<p>I've heard more than a few people say that the difference between the low 2300s and the high 2300s isn't worth a retake. How can this be true? I would imagine that score increases are valuable everywhere!
Can it really be true that colleges don't place much weight on the difference between two scores over 2300? I guess it's true that, to some degree, differences on that end of the scale can be attributed to luck, but I'd still think a higher score would be better.
Is this generally said because the value of the score increase is less than the detriment that a retake brings? </p>
<p>I'm asking because I took the June SAT and wound up with 2340. I'd be looking to get my math score above 750 and to get more than an 8 on the essay so as to snag the last ten writing points.
I feel that with a summer of methodical math prep, I could raise my score. The June test was my first attempt, so I feel like a retake wouldn't be /such/ a big deal. Also, I'm a rising junior, so I'd have some time left if I did decide to retake. </p>
<p>Key questions:
-Do admins care if you've retaken? I know it's standard, but does it have ANY effect?
-About superscoring: if I went down in CR, would they CERTAINLY take my 800 from the first attempt?
-The essay: I've heard that colleges receive a copy of it. Do they read it? How important is it? Mine was /awful/-- I ran out of time in the middle, etc.</p>
<p>Thanks for the help. I know this may seem like a silly question, but I've been thinking about it for weeks now and can't come up with a decision.</p>
<p>@ BarristerDad: I really don't know-- I got all the MC questions and I guess the June curve was just very generous? It was an incredibly bad essay. I'm surprised I got the 8...
@ MonoTombo: Yeah, I could be doing something else with my time, but all of my friends are currently ensconced in TestMasters and similar programs and it's making me incredibly nervous about my score. Anyway, I guess that's a vote for 'not worth it'?</p>
<p>If you go to MIT's website, the admissions blogs are happy to tell you that 700=800. At a Caltech info session, the dean of admissions told us that increases of 10-40 points on a section are essentially worthless, because that's within the margin of error on your first score. </p>
<p>At Ivies, super-high scores don't give you an advantage. They just look at them to see if you're competent. Although it's true that a higher percentage of 750-800s are admitted than 700-750s, this is just a correlation, not a causation (the 800s they admit are pretty damn smart, and they're admitted because they demonstrate it on other areas of the application, not with their arbitrary number.)</p>
<p>You have a good score, so you should have a good summer NOT worrying about 60 friggin points. And for the love of god, don't sit that 6 hour monster again.</p>
<p>On second thought, there might be one reason to retake the test: state school scholarships. Many state schools offer scholarships soley for high scores/GPAs, so the cutoffs can be pretty arbitrary. </p>
<p>If you're considering any place with scholarships like this, it could be worth if you don't meet the minimum cutoff (but with a 750 math, I can't think of any scholarships where this score would take you out.)</p>
<p>Maybe if you're going for a prestigious math/science/engineering scholarship at a big, faceless school, a 790/800 could help you, but there's NO way a liberal arts type scholarship would hold a 750 against you.</p>
<p>really, you are much better off involving yourself in some research project, science fair, art/music competition, sport, club leadership...anything but retaking the SAT!</p>
<p>@ esquiar: Thanks so much for the thoughtful reply. I didn't realize that admins had actually stated that 40ish point differences were so negligible. That helps me a lot.
I'm definitely not interested in math/science. I'll probably major in philosophy, so I'd be going for a liberal arts type scholarship would be my thing-- and if 750M is good enough for that, I'm very happy.
Again, thanks for all the help.
@ coffeeicecream (GREAT username, btw): Haha, I'm definitely starting to lean in that direction...</p>
<p>Just...no. It isn't worth your time. If anything, it will be a detriment to your admissions opportunities because the admissions offices will perceive you as obsessive and excessively perfectionist. They don't like applicants who show so much interest in raising a test score that does not need to be raised.</p>
<p>@amciw: Whoa, whoa, whoa! Does it really work like that? I've never heard that before, but if that's a legitimate admin perspective (and I see how it could be), it's a huge deal.
Has anyone read anything about that on admin blogs, etc?
Anyway, thanks for the feedback.
@ steeeve: Seriously? In June? That's crazy.</p>
<p>Of course you should retake it. This is out of the question. 2400, a perfect score, just looks so awesome. How can you go wrong with a perfect score?</p>
<p>Absolutely no sarcasm intended, btw. Reading your response, I'm getting the message that you won't be happy at all if it's any less than a 2400.</p>
<p>Oh, okay. Still-- sort of crazy.
