<p>Just curious.</p>
<p>What % of people get 1600???</p>
<p>about 78.66%
to the best of my knowledge</p>
<p>my reply was a total joke
by looking on this site, you'd think about 10%, but really, i believe its around 1/10 % including all the non-geniuses that don't care for school and their future</p>
<p>.066% - 939 of 1,411,007, or is it 1,419,007?</p>
<p>I thought the annual average was about 500-600? That must have gone up.</p>
<p>I heard an exact figure of how many 1600 SAT people applied to Stanford last year--the figure was in the hundreds. Roughly half of those were rejected for admission to Stanford. I heard this at this year's Stanford regional informational meeting in my town. </p>
<p>The bottom line is that 1600 SAT scores have become amazingly common since "recentering." They were very rare, and thus always remarkable, before the scoring scale was recentered in the 1990s. Last year in my state there were three girls from the same high school who all got 1600s on the same test date. all three of them also aced the ACT. I saw an interview with the girls on our local TV news. I think only one of the girls ended up at a highly selective college--but maybe the other two didn't apply out of state. </p>
<p>The College Board Web site is pretty busy tonight, but the annual SAT I national report can be found there and shows that there are LARGE numbers of test-takers scoring above 750 these days. I haven't found an official figure for the number of 1600 scorers, but it is definitely in the hundreds each year.</p>
<p>yeah, i wish the curves were harsher. High scores are so often discounted now because they are, relatively speaking, common.</p>
<p>But that's still 50% chance, even if you're the most deadpan in ECs.</p>
<p>True, 50% chance is alot better than 13%</p>
<p>I would think that now the "Perfect Score" would be a 4000. 1600 from the SAT and 3 800's from the SAT II's. I know there is at least one from the old CC that had that. I wonder what the acceptance rate is for someone with a 4000.</p>
<p>yeah, I don't like how you can miss 1 and still get an 800. It really decreases the validity of perfect scores. In order to have a perfect score, I think you need to perform perfectly and that means not missing even one.</p>
<p>i disagree celebrian, although I understand where you're coming from. The SAT is a standardized test score. Therefore, your score is based off of how well you did to all other high school students that took the test, therefore if u missed every math question on the test except one, but everyone else missed every single math question, you should still get an 800 in math. Of course im a little bit biased myself, since so far i've gotten 800 in my SAT II writing and hopefully i can match this in my other 2 sat 2's in nov. yet i got 1580 on the SAT I getting an 800 v, but 780 math. I missed only 1 question on math, and they took off 20 points, I was pretty ****ed that most ppl get an 800 but i was reduced to a 780. I understand that my math test must've been easier than most math tests, but while studying i consistently got 1 or 0 wrong on math, so i was hoping for the 800 math....ok now im just whining i guess lol</p>
<p>i feel diffeerent for anything less than 800, but it would increase the value of an 800 (or 1600) if it really was based on you didn't miss any</p>
<p>50% is high o.O. It shouldn't be any higher anyway, after all, standardized tests are and should be only one factor. So, maybe it's not that colleges aren't valuing 4000's....it's more likely to be that these 4000'ers didn't match up as well in EC's or essays (<em>points sadly to self - bullcrap all of them....</em>).</p>
<p>You guys make it sound as if a 1600 is "common" occurence. Beating 99.934% of people out there is definetly not "common". I think ppl that go on these boards tend to lose perspective of the bigger picture, colleges look at the big picture, may be we should too.</p>
<p>Anyway, as other ppl have alrdy said, a 50% chance of admittance is way better than 13%.</p>
<p>It's probably .6%. 800 on math was 97 percentile and 800 on verbal was 98 percentile, at least when I took it. But, even though a 1600 is brilliant, I think that there are more important things when it comes to college admissions, like being dedicated to your ECs.</p>
<p>No, I got a 780 on math and that was already 99 percentile.</p>
<p>If you go to this link <a href="http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/about/news_info/cbsenior/yr2003/pdf/2003CBSVM.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/about/news_info/cbsenior/yr2003/pdf/2003CBSVM.pdf</a></p>
<p>It tells you the exact number of people that got a particular score. According to this table 939 ppl got a 1600 last year. That's 939 ppl out of 1419000. So it's .0662%.</p>
<p><em>goes off to check</em>
@Flavian: yeah, you're right. an 800 IS 99 percentile, so maybe .... .01%</p>
<p>Some of you have been saying you wish the curve were harsher... it wouldn't do any good. The difference between missing none and missing one is meaningless- just a matter of misreading a single question, perhaps. There is no statistical value in distinguishing between those scores. In fact, statistically anything over 1550 basically tells the same thing. To differentiate further would be pointless.</p>
<p>That doesn't meant there aren't huge differences in ability among very high scoreres- there are- but the SAT cannot tell them. Trivially easy questions cannot tell that. I know a couple very stupid people who have gotten 1600s, and some very smart people that have gotten 1520 (still high, but you wouldn't think so on this board). The SAT is just not designed to tell those people apart.</p>
<p>I do agree that 1600s are too common to the point of not meaning all that much. But the answer is not to make the curve harsher- the answer is to make a harder test. I think that cushion of being able to miss a few is very important, otherwise there is just too much of a luck factor.</p>
<p>Then there is also the fact that intelligence cannot be measured, and while it may be fun to make little contests out of intelligence tests (I very much enjoy math contests), the reality is that these things are really just for fun and competition, not valid indicators of potential. So while testing can tell a little about intelligence, it's usefulness dries up very quickly.</p>