<p>For those who play tennis, that was game, set, match.</p>
<p>"oh well whatever. 2100-2390 is both good and bad"</p>
<p>This sums it up. Everything he says is a contradiction.</p>
<p>Guys...just ignore the ****-eyed jerk, he's just bantering others because his own pathetic life is empty and lacks any meaning. </p>
<p>Kill this thread, and let the simpleton go. </p>
<p>Obviously, we all know there are other things that mean more than just SAT scores, we have personal qualities that makes each of us a decent human being. </p>
<p>And, from what we can infer from hikar - what's his name -, his lacks those commendable characteristics.</p>
<p>If you wanna illustrate how idiotic this guy's point-of-view is, then quit posting in this thread.</p>
<p>hikaru2005, 3 things:</p>
<p>1) Your conception of colleges is completely distorted and immature. Calling USC a bad school, when it is #30 out of thousands of colleges, is outright stupidity. You're the kind of person who will know only about three schools: Harvard, Princeton, and Yale (and possibly Stanford, if you so choose to sink that low). When you don't get into these schools, you will regret being this overconfident.</p>
<p>2) You seem like someone who is just really bitter about missing a 2400 by 10 points. Props on a good score, but stop trying to persuade everyone to do what you're doing. Just because you're afraid to go for that 2400 a second time and think that retaking a 2390 is stupid, doesn't mean that retaking a 2200 in order to get a 2300+ is stupid as well. </p>
<p>3) Let people do what they want. It's their choice and there was really no reason that you needed to start this thread. Furthermore, if what you are doing is trying to convince people not to take the SAT twice, then you should read this thread one time through and see just how many people you have succeeded in convincing.</p>
<p>I dunno, you do seem pretty smart and determined. Just straighten up your attitude and concentrate on other things besides the SAT and you'll do fine.</p>
<p>I plan on going the UCLA by the way. Yeah, I did make a bit of a fool of myself. Oh well, can't wait until my ironman power tower and warcraft 3 comes. need some good entertainment</p>
<p>
[quote]
Lookie here, students who have 750+ have a better shot than those with 700-740. Guess you're wrong.</p>
[/quote]
</a></p>
<p>Apparently, your critical thinking skills are not that great.</p>
<p>First of all, that's getting a 750+ in one section only. We don't know what the stats are for people who got a 750+ in all three sections. Probably, there were a good number of people there who got a 760 Math, and a 620 Verbal. Or vice versa.</p>
<p>And did you notice? It seems that at least 15% didn't break 600 in both sections...</p>
<p>Thank you, confused_student, for articulating a claim I had made earlier in this thread.</p>
<p>Statistically, going from 1400-->1500 won't do jack for your chances at ivies or even top tier schools.</p>
<p>Really? You think that 1400's have a 42% admit rate at Georgetown? After all, 42% is the number of kids with 750+ on Verbal admitted. If that's what you think, then I want some of the **** that you're smoking. Nah, you're probably just either a 1400 kid who thinks it's good enough, or a kid who aced the test his first time. Oh, and guigleilmo, where are these elusive statistics?</p>
<p>I don't want to take sides, but there is something very important you all must remember:</p>
<p>The acceptance rate may be higher for kids with above 750 in sections, but that does not mean it is because of the SAT scores. Sure, the SAT score played a part of it, but my bet is that the students capable of those scores were often better candidates for the schools that accepted them, which explains why more 750+ kids were accepted.</p>
<p>If you look at the top tier schools, there will always be a decently wide range of stats of SAT scores among unhooked applicants, but the one factor that is almost always there is a high class rank.</p>
<p>the fact that someone who gets a score in the 1400 range and can get a 1500 or higher when he/she retakes the SAT proves that the SAT is a bogus measure of aptitude. if i can take the test on two different dates within only a few months of each other, and my score improves 50 or 100 or 150 or 200 points, then what have I done, really? shown that after I took it the first time I got the hang of it so I could do even better than I did the first time? do colleges actually think i'm smarter for scoring a little higher? if anything, they're going to wonder why I decide to wake up on a saturday morning to retake my already excellent score. furthermore, everyone knows that once you break 1400, colleges will make sure to peruse the rest of your application. SAT scores are used as a cut off--that's all--to separate the weaker applicants from the stronger ones. so what's the point in retaking the SAT if you did well the first time you took it?</p>
<p>harvard, yale, princeton, stanford--they could have their pick of students who scored at least 750 on each section, yet if you look at their stats, the students don't have scores that high. they aren't looking for a perfect score. currently, they DO want you to have 700 or higher in each section, because if they were to accept students with scores lower than that, their admissions statistics wouldn't look as good. but colleges, at least prestigious and good ones that most people with high scores intend to attend, never view the SAT as a measure of intelligence. grades, extracurrics, SAT subject tests, etc--that is how they tell whether you are smart enough.</p>
<p>And how on earth did you come to that conclusion? Do you have statistical evidence? I provided concrete proof that 750+ is more desirable than 700-740. I would like concrete proof to the contrary.</p>
