<p>33 ACT, and I’m planning to get rejected from every single college other than Oregon State.</p>
<p>Why? Because I have no Extracurriculars.</p>
<p>I know, right?! And the Native American amputee orphan is…a white Jewish kid with all limbs! I know what to say on my application now!</p>
<p>The transcript (course rigor + grades) is considered more important than SAT/ACT scores</p>
<p>agreed. the transcript(and associated rigor/gpa/rank) is the center of the application.</p>
<p>Hey, a fellow Oregonian! </p>
<p>Anyway, all this talk about 2400 SAT not being so great is making me sadder by the moment. Oh well, good thing my transcript is strong too.</p>
<p>You guys and gals are forgeting one very important fact. Financial Aid. If you are an academic superstar i.e., high scores in everything, SAT, ACT, GPA, hardest courses, win Intel etc, you will have a high probability of getting into your top schools. However, if you are just below superstar level, like getting 2300 in SAT and 4.2 weigthed GPA and needing fin. aid, average ECs, you will be doom. A similar person getting the same scores with no financial aid will have a leg up against you with the same score that require financial aid. This is just a fact and if school is saying they are ‘need blind’ they are just not being truthful. Need blind are for academic superstar.</p>
<p>this is why it might be a little crazy to retake anything above 2250 =]</p>
<p>ya know, i was skeptical at first, but now that i’m entering the admissions process riot, i’m actually starting to believe that colleges aren’t bsing when they say they care about more than test scores</p>
<p>36 Act , 1/380, 6 varsity letters, good ECs, Music, lots of volunteer(did not save village in Africa) Rejected from Princeton.</p>
<p>This is a good article; written by Matt McGann, MIT’s director of admissions.</p>
<p>[MIT</a> Admissions | Blog Entry: “What’s the big deal about 40^2?”](<a href=“http://www.mitadmissions.org/topics/apply/standardized_test_requirements/whats_the_big_deal_about_402.shtml]MIT”>http://www.mitadmissions.org/topics/apply/standardized_test_requirements/whats_the_big_deal_about_402.shtml)</p>
<p>^ That’s just MIT’s policy. Caltech would be 180 degrees in the other direction.</p>
<p>Overall, I don’t think anyone needs to despair over their 2400 not counting for anything. It counts for a hell of a lot. It’s just not the most important part of the application.</p>
<p>2370 and rejected at Brown and Stanford, waitlisted at Williams and Cornell
(accepted at Dartmouth, Amherst, and Bowdoin as well as safeties)</p>
<p>I am sorry if this seems like a mean thread…I just think some people need some hope lol</p>
<p>A-tron said: “They cannot be gamed. Any success/failures are due to the student’s abilities and preparation.”</p>
<p>Naive claptrap.</p>
<p>Best predictor of SAT scores is parental income.</p>
<p>That kind of SES gaming starts in early life and ends up with $ for prep classes, private tutoring multiple tests, etc.</p>
<p>Any evidence that SATs/ACTs matter more to admissions than grades?</p>
<p>Kei</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>and do intelligent parents (who generally have intelligent kids) tend to have more money or less money?</p>
<p>Who knows^</p>
<p>The SAT might not be the BEST measure of aptitude, it is certainly a more standardized measure than the transcript. Course difficulties vary from school to school (AP History at one school in our district is a JOKE, no essays or anything compare to our school where only 3/4 people get A’s). But i also agree that its SO easy to game both the SAT by paying for prep courses etc., and the school system. I personally like the SAT since, its a more fair way of judging aptitude, being more standardized and all. And im not sure if prep courses help that much-the SAT is an easy test and one just needs to learn how NOT to make dumb mistakes, and how to focus for a long period of time.</p>
<p>The SAT does not in any way get affected by parental income. If you mean kids from poor families may not do well in school, yes. I do agree that a kid of a wealthy family will be able to do better-yes. That would only be because the kid is smart, like the parents. My family makes over 120k a year, yet I score around 2000.</p>
<p>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^</p>
<p>hahahahahaha</p>
<p>you think you say it, it’s true?</p>
<p>plenty of studies and data to support the correlation
[SAT</a> Scores And Family Income](<a href=“http://www.businessinsider.com/sat-scores-and-family-income-2009-10]SAT”>http://www.businessinsider.com/sat-scores-and-family-income-2009-10)
<a href=“http://www.sciencetime.org/blog/?p=239[/url]”>http://www.sciencetime.org/blog/?p=239</a>
[A</a> Three Year Study of the Effects of Low Income on SAT Scores among the Academically Able.](<a href=“http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ380196&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ380196]A”>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ380196&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ380196)</p>
<p>college board agrees: [SAT</a> Scores and Family Income - Economix Blog - NYTimes.com](<a href=“http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/27/sat-scores-and-family-income/]SAT”>SAT Scores and Family Income - The New York Times)</p>
<p>richer parents come from combo of factors, not just smarts: drive, practicality, luck, affinity to careers that are paid highly, inherited wealth, etc.</p>
<p>Kei</p>
<p>P.S. Your parents’ income - top ~ 20% - is about same as your SAT percentile, no?</p>
<p>My S 800/760/690 4.0 IB rejected Princeton and Williams, waitlisted Harvard, Amherst, Midd, Dartmouth, Tufts…Last year was a bad year for upper middle class boys from the NE.</p>
<p>Of course SATs are correlated with income…it is not a 1:1 correlation, just shifts the gaussian distribution a few points to the right.</p>