<p>I’m pretty sure it’s the other way around: taht there are many good test scores and so EC’s are the tiebreakers. Take 2-3 minutes to look at results threads and you can clearly see this.</p>
<p>You’re just talking irrelevant semantics now. In fact if you believe that test scores are the BASE case, and EC’s the tie breaker, perhaps you aren’t giving them enough weight.</p>
<p>Thequestionmark: did you see my point about the SAT’s predicting success in highschool as well as in college? It seems to me like the higher scoring SAT students tend to have higher gpas/be validictorians more often/other stuff. Yes, the higher SAT could help, but peole with 2400’s tend to do better in highschool than those with 2100s or 2200s. To get the “pure” correlation of SATs with college acceptances, ytou would have to hold gpa constant.</p>
<p>@junhugie</p>
<p>If the correlation with success is truly so high, maybe that makes SAT score all THE BETTER of an indicator. I mean I find it somewhat nonsensical to even bind everything together… clearly GPA is the most important part of your application, but heck, everyone I know applying to these schools is top 5% of their class.</p>
<p>Jersey:</p>
<p>I’m arguing: Since students who score higher on the SAT tend to do better in highschool, how can you tell that their increased college admissions chances have solely to do with higher scores and not higher GPAs or better teacher recs?</p>
<p>I’m talking about HIGHSCHOOL success, though. And there is a difference between being top 5% and top 2%.</p>
<p>What I mean is that 2300s who are in the top 1 to 2% of their class are more common than those who are only in the top 10%, so of course their admissions rate will be higher. But how can yotu tell if its the SAT or the grades? You can’t, unless you graphed the acceptance rates with grades and rank held constant.</p>
<p>Why would an applicant with a 2400 have significantly better ECs than an applicant with a 2200? The SAT tests your reasoning, which has nothing to do with effort or involvement. Besides, an applicant with a 2200 would likely not apply to Harvard unless he or she has impressive ECs to put down on the application, and an applicant with a 2400 but poor ECs may apply to Harvard because he or she thinks the 2400 is competitive. This doesn’t really skew the statistics either, but if your statement stands then mine should, too. </p>
<p>Statistics say that as your score increases, your competition (the number of those with the same score) decreases exponentially. Why is this true? Why is it so much harder to get a 2400 than a 2250? Stupid mistakes? If the difference is so negligible, why do high scores translate into better ECs? If the difference is not so negligible, why don’t colleges acknowledge it? There is a contradiction here. It is best to just stick to the simplistic idea that improving upon a credential is improving upon an application.</p>
<p>What I’m arguing here is whether or not being in a score range makes you competitive at high caliber schools, sure improving a test score may improve an application slightly but an SAT score alone definetley is not the cause of a higher acceptance rate.</p>
<p>Crazybandit: The SAT doesn’t “cause” higher grades or better extracurriculars, but those with higher SATs tend to have more of both. The question is: Which causes the higher college acceptance rates seen for higher SATs: The SAT itself or the things that it correlates with? Nobody has given a satisfactory answer to that question.</p>
<p>It’s also demonstrably true that kids with higher SATs have higher GPAs in high school. Look it up. </p>
<p>And I don’t think I said that a 2100 isn’t any different from a 2400. I’m talking about 2300 to 2400, etc etc. Once you get within less than a 100 point difference, it doesn’t really matter imho</p>
<p>Once again, statistics beg to differ.</p>
<p>There are two basic arguments here - either people who score higher tend to achieve more in GPA and EC’s… in which case the SAT’s are a good indicator regardless…</p>
<p>or SAT alone causes the higher acceptance rate, in which case it is clearly a definitive indicator.</p>
<p>Those who “think” that 2300-2400 are no different are thinking contrary to the data provided. Either the people who score these scores are the same, in which case the increase in acceptances is based on score alone, or 2400’s are better achieved, in which case SAT score may be a good predictor of future success.</p>
<p>Yes, a 2200 is fine.</p>
<p>thequestionmark:</p>
<p>The things you using the SAT to correlate with (more ECs, higher highschool gpa) are already given, so it’s pointless using the SAT to “predict” them. It’s essentially a useless correlation for adcoms, since they already have all your data, and there is no reason to make any more predictions. Why “predict” your highschool gpa if it’s already given? The only reason these correlations are used is to reflect on what really makes a difference in admissions decisions. If two things go up together, and a higher one influences admissions decisions, how do you know that it really wasn’t the other? I’m not against what you guys are suggesting, but I haven’t seen a study that shows the effects of rising SAT Scores isolated from the effects of better ECs and GPAs.</p>
<p>Well it’s enormously hard to isolate all three variables, especially the subjective “EC” quality. But if you want, I CAN isolate test scores and GPA by using my school district’s graphs:</p>
<p>Harvard:
[Imageshack</a> - harvard.jpg](<a href=“http://img805.imageshack.us/f/harvard.jpg/]Imageshack”>ImageShack - Best place for all of your image hosting and image sharing needs)</p>
![http://img805.imageshack.us/f/harvard.jpg/]Imageshack](http://img805.imageshack.us/f/harvard.jpg/%5DImageshack){kind=link}
<p>Yep, one of those red “x” is mine. Notice how the GPA slope is almost constant while the accepted/waitlisted rate INCREASES DRASTICALLY AFTER 2300. Also consider that the “lower” SAT scores that were accpeted may have submitted ACT scores instead. If this isn’t hard evidence, I don’t know what is. And excuse the shady paint job, I had to protect my info.</p>
<p>I got a 2350 and I’m headed to Yale next year. Therefore, to be accepted to any Ivy League school, you must have a 2350 or greater.</p>
<p>Next question.</p>
<p>Way to be pretentious, sarcastic ass all at once.</p>
<p>
…We can still see your circle. ~4.7/6.0 and ~2230.</p>
<p>I love Naviance. The Val and Sal at my school both got into Hahvahd with sub 2200s. The #3 got into Columbia with an 1880.</p>
<p>^ The one who got into Columbia was either an athelete, minority, or wrote an amazing college essay.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not an athlete, at least not a Columbia athlete. I think she was a two or three sport Varsity captain though.</p>
<p>Not a minority. White female.</p>
<p>I obviously have no clue about her college essay. Her family is middle/upper class so I don’t envision any hero stories. She was President of the Student Council, not even Prez of the Class, so I’m not really sure how she got in. She wasn’t even waitlisted either.</p>
<p>^ i hate naviance. first they take my bad psat score since my sat they don’t have yet and tell me that im way below all my colleges. secondly, the gpa’s are all higher than me which is really depressing. third, many scatterplots have restricted data “to protect student privacy”, especially when you want to view the ACT vs gpa scatterplots. naviance sucks.</p>