 looms larger than the gap between 700 and 720. I have a hypothesis that would explain my conjecture. If there’s evidence to disprove the conjecture, I’ll abandon it gladly. Because I’d *like *it if 680 and 700 and 720 all looked like basically the same SAT score. Which, after all, they are.</p>