It bothers me how much of this is luck.</p>
<p>@ invoyable: of course I would LIKE a 2400. Who wouldn't? I realize that retaking a 2340 is a little silly, and that's why I'm asking for the general consensus. But to arbitrarily say that I won't be happy "at all" without a perfect score because I've expressed interest in improvement is, in my opinion, presumptive and immature.</p>
<p>Read your original post closely, seriously, please. Retaking a 2340 already even speaks volumes, but since you seem to be serious about it anyways, it's obvious to assume that you'd be going for a 2400. If you're not satisfied with a 2340, are you honestly saying you'd be happy with a 2370 or a 2380, a 30~40 point difference? </p>
<p>I'm sorry but the whole notion of this to begin with was extremely hilarious and somewhat pretentious in itself. Whether you see it or not, it made an impression of "are you serious"? in the sense of a 95% asking for improvement as a retake when it won't affect anything significant at that stage and if that's even less than a 100 then that means a 96%~99% range, which is quite superfluous.</p>
<p>I have heard it from multiple other posters here, including some who have already been accepted to/are attending colleges. Common sense would dictate it is an admissions officer perspective, since they are striving for people who are people, not grade machines.</p>
<p>Seeing as a) that it was my first try, b) that I didn't prep as much as I should/could have and c) that I'm a rising junior and therefore have many more opportunities, I don't see why it's an entirely unreasonable question. Of course I am "going for" a 2400; doesn't everyone aim to do as well as possible?
I'm not dissatisfied so much with my score as with the conditions surrounding it. I would be happIER with a 2370 or a 2380, especially if it involved methodical math prep and not running out of time in the middle of my essay.
I'm sorry if this thread came off as pretentious or absurd. I thought that I might get that reaction and tried to counter it in the original post, but I still don't see why it's entirely unreasonable to consider a retake.
Obviously, I'm learning things that are influencing my decision-- such as the negligible and possibly detrimental effect that a retake could have. That was the point of this thread; I won't regret making it. But I still think that it was a valid question and that it's unfair to assume that I'm some sort of obsessive perfectionist who won't be happy with anything other than a 2400 just because I'm curious about any possibility for improvement.</p>
<p>@ amciw: I can absolutely see how that would work; I'm just wondering if it's ever been explicitly stated. It's a valuable viewpoint. Thanks for the info. This thread has yielded a lot of information.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But I still think that it was a valid question and that it's unfair to assume that I'm some sort of obsessive perfectionist who won't be happy with anything other than a 2400 just because I'm curious about any possibility for improvement.
[/quote]
I will apologize if I have called you this; you could've given more info and from your post that impression did come off rather strongly.</p>
<p>
[quote]
a) that it was my first try, b) that I didn't prep as much as I should/could have and c) that I'm a rising junior
[/quote]
Yes, you're smart...I honestly think you should use your time in other things. Objectively, there's no difference between a 2340 and something higher.</p>
<p>I made this thread because I felt that there were conditions specific to my case (and maybe to the cases of others who didn't want to risk getting flamed) that might counteract the general wisdom of not retaking that kind of score. As I'm seeing, most people think that it's still a bad idea.
I genuinely appreciate that your opinion is that there's no objective difference between a 2340 and anything higher; I just didn't appreciate being ridiculed for a thread when I was just looking for information.</p>
<p>Why not...? If you feel you can do better...</p>
<p>However, the potential to go down is very, very, very, very high. The curve for math was very good this time. Usually, its a very steep hole downwards for a few wrong. It's the same from reading. </p>
<p>Its mostly subconscious, as you probably have figured out. Obviously, admissions people are not looking at applications and instantly removing anyone who retakes a 2300+. Regardless, they see you have taken it twice, and it leaves a bad taste in their figurative mouths...</p>
<p>...and then, I realize something. You are in the class of 2010, which means the admission people won't see how many times you took it, since you only send in the test you like. CB is gay, because that policy is. But it also means that you have no worries about doing worse or appearing obsessed, because the colleges won't ever see it. I guess that eliminates any of my arguments for not taking it. They are still applicable to my class, though. :)</p>
<p>So go ahead, then, retake it. If you can afford it, you have much less to lose.</p>