<p>admissionconsultants.com is not inventing this fact. Here is another source that reflects this exact statement (which is dated less than eleven months ago):</p>
<p>Moreover, if we view Princeton’s SAT/ACT score profile of admitted students ([College</a> Search - Princeton University - SAT®, AP®, CLEP®](<a href=“College Search - BigFuture | College Board”>College Search - BigFuture | College Board)), we can see the heavy slant in favor of the SAT (98% of those admitted sent SAT scores while only 22% of those admitted submitted ACT scores). Also, those admitted do not overwhelmingly reside from states in which the SAT is the more common test. In fact, even if the opposite were true, it would not be pertinent since these students often take the SAT in addition to the ACT. </p>
<p>Considering the heavy overlap of the Princeton applicant pool with that of HYS including academic talent and similarity in geographical profiles, we can determine that Princeton’s claim is legitimate. We can see that Harvard is slightly more lenient towards those who submit the ACT (96% submit SAT, 29% submit ACT) ([College</a> Search - Harvard College - SAT®, AP®, CLEP®](<a href=“College Search - BigFuture | College Board”>College Search - BigFuture | College Board)). Yale’s CB profile (SAT: 92%, ACT: 27%) ([College</a> Search - Yale University - SAT®, AP®, CLEP®](<a href=“College Search - BigFuture | College Board”>College Search - BigFuture | College Board)) demonstrates less weight placed on the SAT with a more favorable view of the ACT relative to Princeton. Stanford is the most liberal of the four (SAT: 93%, ACT: 34%) ([College</a> Search - Stanford University - The Farm - SAT®, AP®, CLEP®](<a href=“College Search - BigFuture | College Board”>College Search - BigFuture | College Board)) which suggests that its policy declares that the ACT is a more suitable substitute relative to that of Princeton. </p>
<p>Also, we must consider that most of those sending the ACT also submitted the SAT. If we had statistics regarding “SAT-only” applicants versus “ACT-only,” we would invariably see an increasingly skewed preference for the SAT over the ACT since the majority of applicants are “SAT-only” students. We can discard the idea that the SAT is more popular among those applying since the SAT is enjoying its last year or two as America’s most taken standardized test. Although most admitted students may come from SAT-dominant locales, the proportion does not fit properly with the aformentioned statistics.</p>
<p>Thus, Princeton favors a test that predicts future performance (SAT) to a greater degree than one that demonstrates current performance (ACT) to the greatest degree of the four, although each shows a tendency to favor one over the other in a lopsided proportion. As stated previously, if we had more statistics comparing “SAT-only” students to “ACT-only” this slant would be more apparent. If equal weight were placed on each, we would see distributions similar to (SAT: 75%, ACT: 60%), but this equitability is not demonstrated.</p>
<p>I have to second mifune’s point as I have received similar information from my school’s guidance counselor (though, mifune obviously provides a better defense of the point than I do).</p>
<p>However, I disagree that a 2400 has any more meaning than a 2300 or anything in between the two. The fact that the overall admittance rate of 2400’s is higher relative to those who scored 2300+ does not lead to the conclusion that a 2400 is viewed more favorably than a 2300+. As well, one cannot even conclude that a 2300+ score is viewed more favorably than a score between 2100 and 2300 from the data given. The SAT score is one part of the application and the difference between a 2400 and 2300 could only be the result of a few careless errors (even if one genuinely missed a few problems, are those problems important enough to decide who gets admitted and who doesn’t?). It seems rather irrational for an institution to give more favor to a student that will be a part of the community at their university for the next four years and will represent them for the rest of his/her life simply because s/he did not make a few careless mistakes on a Saturday morning as opposed to the other student who made, let’s say, two. The same applies for a student’s GPA; the difference between a 3.95 and a 4.0 could very well just be the result of a few bad tests where the student either was not taking the test under ideal conditions or simply had a lapse in his/her memory which caused him/her to do rather poorly on the test. The people on CC forget that the entire point of one’s academic credentials is to predict how one will do, academically, once one is attending a university. A regional admissions officer cannot simply go into committee and say that this student from their region has a 4.0 and 2400, how can we not admit him/her? Granted, if this student is coming from one of the top schools in the country, then perhaps that may be enough to get the student admitted, but, in most cases, the admissions committee at Harvard, I would imagine, will take a student’s intangible qualities into account moreso than one’s numbers because they are admitting students, not numbers, and, with the number of quality applicants, the numbers won’t impress anyone. It comes, then, that given the SAT scores of a student or the overall academic profile of a student, one cannot induce that having a perfect academic profile gives a student a significant advantage over those with slightly less stellar (though still rather stellar) and not-perfect statistics because, in any holistic admissions process, one cannot evaluate the worth of one part of the application in a vacuum; one must be able to see the entire application and, as well, its relation to the rest of the applicant pool. In other words, given that X% got in with Y SAT score does not, necessarily, mean that Y SAT score gives one a better chance at acceptance.</p>
<p>@motion12345: Quantitative statistics, particularly the SAT, ACT, and SAT II, are not viewed as subjective qualities on an application primarily because they are standardized measured of one’s academic capabilities. All institutions have a uniform method of analyzing these statistics objectively (usually by combining them into a number called the Academic Index) to avoid evaluation discrepancies among different admission officers. It is simply not a matter of noting that an applicant has some arbitrary score on each section (i.e. 700) and proceeding to declare them as equal in academic quality to a student who attained an 800 on each section. Actually, to schools such as HYP, SAT scores are very important given the competition to obtain the top admission profile (2360-2370 at the 75th percentile). The truth of the matter is that there is a direct linear relationship between SAT scores and acceptance, which accounts for the fact that 2400s are accepted at nearly twice the rate as those who score a 2300 (I do not have the source but many can support this claim) which demonstrates that the merit provided to a student by his or her standardized testing scores exists on a continuum. Subjective and intangible factors, however, have a great influence on one’s acceptance since these factors elicit more about what that student can provide to the university in terms of talent and/or contribution.</p>
