<p>silverturtle is clearly providing the most cogent argument on this thread. Those who say that there is no difference between a 2300 and a 2400 are deluding themselves. In fact, of any 100-point difference on the test, that is the biggest chasm in terms of academic aptitude. </p>
<p>Some widespread inaccurate misconceptions are that the adcom views your SAT score subjectively or that the percentile is ultimately what matters. When evaluating your application, a college plugs your SAT score into a mathematical formula that calculates your “Academic Index,” which converts your GPA (usually converted to some standard-base system) and SAT II scores to points along with your SAT. Thus a 2400 provides more points than 2200 or a 2300. At HYPS, a 2200-2300 score (the 99th percentile range), is actually mid-range but a 2400 is only achieved by less than 1% of all applicants. In fact, a 2400 is superior to that of a 2390. It will yield more points. This is the precise reason I retook a 2350 from November. Of course, grades and standardized testing are not the only aspect of a college application, but they are the most important for obvious reasons and essentially the only part of the application for a state university.</p>
<p>What I find very upsetting are the personal attacks against those who choose to pursue the goal of a 2400 after a 2300+ - i.e. as those having no “life”. What authority do those of you who support this notion have to dictate whether one should accomplish a personal goal? It is their academic record and their future; thus, they have the full right to do whatever they please. In fact, many who have aspirations of a 2400 are published scientists, humanitarians, and future leaders in their respective fields, among many other equally laudable ambitions.</p>
<p>In short, the higher the SAT score the better, but one must be cognizant of his or her own individual ability. To the OP, based on your previous score, I believe that you are fully capable of accomplishing your goal and as of current, you are a very strong candidate nonetheless.</p>
<p>Sci-Fry’s contentions reflect the relatively new phenomenon that is an overcompensating product of the previously prelevant misconception that ultra-high SAT scores are necessary for admittance to schools like Harvard. These days, people mistakenly tend to describe the SAT as something that merely gets one a checkmark in the standardized testing competence section of an admissions officer’s evaluation rubric (e.g., “This person has a 2210, which is good enough for us; I guess I’ll forget this section now and move on to everything else”). </p>
<p>Rather, the evaluation of one’s SAT scores is quantized (i.e., each ten-point gain is a slight but measurable improvement over the last ten-point gain). The review of one’s application is not a series of filtering criteria that require passage; the valuations of individual criteria collectively emerge as the officer’s concept of the fitness of the applicant.</p>
<p>The distinction I’m making is largely negligible in practice. If someone with 2380 gets in when someone with 2370 does not, there is an overwhelming chance that the former got in for a reason other than the score differential in his favor.</p>
<p>I suppose my point is basic (and in turn irrefutable): if a ten point gain made no difference, it follows that (with some seemingly distorted but nonetheless perfectly logically sound extrapolation) no increase would ever make a difference, no matter its magnitude. </p>
<p>In effect and reiteration: the higher, the better, but the effect of the score’s being higher almost never comes into play in the ultra-high range (2350+). The only effect at that range is probably theoretical: if two applicants are identical in all respects except their scores, which are 2380 and 2390, the decision won’t be made randomly.</p>
<p>My take on the issue is that there is a difference, if we’re just talking in simple SAT terms, between a 2300 and a 2400. It’s hard to say that the extra 100 points was just “luck”.</p>
<p>However, I’d say that there is a negligible, if at all, difference between a 2350+ and a 2400. Then I’d say the extra 50 points, which would mean a couple of questions or so, was determined by a bit of luck (you just happened to get that one vocab question you didn’t know, etc).</p>
<p>In somewhat overgeneralized, superficial terms, there is a difference between a 2300 and a 2400, but that difference is virtually non-existent between a 2360 and a 2400. Except, and this is why 2400 would be considered the “best” score, for psychological reasons. It just “looks better,” in some way, but the admissions officers will know to look past that.</p>
<p>And it goes without saying that our SAT scores are not the only part of our resume. And no two candidates are ever identical in every aspect except for their scores. If there ever is a debate between two applicants, then the 10 or 20 points will likely NOT be the deciding factor, and definitely not the make-you-or-break-you factor either.</p>
<p>If you’re very, very confident that you can get a 2400 on your next test, then by all means go for it, but if you have a 2360 don’t take it again to gain an extra maximum 30 points otherwise. Then you know you’re using time better spent elsewhere.</p>
<p>i don’t come on this part of CC a whole lot, but…</p>
<p>“2400 is above the 99.98 percentile, and when you’re competing against applicants who are largely above the 99 percentile, there’s a difference between 99.5 (~2300) and 99.98.”</p>
<p>lol, don’t kid yourself. the difference there is literally bubbling in 1-2 questions incorrectly & making 1-2 other silly mistakes. that’s hardly indicative of one’s intelligence/potential. don’t u think admissions officers are smart enough to know that? there’s no reason whatsoever to retake a 2300. & even if u do but don’t pull it up to a 2400 & end up with only a 2350 or so…worthless. but whatever…waste your own time, lol.</p>
<p>Some kid with a 1650 could have been very sick on test day. His having a sickness doesn’t indicate that he has less intelligence or potential than someone with a 2400. Should the admissions officers assume the applicant had some issue that day or that he or she made a lot of silly mistakes? No. Do they assume this? No. </p>
<p>Higher scores are better than lower scores. The fact that a few silly mistakes can lower one’s score from 2400 to 2300 mitigates how impressive a 2300 is over a 2400; but it doesn’t make them equal.</p>
<p>Gee, I sure hope a 2400 is actually the best. Maybe I should be kicking myself right now for not leaving a math question blank…?</p>
<p>Another hilarious thing I read on a similar thread (not this one, and I’m just paraphrasing what was actually said): “If you have a 2380 or 2390 it shows you’re really smart. But if you have a 2400 it shows your just some no-life academic-grind robot and colleges hate that.”</p>
