<p>too much of a perfectionist, perhaps...</p>
<p>
[quote]
you people on this thread are jumping to a lot of unfair conclusions...let me relate a personal anecdote
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Obviously, you had a reason for it (had to take new one for NM).</p>
<p>Obviously, he didn't (there is NO scholarship that will award money for a 1600, but not a 1590... )I think that's just a clear case of pomp and pretension. No way any parent would make their kid retake a 1590 out of 1600 either.</p>
<p>I know a guy who did the exact same thing and got into Stanford..
He got a 1580 the first time and retook it to get a 1600.</p>
<p>He was a total pot-head
...and a pretentious jerk :/</p>
<p>the two people from my hs who did get in scea took the new sat after a 1550 and 1560 old sat...i think both got 1600's (at least composite)</p>
<p>I mean retaking a 1550 while unnecessary, is acceptable. But why retake a 1590? The difference between a 1590 and a 1600 is only one question.</p>
<p>dunno, it's just the guy wanting a perfect score.</p>
<p>this is sad..i still strongly believe academically stats are the most important things...
seriously, if you are an employe, who would you hire? someone who can work 95% of job, or someone who can work 100% of job</p>
<p>Girl retook 1580. Got 1600. Admitted to Harvard.</p>
<p>I don't think/should hope not that the reason the student was rejected is because he has a score of 1590 and then later a score of 1600. It's way too presumptous for a college to assume that it's because the kid must have perfection/is pompous/shows flaws in character. The college is suppoed to take the highest score, and evaluate the candidate based on the highest score, not look at all of his scores, compare, and judge.</p>
<p>a 1550 + is worth a 1600....</p>
<p>About Mr. i-am-an-idiotic-perfectionist
1. He was obsessed
2. He didnt read the stuff on SAT about its margin of error on the scaled score. Poor research and General knowledge indeed</p>
<p>"The college is suppoed to take the highest score, and evaluate the candidate based on the highest score, not look at all of his scores, compare, and judge."</p>
<p>And unfortunately, its the colleges decision. Its not like they HAVE to. You dont like it, dont apply...</p>
<p>I agree with vicissitudes. The student would have been rejected whether or not had retaken the SAT. I bet if the kid had amazing ECs, essays, the whole package, he wouldn't have been rejected. I don't think he was rejected just for retaking the SAT but rather for not having enough ECs or whatever. I'm sure if he was an Intel/Siemens winner or went to RSI and still retook that 1590, he prolly would have been accepted.</p>
<p>
40-50% of Rickoids were deferred Harvard EA and I'm sure most of the had near perfect scores Vikram. I think its the teacher recs/personal essays that did him in...</p>
<p>Rejecting someone because they took the SAT again after scoring 1590 is just as stupid as taking the test a second time.</p>
<p>Not enough info. You don't know why the test was taken again. Maybe his guidance counsellor advised him to take it again. Maybe he is a perfectionist. If he wrote an essay describing how getting a 1600 was his life's goal, ok, then you can reject him. But the mere fact of taking the test again cannot in and of itself be fairly used as grounds for rejection. I don't even know, can you register to take the test a second time before you get the first scores back? I just don't see enough information there.</p>
<p>definititely not enuf info....perhaps one of his teachers wrote in a rec that s/he was a "grade grubber"...if so, then the retake just reinforced that pov.</p>
<p>Would you stop after running 25 and a half miles of a 26 mile marathon (they're pretty much the same distance, right?). Obviously I have no idea why this kid retook the test, but I don't think he/she should be condemned for giving it another try to finish the job.</p>
<p>It is likely that this kid would have been rejected whether he retook the test again.</p>
<p>What most CC'ers dont understand, is that HYPS want applicants with genuine passion about what they do, not preprofessional looking applicants who do what their parents tell them to do, or what they think will get them ahead.</p>
<p>HYPS are defined by the unique, diverse, and strong passions of their students.</p>
<p>This lack of passion for example, I believe, is more common among asian applicants since they are more likely to be controlled by the wishes of their parents, and not have "true" passions of their own. These are the type of applicants who pursue all the same things whether they are passionate about them or not such as, as piano, classical music, math club,etc. These are activities they might do just because their parents tell them to.</p>
<p>Obviously this doesn't speak for all such applicants, but such sentiment is especially prevalent among the asian subgroup more than other racial groups since theyre stereotyped as being numbers-obsessed. HYPS don't like stats-obsessed applicants with no passions whatsoever.</p>
<p>Most of the applicants to HYPS are academically qualified to be accepted, so HYPS's main job is to select the students whom they believe will contribute most passionately to the community and the world in new and diverse ways.</p>
<p>This is something that alot of people on CC, and many who will be rejected from their college of choice don't understand.</p>
<p>bing, it wasn't about retaking a 1000 for a 1600; it was retaking a 1590 for a 1600.</p>
<p>bing:</p>
<p>I agree with you in general. But, Stanford 'leaked' this personal info to the press to publicize a point: 1550 is good enuf; spend your time on something else. This point needs to be driven home in Calif (40% of Stanford's class) since this state has a large contingent of residents who think 4.0/1600/800/800/800 is the guaranteed ticket to name-your-own-school, and are shocked, shocked when they only have Berkeley and UCLA from which to choose. </p>
<p>Elsewhere on this board, it has been reported that H rejects 50% of 1600's....so, for Stanford, maybe it's 45%. But, even so, the odds of a 1600 getting in are only ~50% (which is a LOT better than the pool average of 10%).</p>
<p>actually u guys 1600s get nominated for the Presidential Scholarships while most 1590s don't get nominated. So there is a reason for retaking a 1590 SAT.</p>
<p>he got rejected thats bad.... but what about the reason he took the sats....could have been self satisfication? maybe he didnt want to have regrets in his life so he tested himself to see if he can get that perfect score SINCE HE WAS ALREADY SO CLOSE... you cant be biased and look at from the direction of
[quote]
must-get-only-As- and-perfect-SAT-scores-to-get-to-college type of people = not very impressive.
[/quote]
IF he did have bad ecs then yea but if no then thats horrible</p>