<p>I will agree that GPA is not viewed on the same basis as standardized testing scores given that the rigor of the high school must be taken into account along with the grading system. I believe that the difference between a 3.95 and a 4.0 is small, but such a difference will be noticeable when class standing is taken into account. For instance, at the school in which I am attending this year, those with a 4.0 mutually receive the top spot in the class. However, a 3.95 will place one out of the top 40, which is still well within the top decile, but can hinder one’s college opportunities more than it should.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Possibly. If there were statistics for the respective submission percentages of the SAT and ACT for the entire applicant pool against the statistics provided for those accepted, we could draw a better conclusion. Of course, since there are so many factors that determine an admission decision, there would inevitably be some degree of error.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Based on the original prompt of the OP, choice a) seems to be the information that he/she sought. But the discussion has become quite divergent from the original topic.</p>
<p>But to answer question a), I would estimate around 5%-7%.</p>
<p>Hmm interesting stuff. So, if I am applying from a state in the midwest (Nebraska) and submitting my SAT score. Would I be at an even bigger geographical advantage because 1. colleges want diversity and 2. almost every other person applying from my state prbly only took the ACT.</p>
<p>@Rtgrove123 - I agree. Most people do end up taking the SAT for colleges like Harvard, if they are serious applicants. They also have to take the SAT IIs anyway, so they might as well just take the SAT I.</p>
<p>@Millancad - Hahaha, the girl that you know has the same scores as me! I’ve never actually met anyone who has the same scores. It’s normally 36/2400 or like 35/2300.</p>
<p>You can find out how many students from your state (last year) submitted SAT scores to each of the top destination colleges for SAT-takers in your state by looking at the SAT state report for your state, e.g., </p>
<p>You shouldn’t assume that all students who sent scores to a given college filed a complete application, but you should assume that getting into H, Y, or P is competitive from every state in the Union. </p>
<p>I think we’re jumping to the conclusion that correlation equals causation. How many lower-middle class kids from blue collar families and mediocre high schools get 2400s? Probably not many. And how many of these same kids share the opportunities (or even awareness of such possibilities) of their socioeconomically advantaged peers to, for example, participate in debate clubs, play sports, or pursue any of these extracurriculars that showcase their “passion”? Again, not many. No doubt 2400s are by themselves impressive, but they (and lesser, but still stellar, scores – 2250+, perhaps?) are much more likely to be received by kids whose lives have been enriched and cultivated in ways that make for a fine application – without the numbers.</p>
<p>Well my kids have the scores but it does not make them special beacuse of both received all 800 in SAT 1 parts , all four SAT II and all 5 in 98-9APs. It is more than number and GPA. </p>
<p>I mean they have more passion for other things than just being academic kids. I still remmeber H daughter explaining that the interviewer asking my conservative chinese daughter her views of natioanlity of US, Germans and French. Her views of how nationality affcted the Hitler rise in nazi germany. The whole two hour interview focussed on international economics and politics. Rise and fall of emires in the past. Similarly the yalie daughter was not even asked a single question on academics. Interviews were totally based on philoshipical political economics. </p>
<p>Why focus on 2400 when there is so much more a person can dabble in passions behind what one wants to achieve?</p>
<p>my daughter got her SAT 1 scores. We are shocked to see 2380. She is a good, happy go kid who worked hard on her own. Her GPA is 3.8. Does she have any chance to get into the BIG schools. She plays softball for school and was even part of the team that won State championship. She plays flute. Any hope of getting into HYP. Anything she could do more to improve her chances.</p>
<p>However, from what you’ve described, she is certainly a competitive applicant for highly selective schools, including HYP. I don’t know what you mean to imply by “BIG schools.”</p>
<p>Harvard simply MUST admit students with scores of 2380 (and lower) each year, as there aren’t enough students with higher scores even to fill Harvard’s entering class. And not every student who scores at the peak of the scoring scale applies to Harvard, although surely many do. </p>
<p>Good luck in your applications. Remember that more issues than just test scores matter.</p>
<p>The idea that a 2400 is indistinguishable from any other 2300+ score is incorrect. Yes, there is a certain variance to each test taker’s score, probably, from experience as a test-taker and tutor, about 50 points in each direction (that is if the test were to be taken again immediately, scores can of course change more than that over time). However, an 800 on a section is not mere 10 points higher than 790, but rather ANY “true” score higher than 790. What I mean by that is that there is probably significant variance in mathematical ability among mathematics scorers above 800, meaning that the true expected value of an 800 is actually somewhat higher. There are no doubt some people who score an 800 who are only marginally better than those who score a 780, but there are also plenty who are FAR better, deserving of a even higher score but hitting the limits of the test’s difficulty which makes an 800 a much better score in practice. Thus, a 2370 can actually be much worse than a 2400, because a 2400 score could mean that the taker is a transcendental genius, and a 2370 is a pretty good (not certain, of course, absolutes are almost always wrong) indicator that such a person is not one of those genii. I understand the strong desire many have to say that anything above 2300 is the same (that would help me quite a bit if true) but if I were an employer and two people applied for a job, one with a 2300 (an no 800s) and the other with a 2400, the 2400 would be a significant bump, not merely a tie-breaker, because of the limitlessness such a score implies. Colleges use their whole range of information to make holistic decisions about this, of course, but this notion that a 790 and an 800 are equivalent is wishful thinking, even if in many cases it is true.</p>