<p>Hello to everyone here! </p>
<p>In the near future I will have to take the test.</p>
<p>So, if I am enough lucky to achieve 2400 ....what will happens then ?
Those people that have achieved the maximum score available, where they have been enrolled ?</p>
<p>Any info about ?</p>
<p>What happens? Nothing, you are done with the SAT. You will be selected as a candidate for the Presidential Scholars program and further success in that program will be based on your application.</p>
<p>well you can have bragging rights</p>
<p>I have heard people who had 2400s wish they got 2390’s as the 2400 carries the stigma of “I am a test taking robot”. Additionally colleges many times turn 2400 into a statistic. For example at Notredame they brag that they deny over 50% of 2400.</p>
<p>Nothing. It doesn’t mean anything.</p>
<p>A 2300 is the same as a 2400 almost everywhere. (I just upset 20,000 CCers by saying that 
)</p>
<p>It only matters if you’re trying to get into Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc. Other than that, most schools will still see a 2300 as a really good score. </p>
<p>Also… a 2400 is directly related to what you want to do. If your goal is to go to UT’s business honors program, you don’t need to be aiming for a 2400. But if you’re looking to get into Harvard, you probably should aim that high.</p>
<p>What I’m saying is that a 2400 is only good when you’re committed to killing yourself with ECs, community service, writing good college essays, college apps, and paying a lot of $$$ to go to these good schools.</p>
<p>If you’re not willing to be an all-around guy (meaning high GPA, good ECs, community service, etc.) and if you don’t really have the $ to pay for a really good university, chances are you do not at all need a 2400. A 2400 is only necessary when you’re willing to put in just as much effort in all other things.</p>
<p>Long story short: 2400 is unnecessary and an overachievement. Do you even want to go to an Ivy league school? Do you have enough $ to pay for an Ivy League? etc. etc.</p>
<p>Pointless relative to a 2390 or something other ultra-high score? Yes, pretty much.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve heard people who’ve supposedly heard people who say this, but I’ve never heard someone with a 2400 actually say this. I just really can’t imagine a justification for believing that people who score 2400 are more mechanical in their thinking than those who score just slightly lower. But then again, maybe that’s my robotic incapacity for human empathy. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you sure? I’ve heard Harvard claim they reject around 50%, and I would be surprised if Notre Dame rejected a higher percentage. It’s also possible that the statistics are skewed by a low sample size: In the year Notre Dame referenced, they may have received very few applicants who had scored 2400.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I disagree with almost everything in that post to some extent. :)</p>
<p>Intuitively, we may be compelled to believe that ultra-high scores are more useful in elite college admissions than for less selective schools. Presumably, this is founded on the assumption that one’s score percentile among applicants to a particular score is determinative of its admissions utility.</p>
<p>The data just don’t bare this out, though. At top schools, there appears to be a soft minimum score, scores below which make admittance very difficult. As the score goes up, admission chances are benefited, but in a diminishing fashion. Imagine an admissions-utility versus score curve as exhibiting convexity until the soft minimum score and then concavity characteristic of the diminishing returns. E.g., 2360 rather than 2310 is less of an admissions-utility differential than is 2260 over 2210, wherein the domain occurs over the concave region.</p>
<p>This is attributable to top schools’ admissions officers’ conclusion that standardized tests scores are good for discriminating between qualified and unqualified applicants but not particularly valuable in identifying the best applicants. In contrast, admissions officers at schools that rarely see a perfect or near-perfect score are likely to be viscerally impressed by the score such that it does hold a major admissions benefit over a high but not saliently stratospheric score, especially when it comes to merit scholarships.</p>
<p>Your remarks about the opportunity cost of attaining a 2400 and that the alternative exertion on EC’s and such is smarter unsoundly presume that the average person who scores 2400 has spent more time preparing than those who score slightly lower.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s not true, strictly speaking. As SilverTurtle detailed more thoroughly than I will, your conclusion is not supported by any data other than the anecdotal (BUT BUT BUT 2400’s GET REJECTED ALL THE TIME) and inconsequential (the acceptance of students with lower test scores at Harvard, Yale, et al). </p>
