<p>I'm talking about people who weren't URM or althetes recruited by the school or relatives of celebrities. I know this is probably a hackeyed discussion but I want to know anyways.</p>
<p>I kinda have the same question, but not LOWEST score...How about people (non hooked) with scores around 2100/ less than 2250?</p>
<p>it don't really matter. Just that the boy in your school got into Stanford with a 2000 doesn't mean that you will too.</p>
<p>The two I know who got in had SAT>2350.</p>
<p>I strongly agree with HeWhoDreams, there are different cases of people. Everyone is different, and Stanford has their reasons for accepting whoever they wanted to.</p>
<p>There was a thread a while ago about someone claiming to have been accepted to Stanford with a 1700 on their SAT. </p>
<p>While I don't think that's something they should brag about, I'm sure he/she had something special to offer to Stanford. Numbers aren't everything. That's probably the most stressed thing in the college admissions process (from what I've read and heard). </p>
<p>If numbers were everything, the SAT ranges for 25th to 75th would be something like 1500-1600 for all top schools and everyone who got in would have a 4.0 GPA. As it is, they're not (I believe Stanford's is something like 1350-1550, average GPA is not 4.0, probably 3.8-3.9 I would think).</p>
<p>SAT scores are just part of the picture, I think too many people think that admissions are solely dependent on the standardized test scores.</p>
<p>Sat scores after a certain threshold are all pretty much the same.
Here's an example:
Student A: 740CR, 730M, 730W=2200
Student B: 770 CR, 780M, 750W=2300</p>
<p>Although student B has a 100 point lead on student A, when that lead is investigated, it's really not too much of a lead. For each section, student B got between 20-50 points higher than student A. Now, as well all know, the sat curve is pretty harsh so one question more wrong could result in 30ish points lower for that section. So overall if you think about it, student B only did better than student A by about 3 questions. Should 3 measly multiple choice questions (which could have been gotten wrong due to careless errors) be the basis of determining who is better qualified for a school? Of course not. Adcoms realize this, and that is why people with higher test scores don't always get in. When really examined, the difference between a 2200 and a 2300 is tiny. </p>
<p>So, the point of all this is that scores aren't everything.</p>
<p>My friend got in with 2110 but off the waitlist.</p>
<p>And another got in and only did well in math (600s in the others).</p>
<p>But we're from EA....maybe they are lenient.</p>
<p>A close friend of mine got accepted with a 1650 on the SAT I. I cried along because I was so happy!</p>
<p>Proves to all that SAT scores are not everything.</p>
<p>sniff...gives me hope!!</p>
<ol>
<li>But SAT scores are not everything. In fact, they're almost nothing.</li>
</ol>
<p>No, SAT's are a big deal. Stop with anecdotal evidence. Right now I've only read about 8 people who in Stanford with less than 2250 scores on this thread. You don't even know what else they have to offer.</p>
<p>So don't go around telling people that it's okay to have 2000 and that's it's the same as a 2300.</p>
<p>My friend got in with a 1760. I got in with a 1790.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s not the same, but it’s pretty clear just looking at official data online that there’s a range. </p>
<p>And the SAT has been around for the longest time, but its meaning seems to have decreased to a degree. Even if average scores for acceptances have become higher, people seem to be less trusting of the SAT as a way to really distinguish among applicants, because there are plenty of well-educated people applying, and only in earlier times where the divide between a very qualified and less qualified applicant was extremely steep might things have been different. An older guy was telling me how “the smart kids” would get so and so scores on the SAT in his time. </p>
<p>Not that people get “smarter,” but people seem to be getting more creative with how they can make their applications attractive, and in the end it is about what they will contribute to the given school. Scores mean a good bit only if the school is hugely centered on what they measure, and the SAT measures things far too basic for this to be the case in today’s day and age. The actual coursework, recommendation letters, and other academic activities logically would be the better measures of potential relevant to an actual school. This isn’t to say good showing on the SAT isn’t important at all, because again, for basic measures, it’s not a bad thing.</p>
<p>Many know all of this, but this thread shouldn’t drag on too much in my opinion.</p>
<p>I know an international student who got into Harvard, Yale and Williams with a 2130. Unhooked, but eastern European, if that helped.</p>
<p>Student last year at my school (class of 2013) was accepted unhooked with a 1980. He was however, a dedicated student who was still quite intelligent, had focus in his ECs, and could write well.</p>
<p>As difficult as it is to get in unhooked with an SAT score below 2100, CCers love to dispel the notion that these people get accepted to these schools. Few people from my school have received amazing SAT scores (none above 2250), but all have ended up at excellent universities (Yale, Columbia, Tufts, USC etc…), while also gaining high scores in the IB (40+).</p>
<p>Remember that there are over 1000 undergraduate students accepted every year, and CC represents only a tiny proportion of those people.</p>
<p>When I got my first SAT scores back, I was slightly disappointed. I talked to someone who got in (C/O 2013) early action. He got around a 1950, but just by knowing him I knew that he was a smart individual and very caring. He had attended the HSSC program there with me, so I knew he was qualified, regardless of the SAT score. But that’s the ‘lowest’ I’ve heard.</p>
<p>Alright so, a few things:</p>
<p>1) the answer to the question posed in this thread is completely meaningless for anyone applying to stanford.</p>
<p>2) Stanford doesn’t really think about the sum of the 3 parts of the SAT very much, which should be clear with how they report student scores (which is by section).</p>
<p>3) if you want an idea of the distribution, check this out: [Applicant</a> Profile : Stanford University](<a href=“http://www.stanford.edu/dept/uga/basics/selection/profile.html]Applicant”>http://www.stanford.edu/dept/uga/basics/selection/profile.html)</p>
<p>1900 got in</p>
<p>My friend is class of '13, with an 1880. She is black and both her parents went to Stanford grad school.</p>