<p>I was reading Hernandez’ book A is for Admissions --the older version, 1999 I think-- and she mentioned how a Puerto Rican with 490 SAT (I forgot which) got accepted at Dartmouth or Princeton I think… who knows. Just show passion and hope for the best.</p>
<p>fringey, way to blatantly blast taylor…</p>
<p>well, to the OP, i think that, perhaps, you are underestimating the “competitive black people” mentioned by one of the earlier posters. I am an African American, like yourself, but I have a 2370 on the SAT, SAT 2s all above 700, and a 4.6. Unless you bring up that SAT, especially the math section, because your writing’s OK, and do spectacularly on the physics SAT 2, then I really can’t see any logical conclusion to your application except a small envelope in April. Just my two cents.</p>
<p>I really hope Cybershot doesn’t get in. 590 on math? But you claim you might be the greatest mathematician in the world anyway…have you won any math competitions? won a westinghouse? You’re a sham. There’s nothing on your record that suggests you’re anything but an average student.</p>
<p>I have a SAT of 1310, do you think three Subject scores of 750 plus would make up for it. Even if i have like 4.2 GPA, great essays, and fantastic teacher recs, and (at least i thought) a really great interview. Plus i’m a urm. Any thoughts guys?</p>
<p>Nobody on CC knows. Just apply and see.</p>
<p>FarrCT, your SAT I is a bit low, but as you pointed out, the SAT II’s do make up for it somewhat. It’s really hard to give you a good prediction, but if you have good EC’s and essays, then I think you’ve got a good shot. The URM status should help a good bit.</p>
<p>I didn’t have the greatest SAT I scores: 2120 (660 M, 700 CR, 760 W, but my SAT II scores made up for it (all above 700), and I had a 4.0 GPA UW. However, even as a URM candidate (I’m multiracial) who had a very rigorous transcript, I was not the most competitive candidate on that alone. I had the opportunity to apply early, and with good recommendations and essays, that pushed me over the edge. </p>
<p>I will be frank though, I don’t believe I would’ve had the same fortune if I applied in the regular pool, especially not today.</p>
<p>I wonder where this kid ended up.</p>
<p>The University of California, Davis.</p>
<p>I have a personal issue with the SAT. If you look at my SAT scores it would seem like my chances to Princeton are slim: 2070 (790 Cr, 650 M, 630 W), 710 Lit, 680 Math 2, and whatever I got on bio.
But the ACT was a 34 (36 R, 35 M, 32 E, 31 S). I am also black. So when ppl constantly use the SAT as the sole determiner of “qualifiedness” it is a little irksome.
I think the quality of the black pool is often times underestimated. There are few top scoring minorities on the SAT, but ppl need to remember that there are few minorities in the Ivies so perhaps the ones that perform well are the ones that get admitted.</p>
<p>You don’t need to justify your “qualifiedness,” Dbate.</p>
<p>I know a black Crimson, '12, with a 2250 and 35, respectively.
There’s less of a discrepancy between his scores, but one could still assert that he did impressively well on the former.</p>
<p>What you need to ask yourself is why your SAT scores are lower than your ACT scores, and why you so complacently accept it.</p>
<p>Kwu, how did you find out?</p>
<p>Guys, can you tell me if I have a chance? How important is breaking 1,000 on the SAT?</p>
<p>SAT: 930
GPA: .5</p>
<p>But I’m an alien from the planet Jupiter, so does that give me a better chance than most?</p>
<p>Sorry, Saugus, Princeton has quotas discriminating against applicants who are not from the planet Earth.</p>
<p>cf. his posting history.</p>
<p>Hey kwu don’t make fun of my spellling I have never been a good speller so leave me alone. 
</p>
<p>I know pretty much why my SAT scores are lower and it probably is just the test format. I mean the math on the ACT is actually harder but the questions were straight forward, just like the english section so I did alot better on them. Also the ACT is like the test we have in Texas which is the TAKS. If you are familiar with Bush’s No Child Left Behind you would know that this was something that he instituted in texas and as a result for about every year through about 10th grade we were taught to take this test, which happens to have a VERY similar format to the ACT.
It is so apparent that many ppl from my area scored extraordinarily high on the ACT but have about the same SAT scores that I do, so I think the TAKS policy contributed.
Oh and I am complacent about my SAT scores bc I was not going to spend four hours taking it again.</p>
<p>The crutch of my post was derived from my personal vendetta against the SAT bc I didn’t do well on it. After months lurking on here seeing all the 2300+ I felt like there was no way I was getting in but then I got my ACT results and it seemed like I had a chance, so needless to say I am an ACT fan.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The ACT is not really harder. It’s actually easier because it’s an achievement test while the SAT is an aptitude test. The ACT can be “beaten” much easier than the SAT can. </p>
<p>And the questions are only “tricky” (USUALLY) to people who don’t have good mathematical intuition. Being able to use time-saving tricks are well indicative of high level mathematical ability. (This wasn’t directed at you specifically DBate.)</p>