<p>How, then, do you suggest that Princeton measure your inherent genius? It couldn’t possibly be through your middling grade point average, a statistic that is anyway much more meaningless than the SAT, since it is based primarily on the whims and biases of your school’s faculty. </p>
<p>Princeton receives more than 18,000 applications a year. With an applicant pool of this depth, the admissions committee is able to select students who are not only “passionate”, but who also have the uncanny ability to stay calm and collected for a few hours while they successfully answer questions that test 8th grade level math skills and basic reading comprehension. (Needless to say, this group will have also compiled impeccable high school records.) I see that you posted a good score on the Writing section: congratulations. It is interesting how that section alone was able to measure your aptitude for that subject. </p>
<p>You are at the minute intersection of two special interest applicant groups. That fact alone, however, will not be enough to salvage your application, unless you raise your scores considerably. Fortunately for you, Princeton does not consider freshman year grades, though they will still see your cumulative grade point average.</p>
<p>Colleges need the SAT. They can’t just judge applicants based on their GPA’s. Or else no one from my school would be going to Ivy’s. Like only one person has an UW 4.0. Yet eah year, there are 3.8’s going to Harvard, 3.6’s going to Columbia, etc. But quite a few of 3.6’s at my school get 2350’s and the like. Would it be fair to judge an applicant just by his official 3.6 when he’s able to get a 4.0 at MANY other schools across the nation?</p>
<p>I’ve never regarded myself as even close to a genius, ClareQuilty. I mean, I’m not saying that the SAT should be completely disregarded, but maybe reformed a little. It is true that colleges need some criterion besides the SAT for judging their applicants. But if they acknowledge that there is weak correlation between SAT scores and college grades, why not add some extra time to the SAT or add some more weight to other factors, such as EC or rigor of secondary school?</p>
<p>As for the other posters, I’m starting to agree somewhat. There may be “some” correspondence with how well you perform on the SAT and in college because, quite obviously, “there ain’t no way a genius’s gonna’ get below a 1400.” However, from past experience, I believe that the amount of this correlation is so small that it should be ascribed very little weight. </p>
<p>Iv4me, I am disheartened at your response.</p>
<p>“A person with a score as low as yours would not be able to live up to the incredibly high expectations of the engineering and science departments of Princeton.”</p>
<p>Yes, working quickly is obviously important, but working carefully is even more important, I believe. I hate to boast, but I think these examples are especially relevant. Can someone please explain to me how I maintained both 100% in my physics and pre-calculus classes junior year, and two more A’s in calculus both terms, only to get a 590 on on Math? Even if my school wasn’t rigorous, (I have full confidence that it is, because only one genius Indian was even close to me) those grades in those difficult classes are still hard to maintain. Yes, so the math on the SAT is rather rudimentary, but Iv4me has made the point that someone scoring that low is unlikely to keep up with the science and engineering departments at Princeton. Calculus and physics are obviously high-level and are closer to the kinds of courses necessary to do well in those departments. </p>
<p>What I’m really saying is that I think colleges are just unmotivated to develop another criterion for getting in. There’s obviously something wrong with the SAT, and that’s its validity. I’m just glad its developers changed its acronym from Scholastic Aptitude Test to the letters not standing for anything in particular. It’s good to know that the ETS is one step ahead of colleges, logic-wise.</p>
<p>“Can someone please explain to me how I maintained both 100% in my physics and pre-calculus classes junior year, and two more A’s in calculus both terms”</p>
<p>well i also got 100% in my physics and precal classes junior year and have the same grade in my calc class and ap physics class right now…im sure over half of the applicant pool can boast straight a’s(or close to that) so what is princeton supposed to do accept everybody with straight a’s?</p>
<p>once again in college timed exams are going to be over half of ur grade…rather than high school (or at least mine) where homework (not timed) counts for more than the tests (which arent even timed rigorously so that the “less smart” (or whatever the pc term is) can get done too…these people wont be at princeton so ur exams are going to have stricter time limits like the sat)</p>
<p>By forgetting the important part of that sentence, you made it seem as if I were intentionally being pompous. Of course, the SAT and tests in colleges should not be compared, as the former has three different sections and is much longer than any regular assessment in ANY college. </p>
<p>“so what is princeton supposed to do accept everybody with straight a’s?”</p>
<p>You clearly misunderstood the bulk of my post.</p>
<p>Could someone please explain to me how I maintained both <80% in my Physics and Pre-calculus classes junior year, and two more B’s in Calculus both terms, only to get a 700 on the Math SAT I, 750 on the Math I SAT II, 800 on the Math II SAT II, and 800 on the Physics SAT II?</p>
<p>Oh, wait, thank you, standardized testing!
