<p>The difference betweeen a 2390 and a 2400 is so infinitesimal that it can almost be seen as negligible, seeing that it is a difference of only one question. With that said, the curve on different test days vary and so a 2400 on one day could go as low as even a 2350 on the other. There are an infinite amount of variables that could cause you to miss that 1 question and i would go as far as saying that getting a 2400 ( or more specifically, getting every question right) involves a certain amount of luck. No matter how many vocab words you crammed there will always be some you dont know and you could just have a bad day where of the 5 answers choices you know the meaning of…none of them lol.</p>
<p>For admissions purposes i dont see how they could substantially differentiate between a 2350 and a 2400 when the difference is only a few questions and could be most likely attributed to careless mistakes rather than lack of knowledge.</p>
<p>"So, for admission purpose, if you do not get in with your 2390, then I do not think you would get in with 2400 "</p>
<p>That’s the key point right there: there is nothing 2400 is going to do for you that 2390 won’t. If you don’t get in with 2390, it will be because of have low grades (compared to what is expected with a 2390), weak EC’s, a really bad essay, or maybe a letter of recommendation that raises a red flag. And schools rightfully want to retain their ability to make those judgements. So even 2400 is not going to be an automatic admission. And at the end of the day, it is still just bubbling ovals. I would rather see auto-bids to Intel winners.</p>
<p>The admissions difference between 2390 and 2400 is almost always irrelevant. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, many people who score 2400 on the real thing scored 2400 on their last several practice exams. Luck need not be a large factor: avoiding careless mistakes is a skill that the SAT incidentally tests and that becomes quite important if one wants 2400. And it’s not a skill that I consider meaningless.</p>
<p>Few people seem to talk about the fact that colleges get to view a detailed score report with your essay and exactly how many you got incorrect. There is little difference between a 2390 scorer, who missed 2 on CritRead and 1 on Writing, and a 2400 scorer, who missed 2 on CritRead and 0 on Writing. The difference would be more evident if the 2400 scorer were to miss absolutely nothing, as it implies a kind of perfection and detail to the scorer’s test-taking skills.</p>
<p>I do not personally know of any examples where a 2400 scorer and a 2390 scorer had similar credentials and were accepted into similar colleges. The one example I do know is a 2400 scorer getting accepted into Harvard, Stanford, and Princeton and waitlisted at Yale, and the 2390 scorer getting rejected from Yale, Stanford, and Harvard and waitlisted at Princeton. However, the 2390 scorer had nowhere near the credentials the 2400 scorer had, so the impact of those 10 points is not made very clear.</p>
<p>Finally, I would agree that a 2400 requires a certain element of luck. However, that statement applies to virtually everything in life. Preparation and practice are the ways that humans minimize the impact of luck on their success. As a 2400 scorer, I was consistently scoring 2380+ on my last 6 practice tests, and 2 of them were 2400s (assuming an 11 on the essay). That preparation certainly helped me get past the nerves and the curve balls to answer every question right on test day. I don’t have any experience getting a 2390, though, so I can’t comment on how different (if there is a difference) the test-taking felt between both scenarios.</p>
<p>I know someone who got -1 MC on writing for 79 MC and a 10 essay and somehow got an 800 in writing. They got either -1 or -2 on CR. They got a 2400.
I know another person who got -1 MC on writing and a 10 essay and got a 790 in writing. -0 in CR, and got a 2390.
So, the second person actually did better on the test but got a lower score.
Therefore, I don’t think a 2400 necessarily implies you did any better on the test. It’s just a difference in how they decided to curve the test, which depends on <em>other</em> people.
I personally scored 2400 on almost all my practice tests and missed nothing on the SAT except got an 11 essay. I think there’s a bigger difference between that and a “low” 2400 then there is between a “low” 2400 and a “high” 2390. Maybe they could have some way to indicate a truly perfect score (-0 MC and 12 essay), like a 2410? (I wouldn’t get that anyway…)</p>
<p>I also know people who got 2400 merely out of luck, like one who consistently scored in the high 2200s on practice tests but got a 2400 on the actual test because it was an easy test / had a generous curve. And vice versa, someone who consistenly scored 2400s on practice tests but got a 2390 or 2380 because it was a harder test day / had a harder curve for one of the english sections.</p>
<p>I think that if 2400 scorers had to retake the test twice, less than 1/2 would get 2400 again twice. Maybe less than 1/3. Luck is in fact a big element in a lot of them, although obviously a super genius (and one who never makes careless errors) should be able to consistently score 2400 even if he took it 10 times, but I don’t think the majority of 2400 scorers are those.</p>
<p>As someone who got a 2390, I honestly don’t think there’s that big of a difference.
I got every question right on the test except for one wrong in math, and I got question number one wrong. I still remember the question, it was a careless mistake.
I got a 2400 on the practice test I took a few days before the actual tests, so I don’t think getting a 2390 implies that the person is less skilled or less accomplished than someone who got a 2390.
The purpose of taking the SATs is to get into college, and seeing that colleges do not differentiate between a 2350 and a 2400, any score between that range seems fine.</p>
<p>As someone who got a 2390, I honestly don’t think there’s that big of a difference.
I got every question right on the test except for one wrong in math, and I got question number one wrong. I still remember the question, it was a careless mistake.
I got a 2400 on the practice test I took a few days before the actual tests, so I don’t think getting a 2390 implies that the person is less skilled or less accomplished than someone who got a 2390.
The purpose of taking the SATs is to get into college, and seeing that colleges do not differentiate between a 2350 and a 2400, any score between that range seems fine.</p>
<p>I don’t see it as “luck” needed to score a 2400. I think it is really having the right intuition on test day to choose the right answer over another, seemingly correct answer, in a very tough question, that would make or break scoring a 2400.</p>
<p>Oh man, I would never retake the SAT to get 2400, if I had 2390. Who cares about 10 points!!! Your score will still look perfect with 2390. Plus, admission officers say that the SAT score is just one of the many factors they consider. Plus, the SAT is super boring test…ughh.</p>
<p>The thing is, it is absolutely luck unless you are someone who consistently gets 2400 on every test they take. For a potential 2400 scorer, there are probably no “very tough” questions, it’s a matter of not making careless errors. (There might be a couple “very tough” CR questions, but CR does have a curve so -2 can still be 800.) If you do consider the questions “very tough” and still get 2400, you might be someone who usually wouldn’t get 2400 but takes an easy test date or makes a couple lucky guesses. If you are the kind of person that never makes careless errors, you’ll get a 2400 no matter your luck, but few people are that smart and also have that skill. Even if you are someone who almost always gets 2400 on practice (like me), there were 1 or 2 practice tests I made careless errors in. That could as easily have been the real test - it was just luck that made the difference. I’m saying this as someone who did get a 2400 on the first try. If I was having a bad day or got unlucky, I absolutely could have gotten a 2390 or even 2370 - and I think college admissions officers realize this, and that’s why they treat 2350+ essentially like a 2400. I’m not saying having a 2400 isn’t good, but not having it probably doesn’t really make a difference if you have 2350+ as far as most college admissions go - at least, HYPSM+Ivies+other top colleges that are not numbers-based but holistic.</p>
I wish!</p>