<p>just out of curiousity, has there ever been a case where someone was accepted to a university that only had the applicants SAT score on file...no high school transcript..</p>
<p>Home-schooled kids?</p>
<p>No, home-schooled kids are required to take a bunch of standardized tests I think that substitutes as their HS transcript. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but home-schooled kids definitely do more than the SAT to prove to colleges what they have learned.</p>
<p>I got a 2290 and I'm retaking. Only got a 700 in Critical Reading, and I know I can do better than that. So if I get a 750+ ish, I'm in the mid 2300s. I don't want to ask "what if."</p>
<p>I'm homeschooled there are no extra requirments for homeschoolers. The PSAT was my first standardized test and the SAT my second. while I will have a transcript of highschool work, the SAT will by my main admission factor.</p>
<p>Koolkrud, your 'concrete proof' only says that the people with higher SATs have a higher admit percentage rate. </p>
<p>I believe SATs play a huge role, but I do not believe that 100 or even 50 percent of the increased admit rate among the 750+ range is due to SATs. Check out the bottom 40% of a lot of top tier colleges, the scores aren't that high.</p>
<p>Also, percentage rates only tell a percent; it doesn't tell us much about the number, which could make a difference. Such-and-such percent might be accepted from a certain group, but we don't know the percentage of a class they make up.</p>
<p>The big problem with your assumption is just what it is--an assumption. High SAT kids usually have the qualities to get in, but though the 750+ range are the most often accepted, they often make up somewhat of a minority in the accepted/enrolling students. Stanford, for example, had a median around 1460, and the average is lower than that.</p>
<p>
[quote]
harvard, yale, princeton, stanford--they could have their pick of students who scored at least 750 on each section, yet if you look at their stats, the students don't have scores that high. they aren't looking for a perfect score. currently, they DO want you to have 700 or higher in each section, because if they were to accept students with scores lower than that, their admissions statistics wouldn't look as good. but colleges, at least prestigious and good ones that most people with high scores intend to attend, never view the SAT as a measure of intelligence. grades, extracurrics, SAT subject tests, etc--that is how they tell whether you are smart enough.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There's a lot of logic in this statement. You should try to make real answers, koolkrud, if you're going to assume it's ludicrous. Evidence it may lack, but the reasoning is there.</p>
<p>The People In This Forum Don't Understand Simple Economics...does Anyone Realize That $40 Is Absolutely Negligible When Compared To The Hundreds Of Thousands You'll Pay For Tuition? Seriously, People. If You Can't Afford $40, You Probably Can't Afford The Ink It'll Take To Fill Out A College Application.</p>
<p>The current arguement is basically this: "Is there a concrete difference in admissions based on the difference between a 1400 and a 1500?"</p>
<p>Obviously schools accept kids with lower scores than their ranges. Obviously schools accept tons of kids who are in their ranges. But to assume that 700-740 is the same as 750+ defies logic. The scores go past 700 for a reason, top schools want that additional degree of seperation. A 720 is a much more pedestrian score than an 800. It simply is.</p>
<p>And as to that quote Murasaki, it's rather confusing. Colleges only want SAT scores for their statistics? Than why not just go out and get the best SAT scores? There is obviously more to an application than test scores, but no one would deny that they play a HUGE role. The assumption that 1400 students are equal in the eyes of admissions officers to 1500 students makes little sense. This is a quantitative, objective test, and one score is much better than the other. The assumption that 750+ students have such an incredibly better degree of grades as to almost double their admissions percentage over 700-740 kids is a serious reach.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I believe SATs play a huge role, but I do not believe that 100 or even 50 percent of the increased admit rate among the 750+ range is due to SATs. Check out the bottom 40% of a lot of top tier colleges, the scores aren't that high.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Please read my argument carefully.</p>
<p>I agree that SATs are very important. What I do not believe is that you can tell how significantly admissions chances relate to 750+ just based on statistics, for the reasons below.</p>
<p>1) It's impossible to tell the number of admits based on a 750+ percentage
2) It's impossible to tell what other factors went in for every 750+ or 750- admitted
3) At top colleges a great deal of people didn't have 750+ SATs (per section). However, this is also hard to say because it's impossible to know how many students had certain breakdowns, for example, the 750+ kids in math might have had a lot of 750- in CR.</p>
<p>My basic point is this--you're assuming that your Georgetown statistics=cold hard proof. I'm telling you that because of the reasons above, they can only tell you so much. SATs, I agree, are big contributers, but it's not possible to tell how much.</p>
<p>THIS is my arg:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Koolkrud, your 'concrete proof' only says that the people with higher SATs have a higher admit percentage rate.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>NOT this:</p>
<p>
[quote]
"Is there a concrete difference in admissions based on the difference between a 1400 and a 1500?"
[/quote]
</p>