<p>Additionally, you make the assumption that attending a well-endowed university like Harvard would be more expensive than a large, out-of-state school, like UT-Austin. For many, many students, this is not the case at all.</p>
<p>Y’know, based on this and your posts in other threads, it seems like you’ve got some sort of grudge against high-scorers on the SAT. I wouldn’t bring it up, but I’d hate for someone to read this and get the wrong idea about how SAT scores work.</p>
<p>Pointless? Probably not. I wouldn’t know since I fell forty points short, but I assume that getting a 2400 must feel pretty good. Or at the very least satisfying. As stated above, there are also bragging rights that come with it along with membership in the 2400 club (figuratively).</p>
<p>In terms of admission, 2400 probably won’t give a massive boost over any score that’s close to it. The doctrine that I generally follow is that most colleges don’t accept based on SAT score, only reject poor ones. So if you get a 2400 and get rejected, as least you know that it wasn’t for your SAT score :)</p>
<p>I see what you’re saying silverturtle, and I guess it does make sense.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>???</p>
<p>I don’t really know what other threads you’re talking about, I have nothing against high scorers at all.</p>
<p>My data (ten years working with top, top scorers, including multiple 2400s every year) show me that 2400 is no advantage over a 750/750/750 (or better) split. I see people with the latter score beat out 2400s all the time–essentially, those two applicants are equally weighted for SAT-1, so it’s going to come down to other factors (as it should).</p>
<p>Thank you all !</p>
<p>I was very curious about people with 2400 and where are they.</p>
<p>Honestly , I think that the whole admission process is like a playoff and the SAT result is the first match , but win the first match does not mean win the playoff , because there are more matches respectively more components like essays etc. </p>
<p>I hope to get 2100-2200 .</p>
<p>So much Asian kids got rejected with 2400s. Even if you are not Asian, the score cannot guarantee you anything (some say a 2300+ could surely get you into a top20, which I have no idea).</p>
<p>i feel that 2400’s get rejected b/c sometimes, that’s ALL the focus on when the top schools would rather have a well rounded student or at least a concert violinist in addition to a 2400.</p>
<p>Your 2400 will give you the top points with the admissions offices for the SAT1 test scores. Most every school uses ranges, so someone getting a score at the bottom of that range will get you the same number of points. However, the most selective schools generally use a 5 part score of which 3 come from the SAT1 and the other 2 from the highest SAT2s . Having 2400 in that mix helps quite a bit in getting a top mark in the test portion of assessment as it will give you some leeway in your SAT2 results, and increase that likelihood.</p>
<p>the difference between a 2400 and a 2200 </p>
<p>2400</p>
<p>168-170/170 questions total</p>
<p>2200</p>
<p>160-162/170 questions total</p>
<p>not much of a difference</p>
<p>[This</a> study](<a href=“http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=601105]This”>http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=601105) is very interesting if you’re wondering about the impact of a seemingly small increase in score on college admissions. Actually, it’s interesting in general. </p>
<p>I was thinking, johnnyzxz, mostly of [this</a> thread](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/sat-act-tests-test-preparation/1312244-march-sat-so-heartbroken.html]this”>March SAT - So Heartbroken - Test Preparation - College Confidential Forums) when I said that, and the fact that you refer to a 2400 using the pejorative “overachieving”.</p>
<p>Edit: Thought I’d add [this</a> thread](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/what-my-chances/1323079-sat-2380-but-unconfident-carnegie-mellon-mit-upenn-cornell.html]this”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/what-my-chances/1323079-sat-2380-but-unconfident-carnegie-mellon-mit-upenn-cornell.html) as well. I think it speaks to your attitude toward the SAT. Just my thoughts, I suppose.</p>
<p>lol dude both those posts were ■■■■■ posts if you really can’t tell by obvious factors, most notably both poster’s low post count…</p>
<p>My friend got into every top college in the country with a 2160. Turned down Harvard, Caltech, Stanford, Berkeley, Yale, you name it. He chose MIT finally yesterday. He certainly did well for himself in all other areas, though. Your SAT score I imagine after a certain point turns into more about what you’ve done so far and if any of it was impressive or relevant to what you want to do in the future. </p>
<p>Compared to my girlfriend’s brother (2330, pretty sure), who lives with his mom at 25 and failed out of college three times at 3 different private universities…</p>
<p>Thank God he went to a trade school and is now doing okay. </p>
<p>I think it is more important to be well-rounded.</p>
<p>Or maybe, maybe, they joined just to ask one question. That’s a wild thought if I’ve ever had one.</p>