You’ve just revealed how difficult my curriculum is!
Furthermore, you’ve done a service to all of us by identifying flawed curricula and stupidly generous teachers!</p>
<p>A student from our high school is currently a junior at Princeton and she also had “poor” SAT scores. I believe she had a 1100 out of 1600, which translates into 550 for CR and 550 for Math when relatively comparing scores to the “modern SATs.” </p>
<p>She had and still has an awesome personality, had stellar extracurricular activities and an outstanding academic profile. She was also a URM student (Latina).</p>
<p>Don’t worry, you have already submitted right? Let the admissions officers tell you whether or not you’re in.</p>
<p>lol kwu cybershot thought u were on his side :)</p>
<p>im not going to keep arguing with u tho cybershot as u clearly dont seem to believe me when i tell u that college exams are much harder than the sat and are timed more strictly and ive only talked to people who go to state universities (all of whom had better sats than u)</p>
<p>i was not trying to make u sound pompous, i was simply pointing out that maintaining straight a’s at ur high school (even in hard classes) is not that big of an accomplishment unless it is ranked in the top 50 high schools or w/e they do with that</p>
<p>lastly i have to once again tell u that u need sat 2s!!! perhaps take the physics and two others?</p>
<p>I personally think standardized testing is a completely fair aspect of college admissions. As some had mentioned, it puts you on the same scale as other students nationwide. I also think high scores (and low scores) demonstrate different aspects of the student’s abilities that a high school test could not demonstrate. While high scores on high school tests could be only the result of simply hard work, hours of studying, teachers adding ridiculous amounts of bonus questions, or cheating on the day of the test, tests like the SAT show your quickness, cleverness, resourcefulness, and possibly even your time management skills if you are able to get a high score by practicing out of the book and balance 10 ECs and a 5.0 GPA on top of that. Nothing is failproof, and increasing the importance of the ECs will be discriminatory in other manners.</p>
<p>Like gman, I also know a girl from my school who was a URM student (African-American) who got into Princeton and a bunch of other schools with below par SAT scores; all of her scores were between 600 and 700 and she was very strong in all other areas. There’s always a possibility, and I hope you the best of luck!</p>
<p>Thanks for backing me up iv4me; however, I am a little confused about your previous post.</p>
<p>“Cybershot, in regards to your opinion of the SAT, I feel you are very misguided. Certainly, the SAT is not a perfect measure of aptitude, but it is definitely a reasonable one. Why? Because unlike grades, which vary tremendously from school to school, the SAT is standardized. It really is the only way for the school to compare your ability to someone else’s.”</p>
<p>I don’t see much the logic in the bold statement. Because the SAT is standardized, it’s a reasonable measure of aptitude? </p>
<p>I’m sorry, but it is this reasoning that I fear colleges, too, have and thus feel justified in placing too much emphasis on the SAT.</p>
<p>Maybe it’s my own fault for not preparing enough on the other sections, but I have always felt confident that I have enough mathematical intuition to pass all the math and science classes, but for some reason the SAT is more adamant.</p>
<p>“It really is the only way for the school to compare your ability to someone else’s.”</p>
<p>^^ Exactly why I feel that colleges are not spending enough time considering a more valid criterion.</p>
<p>Something I will point out is that Princeton does not look at freshman grades. Thus the 3.56 GPA or whatever it is could wind up being much higher (if the original poster did indeed only mess up freshman year, and did so enough to drag down the overall GPA a lot.) If so, that could change things; having a 3.75 or 3.8 could make up for lower SAT scores, though in the 500s is quite low.</p>
<p>Around 1600 black students make SAT scores higher than 1200. Outside of that very small number of “qualified” students, the Ivies, Standford, MIT and top tier LACs really have to scrape to fill their classes. That’s why Middlebury has an acceptance rate of 50% for African Americans. MIT, around 30%. HYP, between 15-20%. (numbers from JBHE)</p>