<p>and how many of you actually believe there's much of a difference in 100 SAT points? how much of a difference in a person is there when someone's a got a 2200 and someone else has got a 2100?</p>
<p>Depends. 30 points per section is not a lot. But 100 points on one section is a lot. For example, a score of 600 is low comparing to 700.</p>
<p>okay, what a bout a 650 compared to a 700?</p>
<p>isn't that just a few questions?</p>
<p>why should three or so questions wrong on the SATs make so much difference?</p>
<p>Well, you have to make the cut-off somewhere. :/ If you equate 2100 to 2200, then you’d probably be comfortable equating 2200 to 2250, and then 2250 to 2300, 2300 to 2350, etc. Eventually, you have 2100 = 2400, which is not true. It is what it is. If you don’t like your score, retake the test. If it's really "just a couple of questions," bringing up a score shouldn't be that much of a problem. Sounds harsh, but jmho.</p>
<p>^^^^</p>
<p>that makes no sense.</p>
<p>by that logic i could say: well a 2400=2390=2380=2370=......=600.</p>
<p>they might see a 2100 as similar enough to a 2200, but not a 2100 to a 2300. I don't think its that cold an methodical at the institutions the OP is talking about. Theres human discretion involved.</p>
<p>It seems that as long as you've gotten what is considered a respectable score, it won't be counted against you every "notch" it is lower. A 1900 and a 2400, sure, there's a difference, and I'm not equating a 2100 to even a 2300. I'm just saying that as long as the rest of your app is yummy and you can fit in their 25-75 range and keep the school looking good, those 100 points probably don't matter much.</p>
<p>I'm a 2110er myself. Re-taking in January but not expecting any miracles. Stupid Math.</p>
<p>800 could mean that you answered all the questions in half time, 700 can be a result of a few stupid mistakes that can be due to lack of attention and 600 is really struggling through the exam not knowing an answer to a single difficult question. Colleges use ranges for scores. The same person taking three tests in a row will get different scores, but probably SLIGHTLY different. 670 and 700 is probably the same.</p>
<p>That is a logical fallacy.</p>
<p>I agree with citymom.</p>
<p>Yes. 2200-2100=100.</p>
<p>"600 is really struggling through the exam not knowing an answer to a single difficult question"</p>
<p>Wow. Only on this board. Back when the test was out of 1600, 1200 was seen as a decent score. Not great, but I don't think that most people think that a 600 means that the person struggled through the test. Also, even if a person who scored 600 struggled, it may have been because she/he couldn't deal with the time limitations or something. My best friend is a GENIUS when it comes to grammar stuff, but she stunk up the reading section because she didn't have enough time. Guess what? She's doing great in college now.</p>
<p>I only scored around 600 in one section (math), and I have an A average in college math. I only struggled through the test because I was sick on that day (I couldn't retake the test). I answered a good deal of difficult questions correctly, but in the section where it switched to grid-ins I didn't finish any of the (relatively easy) grid-ins, really. Math isn't as natural for me, clearly, but it wasn't like I couldn't do the difficult questions. SAT math is not hard anyway, just tricky.</p>
<p>Anyway, I'm ranting because that offended me. A 600 score on a section doesn't mean that the tester didn't know the difficult questions.</p>
<p>The difference between 2200 and 2100 is about 30000 people that got 2100 or higher but not quite 2200. At 1500 per class they could fill the freshman class of 20 universities.</p>
<p>I doubt the "adofficers" would even answer to this thread......
Lose the idealism here</p>