<p>Given the regional nature of admissions considerations, the number
of individuals who are going to be neck-to-neck in their stats is going
to be relatively lower on a per-reader basis. It would seem rational
to believe in the "else" part as being the key and not the magnitude of the
score by itself as granting an advantage?</p>
<p>(Also, at my high school, I know across the last 3 years close to 30
students who had their SATs treated roughly equally despite having a
difference of 90-60 points. CB itself indicates a variance band for every
score of 40 points...(?))</p>
<p>
[quote]
Here's a line from a high-ranking Yale admissions person a few years ago: "How much attention do we pay to SATs? A lot less than you think we do, and a little more than we admit." (But, like the MIT blog, he went on to say that there was no functional difference between how they regarded a 2400 and 2300.)
[/quote]
I have also heard exactly this from a Yale Rep at our high school and the other Ivy League reps (Brown, Cornell, Dartmouth, and U Penn) at the same table all nodded in agreement.</p>
<p>Just because more 2300-2400s get admitted than 2200-2300s doesn't mean that the scores are what made the difference. You know the old saw about correlation and causation.</p>
<p>I only know the SAT I scores of two people who go to Ivy league schools (Harvard and Princeton), and both were 2310. I'm not attempting to make a generalization here, much less some unfounded hypothesis that there's something special about that number, but I would take that to mean that if you score at least 2300 there's no reason to retake the SAT unless you have a really strong desire for a perfect score.</p>
<p>"Just because more 2300-2400s get admitted than 2200-2300s doesn't mean that the scores are what made the difference. You know the old saw about correlation and causation."</p>
<p>In which case the SAT is still measuring something that these colleges really want, if only by sheer but certifiable coincidence. I didn't say correlation implied causation, I said that that was one of two options.</p>
<p>"They'd view a 2300 as essentially about the same as a 2400. Hence, the 40-something percent admission rate for 2400s."</p>
<p>What I don't get is... A lot of people on this thread have near perfect scores (makes my 2330 look bad). How does one do so well on standardized testing and then do bad in school? (I mean if you are a 4800 person, work ethic shouldn't even be an issue). And @ Baelor, I bet that the amount of 2400's accepted over 2300's is likely because the 2400 applicants are just as good at everything else.</p>
<p>omg -__-. i got a 2310, and now this thread makes me worry like crazy.</p>
<p>but yet, im reading these posts, i have to bring up the question of why a 2400 should merit much more weight than a 2300. I mean, i got my 2310 when i barely even knew the format of the exam (and the questions i ultimately missed sorta reflected that) since no one around my area really cares about the sats and we all are more extracurricular oriented, and yet theres people scoring 2400s that get unreasonable amounts of coaching for the test. in that case, how could it be justifiable to differentiate test scores once they reach a level that high?</p>
<p>There are probably like 125 4800's in this senior class. The fact that quite a few are showing their faces here just speaks to the absurdity of CC, haha.</p>
<p>I disagree with the notion that SAT is an initial screen. I think that while it is not necessarily emphasized with every applicant, a very high score (around 4720+) is going to seriously help an otherwise well-rounded application.</p>
<p>op here. thanks for all your well thought and interesting comments. i got the sat 1 in one sitting but i took the each subject tests in a different sitting. i have a feeling that the admissions office would take great pleasure in rejecting perfect scores. also apparently bill fitzsimmons (harvard admissions dean) was heading some study this past year that concluded sat scores don't indicate college success. </p>
<p>one more concern of mine is that i'm not amazing in one subject or field. im just pretty good at many. i also do a variety of ec's that i like but they have no coherent theme. i have heard through the grapevine that the 'jack of all trade' types are disliked and more concentrated/special students are favored. what's your take on this, cc?</p>
<p>Wow honestly... everyone that has a 2200+ needs to stop crying about their SAT score unless they have a bad GPA/rank or are boring because then SAT's are probably important to you...</p>
<p>Let me put the OP's question a different way.</p>
<p>I have a 2400 SAT, five 800s on Subject Tests, and a 4.0. ECs are mostly math/science themed, and I have individual and team state-level awards in most (plus a few national ones, but on the level of 10th-place-team in the nation). Essays are good, but not amazing. </p>
<p>Sure, I am not a shoo-in at Harvard, but what do you think my percent chance of acceptance is?</p>
<p>rb9109, from our large public high school with a sample side where the margin of error is bigger than the sample size I'd say you had a 50/50 chance. Your awards will probably help. It may also make a difference just what your teachers and GC say about you. Essays are hard to judge.</p>
<p>The character and personality traits check off form from the teachers and counselors also count. Harvard has the luxury of selecting socially mature candidates out of the great pool of academic whizzes. This is the time students' past attitudes and behaviors affect their futures.</p>
<p>With your stats, assuming you are liked by your teachers and GC, I'd also say you have a 50/50 chance. Good luck!</p>
<p>I've got access to our school's scattergrams again. We're a large suburban public school. We're considered good, but not the best in the county. We are on Newsweek's silly list of top high schools, but near the bottom of the list. Anyway with one exception every one who has been accepted in the last six years has had SAT scores of 2220 or better. No one had 2400/2400, but one did have 1600/1600. All but (the same) one had a weighted GPA of 100 or more. (Not sure what that would be unweighted, but my son had a weighted GPA of 102.5 with three B+s in English and two non-honors English courses.) There were 10 applicants in that range, three rejected, two waitlisted, five accepted.</p>