<p>
[quote]
to deny a difference between two scores are simply ridiculous.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You've had quotes from actual admissions officers. You've had the math explained to you. Someone even pointed out that correlation does not equal causality, and yet you still don't get it. Short of whacking you with a clue-by-four, I don't know what else is possible.</p>
<p>Let's go about this the other way. Why don't you empirically prove that AOs value 2400 scores higher than 2250 scores? I look forward to seeing your report, and am especially interested in your methodology.</p>
<p>As one of the earlier posts said, SAT scores are highly correlated with other indicators of success in college and probability of getting admitted. Yes, applicants with 800s on their SATs are admitted at significantly higher rates than applicants with 740s. But they almost certainly also have significantly higher GPAs, at least on average. So both the following statements may be quite correct:</p>
<p>1) An 800 is not significantly different from a 750, all other things being equal, from the admissions committee's perspective.</p>
<p>and </p>
<p>2) Applicants with 800s are admitted at much higher rates than applicants with below 750 (colleges usually group scores in 50 point ranges for reporting purposes).</p>
<p>Just because 2) is statistically true does not mean that admissions officers from highly selective colleges and universities are misleading us when they say that there is not much difference between 750 scores and 800 scores (by themselves) in admissions decisions.</p>
<p>If highly selective college admissions were just a numbers game, they wouldn't need to spend all that time reading essays, teacher recommendations and considering ECs. They could just plug in a formula based on standarized test scores and GPAs and out would pop the answers. But these colleges and universities are generally trying to build incoming classes with much more in mind than just scores and GPAs. That's why they say (with some pride) that there are all these valedictorians and 2400 SAT score applicants that they reject.</p>
<p>Seems ridiculous that you are seeing no difference between the 2 scores, though. Is there a difference between an A and a B in an AP course? No? So is there no difference between straight A students and straight B students?</p>
<p>Guess what? 2400s people on average are better prepared academically for freshmen college than 2250s. Go ahead and deny that.</p>
<p>I'm curious as to the definition for being "better prepared" for freshman college courses entails. The courses or the college education in general? A really smart kid who went to a thousand dollar prep course, took the SAT 3 times, and got a 2400 in multiple sittings may not be any more intelligent than a really smart kid who took it once with no prep and got a 2250. </p>
<p>Also, I don't think that anything with the word SAT in, near, or around it qualifies for an extrapolation to the Holocaust.</p>
<p>So, what your point? You seem to have defeated yourself in talking about correlation vs. causation. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Guess what?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What?</p>
<p>
[quote]
2400s people on average are better prepared academically for freshmen college than 2250s.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is clearly a correlation and not a causation. I dont doubt that people who get perfect scores on the SATs tend to work harder academically. Does it mean that they are doing well in college BECAUSE they got a 2400 on their SATs? No way. </p>
<p>Also I think you're getting a little ridiculous with your analogies. Come on. A year's worth of work in an AP class vs. a 3 hour exam that you really shouldn't study more than a week for? There are 15 questions on an AIME exam. There are, what... 4 or 500 on the SATs? AIMEs are not multiple choice. They're not pre-algebra. And I also don't think anyone is going to scoff at a 12 and lament about retaking. Also, 10^5 is not a small number.</p>
<p>Once a person has a 2250 or above, it really comes down to the other stuff. What the hell would the point of taking someone with a score of 100 points higher be if the other credentials aren't as good? It seriously doesn't matter at that point, unless it's an actual 2400.</p>
<p>quote; "2400s have well over a 50% admit rate at Harvard. 2250s? Not so much"</p>
<p>Which can also be read as , "2400's have about a 50% decline rate at Harvard". Bottom line, your SAT isn't everything and there are many reasons why some people are accepted and some aren't. Really, you should be more upset over dumbasses with connections (political, financial, Hollywood, etc....) who are admitted over you rather than some smart kid who just happened to make 150 points lower on a standardized test.</p>
<p>Just because people flock to HPYSM doesn't actually mean that you get a better education there than some other places with much less name recognition.</p>
<p>But, back to the original question, I'm not sure whether when you say you're "sick and tired of hearing 'adcoms do not distinguish between a 2250 and a 2400'" you actually don't think it is true, or if you are just sick and tired of hearing about it.</p>
<p>I'm sure that admissions officers do distinguish between a 2250 and a 2400, just that at that level of SAT scores it doesn't matter as much as other factors, such as GPA, ECs, essays, etc. This is why there are applicants with 2400 scores who get rejected and applicants with 2250 scores (and lower) who get accepted.</p>
<p>It annoyes me that top universties are like "SAT scores aren't everything," yet when you look at the stats, most people who got in had high SAT scores.</p>
<p>The marginal return on a 2400 versus a 2250 is VERY VERY low. Almost insignificant. Especially since you're unlikely to be bumped up or down into a different percentile anywhere along that continuum.</p>
<p>Is a 2400 good to have? Certainly. Is it likely to be any sort of deciding factor, especially considering the percentile similarity in scores? Not really.</p>
<p>Seems like some people are mistaking correlation for causation here.</p>
<p>Just because 2400 scorers are admitted at higher rates than 2250scorers, does not mean that 2400s are looked upon that much more highly than 2250s. I'm guessing the higher acceptance rate is partially/mostly due to the fact that 2400 scorers are generally more accomplished than 2250 scorers. </p>
<p>Keep in mind, I'm not saying that 2250s + 2400s are the same. They're still different and a 2400 DOES look better.</p>
Good for you, molliebatmit. Can you find a quote from an adcom at an elite college saying that "we do not distinguish at all between a 2400 and a 2250"?
I really will ask Ben Jones to say this on CC, because he's said it to me in person many times. But I can't contact him right this instant. He does have a life. :)</p>
<p>
It annoyes me that top universties are like "SAT scores aren't everything," yet when you look at the stats, most people who got in had high SAT scores.
Most people who applied had high SAT scores, as well. More than three quarters of the students who applied to MIT last year had a 700 or better on their SAT I in math; half of the applicants had CR scores over 700. (Source</a>)</p>