<p>I don't know what it is, but I'm pretty mad.</p>
<p>If you think I'm lying about my score, I'd be happy to print screen my CollegeBoard page for you.</p>
<p>The reason is that standardized tests are at least important when it comes to admission regardless. As it should.</p>
<p>Hi like to hear your thoughts. I quickly browsed through the decision data posted in Columbia and Dartmouth threads (and admit that not entirely and not thoroughly); seems to me the Dartmouth data is more confusing – difficult to analyze the accept/defer/reject trend. Your thoughts?</p>
<p>That's an interesting point. I was just starting to notice that. You also have to remember we only have a limited sample size of the whole population that was accepted EA into Stanford so we cannot make assumptions for the whole population from a biased sample as CC is... </p>
<p>It's what I've been saying all along though... SAT scores can only be indicative of so much...</p>
<p>Thanks. Totally agree about the sample size. On the other hand, to see that so many of SAT>2300 got rejected in Dartmouth-decision thread is sort of strange, considering that the N in this group is rather small to start with – see CB 2008 data <a href="http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/sat_percentile_ranks_2008_composite_cr_m_w.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/sat_percentile_ranks_2008_composite_cr_m_w.pdf</a></p>
<p>I have 2400 SAT I and 2400 SAT IIs (Math II, Chem, US History) along with straight As and I've been worrying for a loooong time that the scores will somehow work against me. </p>
<p>I THINK I have a life (I'm drum major of my marching band, news editor of the school paper, captain of the science bowl team, and my recs stressed that I'm actually personable), but I'm not so sure. The Stanford Slaughter is now making me convinced that I'm utterly and TOTALLY screwed...</p>
<p>Ah, no worry, Guacamolly. I think that you will be fine (and very fine). Nevertheless, enough of data game for me tonight – numbers give me dizziness. Let’s just wait for a few more hours. Good luck, ALL. :-)</p>
<p>Peyton- I hope your stats are valid (2350 1600 M+CR Woot)</p>
<p>What I think the adcom realizes is that the SAT/ACT are only tests and if you pass the benchmark asiantofu referred too, you're just as competitive as someone with a perfect score. This is all speculation though. . .</p>
<p>Yale gets SO many qualified applicants that they can really just have fun building an "interesting" and "diverse" class.</p>
<p>The SAT is losing clout.</p>
<p>Also, recs and essays matter a lot more than we think. They can get the personal qualities and all the scores/ECs they need.</p>
<p>hm..i'm hoping theres not much difference between scores after the 2200 boundary, (with a 2230 score :P )</p>
<p>Your dealing with the problem of voluntary response on CC boards. People who feel a great injustice was done to them are most likely to respond on CC - namely people with stellar GPA/SAT who thought it was in the bag. People with the 2100s who were realll7y expecting R, and were R'd/D'd, dont have the same impetus to post on the report the decision threads. </p>
<p>There's a strong positive correlation between SAT scores and acceptance - undoubtedly, the admit % for 2400ers is about double that of 2200ers. Problem is, that is still only a >20% deal. AANND most importantly, while there is a correlation, there are lurking variables. SAT and Acceptance are both commonly responding to the real variable, which is the motivation and intelligence of the student. SAT doesnt effect admission really, but the factors that affect SAT and some of the factors affecting admission.</p>
<p>I agree with tarzan. (Haha that sounds funny)</p>
<p>Yale probably gets so many amazing applicants - why pick all the 2400s? Possibly those with 2200 scores or even less have something they want, or need. Maybe they'll just choose people that they find interesting (like the clam fart girl, in case you all forgot).</p>
<p>Speaking as a girl with 1470 M+V, I feel a little better (although I ruled out Ivies a long time ago because I don't think I can get in). I always felt that SAT scores determined which school you get into, despite what people say... most likely because of my parents, though. But I just took the SAT again in December, and now I'm afraid of doing better! So odd.</p>
<p>I wouldn't say it's a direct correlation.. just a strange number of coincidences, lol. It'd be unfair to say that it's a correlation.. but to me it seems like the lower-scoring applicants <em>sometimes</em> seem to be more diversified and sincere.. not so college-tailored, you know?</p>
<p>But then again, there are quite a few high-scorers who are ALSO diversified and sincere ..and still don't make it in :|</p>
<p>Do you think a 750 CR vs 770 CR score will matter? (2330 vs. 2350)</p>
<p>Lol please don't be facetious... I'm just wondering. Thanks.</p>
<p>^ it won't make a difference</p>
<p>Reading threads here gives you junk data, because the threads here are neither representative of the relevant population nor verified for accuracy. </p>
<p>Dear tokenadult, I am taking my first Statistics course (AP) this year, entering the 2nd learning period, so I am definitely a beginner in it. I followed your post and then found in CB the SAT validity study results (2008-5) <a href="http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/Validity_of_the_SAT_for_Predicting_First_Year_College_Grade_Point_Average.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/Validity_of_the_SAT_for_Predicting_First_Year_College_Grade_Point_Average.pdf</a> . If I read the data correctly (Table 6 of the rpt, where it shows the correlations of the predictors with college FYGPA; N = 151,316), there seems to me the weight (or importance?) of SAT (M/C/W individually or in combination) and HSGPA are about the same, about 0.3 to 0.4; and, not surprisingly, the correlation improved when both HSGPA and SAT were included in the analysis, but only slightly, about 0.5. I thus come to this conclusion that all the anxiety of whether SAT score is important in the admission decision, based on the reported data in CC threads, for its coming from Dartmouth, Columbia, or Stanford, is irrelevant, for we shall never see a perfect +1.0000 correlation, even if we have a much larger sample size (151,316). I started to appreciate better that, as so many of the CCers have already said, the college admission decision is indeed a very complicate and challenging process and every single piece of info we provided is, if not equally, probably similarly important. I have to say, while being anxious myself for the result tomorrow, I sort of sympathize the college admission officers. It is not an easy time for both ends, we the students and they the decision makers, as so many of us are so equally good.</p>