This may sound ridiculous, but I have read one or two things here and elsewhere about top schools loving to reject 1600s (so they can boast about how many they reject, or because when they see a 1600 they assume a lot from the candidate and their expectations aren’t always met, etc.)
So maybe this is a huge stretch, but do you think a 1590 is the best score for admissions purposes? Maybe 1580, even, because 1590 is still a shocker? I think 1570 might be pushing it a little low, but even that…
<p>IMO, 1590 is the best score you can achieve. Many schools have "boasted" about the number of students with 1600s they have rejected. I'm not saying that getting a 1600 is going to hurt you, not at all, but if your GPA is low and you have a high GPA, it shows that you haven't put enough effort in your schoolwork. Or, if you get a 1600 and 4.0 GPA without doing any extra curriculars, it wouldn't be a great accomplishment.</p>
<p>Claridge, I have to disagree with you at some points. IMO, I think achieving a 1600 is a wonderful achievement. Not doing EC's doesn't categorize as not accomplishing anything. And no, schools don't reject 1600's just to "boast" about it.</p>
<p>My wording was incorrect, I wouldn't go as far as to say schools would "boast" about rejecting 1600s but they are very, very open about how many 1600s they reject during their open houses/presentations (e.g. Stanford).</p>
<p>their point is that they look at the WHOLE application, and a 4.0 + 1600 just ain't enough to get accepted, w/o EC's, great recs, and essays. In other words, nearly every 4.0 + 1600 will be rejected by nearly every highly selective school unless s/he has a lot more to offer in the way of EC's, talent, scientific discoveries, etc. Moreover, even if their is special talent, it has to be needed for the class. If the school receives 4 apps from nationally-ranked oboe players, but the ConcertMaster only needs two this year....they aren't likely to accept 4, particularly if two already applied ED.</p>
<p>They certainly I don't purposely look throught their apps for 1600's to reject -- they are enough of them.</p>
<p>Maybe my other point--that adcoms read 1600 people's apps expecting to see a LOT of achievement and rarely see as much as they expect--is more plausible. I'm not saying they reject 1600s "just for the heck of it", or even close. It's just that the expectations are WAY different for those with 1600s...plus, I can't help imagining that admissions officers who got 1300s themselves take just a tad of pleasure from writing that R on a 1600 student's file...</p>
<p>Well, I think that a 1600 brings big expectations. It means you are supposed to be smart... really really smart. So you should def. have a good GPA and you can def. do well in some ECs with that intelligence.</p>
<p>Celebrian, Course it does...but the nonpareil mystique of a 1600 stems from its implicitly meaning 1600+. That is, anyone who gets a 1600 either is incredibly smart or incredibly +++ smart and could have done better than a 1600 if it weren't the maximum score. </p>
<p>Furthermore, to get a 1600 on one try you can't usually just be lucky. You have to have it all SO under your belt that even stupid mistakes can't faze you. You have to be prepared to earn a 1700 in order to guarantee yourself a 1600, if that makes any sense.</p>
<p>There's nothing like a perfect score. Sure, a 1590 is stellar. But the difference between a 1590 and a 1600 is, in my opinion, more than the difference between a 1400 and a 1410.</p>
<p>P.S. I'm not saying this to glorify my own (nonexistent) 1600 or anything. I got a 1580--hence this very wishful-thinkingish thread.</p>
<p>ive heard that many colleges actually have quotas on how many 1600 scorers they can accept so really, its a lil more advantageous to have a 1590 which is just as impressive, but doesnt carry the "perfect score" title.</p>
<p>I can also see the flip side: a 1600 is a good thing because colleges like to say how many they accept--just like they say how much of the class was valedictorian.</p>
<p>1600s have something like a 40-50% acceptance rate at the nation's most prestigious universities, so don't cry over school's bragging over rejecting 1600s...with regular acceptance rates at 5-10% this year, id take a 1600 anyday</p>
<p>Yeah, if you factor out the nerds whose sole goal in life is to get a 1600, you probably end up with a good 70% acceptance rate. I think a 1600 carries weight. Perhaps it doesn't carry as much as some like to think, but I don't think it carries any negative weight.</p>
<p>I don' think it hurts to have a 1600 (as opposed to a 1590), but it is true that many top schools keep track of and brag about how many 1600s they reject. They don't do that with the 1590s.</p>
<p>lol no schools like to reject 1600's EVER, it only hurts their US News ranking and No school wants to look bad, if they can boost the SAT score then of course it will be much harder for them to deny admission</p>