<p>Honestly? Once you have a 2350+, it’s /all/ luck. Maybe even before that. There’s this little thing called margin of error–the SAT is not a perfect predictor.</p>
<p>“In effect and reiteration: the higher, the better, but the effect of the score’s being higher almost never comes into play in the ultra-high range (2350+). The only effect at that range is probably theoretical: if two applicants are identical in all respects except their scores, which are 2380 and 2390, the decision won’t be made randomly.”</p>
<p>I’ll grant you this. But the chance of this situation (all aspects of application exactly identical except scores) is so miniscule it is almost zero. Therefore it is not worth the cost of the four hours–and possibly a lot more than that, because it /would/ take a lot of practice to get your consistency to a level where you could feel confident that you would make a 2400–which you could otherwise spend studying, or working on ECs/community service, or looking for good blackmail on the Harvard Dean of Admissions, or just taking a good ol’ sanity break. People who have gone crazy from stress and overprepping aren’t very attractive to any school.</p>
<p>While I hate to contribute to the insanity…</p>
<ol>
<li><p>It is certainly true that 2300 is “good enough” for anywhere. I have heard this directly from admissions people at two different top-tier schools. They both said, essentially, that once every sub score is in the 700s, they consider them to be a non-issue and look to the rest of the package. So if you do not get in with your 2250, you really can’t blame your score.</p></li>
<li><p>On the other hand, it is ridiculous to tell some one not to invest a Saturday morning if they think they can get a 2400. Since no one ever knows for sure why they do or do not get in, what is wrong with trying to make each aspect of your application the best it can be? After all, if you do score 2400, there is one way that it is better than a 2380, where 2380 is not better than 2360: your perfect score raises the possibility that you are gifted beyond the scale of the SAT! Now to really suggest that, it’s best to score that in one sitting, on your first try. Too late for that? Not to worry, because…</p></li>
<li><p>If your score is 2300, and you are planning to re-take because you are following the “obsessive, leave no stone unturned” model of college admission, consider applying that model to the other parts of your application as well or even instead: are your grades ALL that they can be? Your extra-curriculars? Community service? It’s easy to get sucked into focusing on the sat score because that is so clearly measurable. But once you have a 2300, your effort may be invested better elsewhere.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>People want higher chances. All else equal, a 2400 yields a much better chance than a 2100. It’s perfectly logical to spend a few hours on a Saturday morning on which one would probably otherwise be doing nothing productive in order to increase one’s score.</p>
<p>" People want higher chances. All else equal, a 2400 yields a much better chance than a 2100. It’s perfectly logical to spend a few hours on a Saturday morning on which one would probably otherwise be doing nothing productive in order to increase one’s score. "</p>
<p>Sure, a higher score can help you, but sometimes the admissions commitee want to take students who met the requirement and can do the work other than a smart person. Sometimes 2400 is a bit deflated, according to Princeton.</p>
<p>(If there’s questions that you don’t understand on the math, how do you suppose to check why it’s the answer and why it is when the answers you omit do not increase your score?)</p>
<p>They may say this (and I doubt that they have: I’ve been to over 30 information sessions at top schools, and none of them made this extreme a statement), but it just isn’t true. The results on CC (of which there are hundreds) absolutely belie this, as do the statistics offered by the schools:<br>
[ul]
[<em>]According to Princeton University, applicants with scores 2300+ plus have over 2.3 times the chance of applicants with scores 2100-2290.
[</em>]According to Brown University, applicants with a perfect CR score have over 1.7 times the chance of applicants with CR scores 700-740. Applicants with a perfect Math score have over 1.6 times the chance of applicants with Math scores 700-740. Applicants with a perfect Writing score have over 1.8 times the chance of applicants with Writing scores 700-740. Even at 750+, Brown differentiates: applicants with a perfect Writing score, for example, have nearly 1.5 times the chance of applicants with Writing scores 750-790.
[li]Applicants with a perfect score on the ACT, which concords to about 2380 on the SAT, have nearly 2.2 times the chance of applicants with ACT scores from 33-35, which respectively concord to 2200 and 2340.[/li][/ul]
It sure doesn’t sound like anything 700+ is the same.</p>
<p>I don’t know what you mean by “deflated” in this context.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t understand: why would Princeton University accept a student, all else equal, who scored 300 points less than another student on the college admissions exam? Why would Princeton want students who merely “[meet] the requirement and can do the work” when they have better options?</p>
<p>Are you suggesting that a few hours on a Saturday morning could be utilized in any meaningful percentage of 2300+ applicants to significantly better their grades and ECs?</p>
<p>I do agree that a difference between a 2200 and a 2400 is significant, but once you get to the 2300s range, it’s really the other aspects of your application that sets you apart from everyone else. I think the data released by Princeton and Brown may give the false impression that it is the test scores themselves that made the accepted students more appealing applicants, when in reality, the higher scoring applicants are probably very successful in other aspects of their lives, and, because of their better math/reading/writing/reasoning skills, they just happen to also have higher SAT scores at the same time.</p>
<p>If you check out the ED/EA results threads, you can easily see that people with lower SAT scores are admitted over those with higher scores all the time. Silverturtle, since lately you’ve been commenting frequently on the Yale thread, have you noticed that in the SCEA decision thread and the pledge thread, those that were admitted did not necessarily have the highest scores? This occurred in almost all of the decision threads on CC. There is nothing wrong with having a 2400 SAT, of course (in fact, high SAT scores like that are so rare and admirable! It’s absolutely amazing!), but there is honestly no point in encouraging people to try over and over again to just get a 2400. Just do your best.</p>