<p>Perfect 4000 or 4800 in SAT 1 and SAT II?</p>
<p>Since writing is not considered by many schools (eg colubmbia, cornell, MIt etc.). I was wondering how many high school student each year score 800 V, 800 Math in SAT 1; 800 in three Sat II. Thus how many students achieve a total 4000 in SATs. Is there any figure available anywhere?</p>
<p>And if student has all necessary ECs and GPA how do they perform in college admissions?</p>
<p>You already know that scores are only a part of the whole picture as these schools have rejected students with perfect scores. When it comes to admissions at selective universities, nothing is a sure thing.</p>
<p>You should be able to find it here:</p>
<p>read away...</p>
<p>sybbie :</p>
<p>I understand nothing is guranteed in life. However, I am still curious how many student brings perfect APs scores and perfect SAT1/SAT II scores?</p>
<p>Bottom line is perfect APs and SAT II scores are probably has less corelation with race, more on student work ethic and understanding of the topics.</p>
<p>I think it is a mistake to say that Columbia and Cornell don't consider the writing part of the new SAT I. Under the old system, they required students to take the Writing SAT II, and they still require any student submitting old SAT I scores to also submit Writing SAT II scores, and any student submitting ACT scores to have taken the Writing component of the ACT. That doesn't look like they don't bother with it. So if you didn't get an 800 on the writing section, sorry, you're out of the perfection derby.</p>
<p>To answer your other questions: Who knows? I've never seen a figure, and I don't know whether it even gets tracked. Guessing from what I know about SAT I, I would think the answer would be somewhere in the low three figures. It's a little hard to tell, because the score distribution on SAT IIs varies a lot by test. There are a lot more 800s in Math, Physics and Chemistry than there are (or were) in Literature and Writing. </p>
<p>I assume those kids (who also have "all necessary ECs and GPA" -- what a concept!) do extremely well applying to colleges other than the ultra-selective or ultra-quirky ones, and probably do pretty well at those schools, too, provided (1) they can write a decent essay, (2) they have challenged themselves reasonably, and (3) they get some teachers to say that they are intellectually curious and good leaders and colleagues rather than just great test-takers. No free passes, certainly. But I'll bet people notice and say "Hey! Here's one of THOSE kids!"</p>
<p>I have never seen a data table that groups SAT I scores with SAT II by individual students. The College Board must have the raw data necessary to produce such a table, but I have never seen a posting of such a thing. Sybbie's basic point is correct that some of those applicants with the highest scores across multiple tests will still be rejected for admission at some colleges, for reasons unrelated to the tests, so in large degree this doesn't matter.</p>
<p>If you scroll through the decision threads for the individual schools you're interested in, you may find specific examples of kids with those scores. Take note of the dumbfounded posters who can't figure out why a high scorer was rejected and a lower scorer was admitted. High scores get you a close look but no guarentee. Beyond the elite schools, those kind of numbers can buy some serious merit aid at schools with numbers driven merit aid systems.</p>
<p>JHS </p>
<p>I am mistaken and writing is required by Columbia and Cornell. </p>
<p>So how 4800 scoring kids (unfrotunaely this data is not avialable) perform.</p>
<p>But I still think that APs and SAT II perfect scores one need to understand the subject. It can not based alone on test taking abilities.</p>
<p>Well, if you're really interested, you could plow through the listings in this thread -- start with the most recent posts, at the end of the thread -- and pick out the people with 800s in CR, M, and SATIIs. Not many (if any).</p>
<p>I think the number of kids who scored perfect 1600 in single sitting is less than 900 out of million+ who take SAT. The number drops down when you add perfect 800 on SAT IIs.</p>
<p>I do not know how relevant the following information is (I saw these data somewhere but I do not have a source):</p>
<p>For kids scoring 1600 on old SATs </p>
<p>Regular Early Action change in
Decision /Decision chances by applying early:</p>
<p>Brown -- 32.90% 54.90% 22.00%</p>
<p>Chicago 100% 100% 0.00%</p>
<p>Columbia -- 74.80% 99.10% 24.30%</p>
<p>Cornell 89.50% 97.60% 8.10%</p>
<p>Dartmouth 95.40% 99.40% 4.00%</p>
<p>Duke 92.30% 99.30% 7.00%</p>
<p>Georgetown 96% 99.10% 3.10%</p>
<p>Harvard 34.60% 61.40% 26.80%</p>
<p>MIT -- 92.40% 94.40% 2.00%</p>
<p>Penn - 87% 99.10% 12.10%</p>
<p>Princeton -- 61% 97.90% 36.90%</p>
<p>Stanford -- 73.70% 89.20% 15.50%</p>
<p>Yale -- 55.30% 81.30% 26.00%</p>
<p>Newparent:</p>
<p>I think your question is annoying lots of people (including me), but I'm trying to be nice. Here's why it's annoying: Any kind of cursory research will tell you that at some schools, like Harvard or MIT, perfect SAT I scores are no guarantee of admission, even with great grades, although certainly the combination of all those things helps and students with them are admitted at a rate much higher than the overall admission rate. At other schools (e.g., top state schools), perfect scores and grades virtually guarantee admission (absent felony convictions). At other schools (many top LACs), perfect scores are a big boost but not quite a sure thing. Perfect scores may actually be a negative at some schools, if the school suspects that the student's interest is not genuine.</p>
<p>I believe straight-800s on SAT IIs, without Writing, are probably a bit more common on a percentage basis than 2400 on the SAT I (or whatever they call it now). Certainly the combination of the two would be impressive, but not really that much more impressive than almost-perfect scores across the board. (I'll bet there are a lot more kids with 5 800s than with 5 790s!) Despite the fact that the tests are different, I'm sure that getting 800s on multiple tests is correlated, and the more 800s an individual gets the more likely he is to get an 800 or close to it on the next test -- after all, the tests don't attempt to measure the outer limits of anyone's ability. </p>
<p>It seems like you want some sort of reassurance that a kid with 5 or 6 800s can get in anywhere he applies. No one will tell you that. That kid COULD get in everywhere, but may well be rejected at some top schools, or even, conceivably, at all of them. Those schools are reading essays and recommendations carefully, and trying to build a class of diverse interests and strengths, and none of them feels it "owes" kids with great scores and grades anything. (And, as I said, people WILL tell you that there are many schools where scores like that, and scores lower than that, will guarantee acceptance and significant merit scholarship awards.)</p>
<p>I (and probably others) are suspicious of why you are asking this question. If you have a kid in this situation: Congratulations! I'm sure you are very proud of him or her, and with good reason. You should feel really good about the application process, because your child is likely to have some great choices, with a lot less anxiety than most of his or her classmates will go through. He or she should concentrate on deciding which schools to apply to, probably including at least one where the test scores will be definitive, on writing some good essays, and making certain that he or she has teachers lined up who will give him or her good recommendations. If all that gets done, the kid will do just fine -- and about the same "just fine" as if there were a few 790s or 780s mixed in there with the 800s.</p>
<p>If you are asking this question because you want to put pressure on your child to retake some tests in an attempt to convert near-perfect into perfect: Give it a rest! It won't make enough of a difference -- not at the schools where scores really matter, and not at the schools where they aren't enough. The kid should focus on producing a strong application in all areas, not on completing a freak sexifecta.</p>
<p>So basically a student with perfect scores would be close to a shoo-in if they applied ED at georgetown, Penn, dartmouth, brown, Duke & columbia </p>
<p>Where as there is a chance for rejection at Yale, stanford, MIT, Harvard and Brown. </p>
<p>So we have come full circle to my post # 2 -with the exception of Chicago, there is not a 100% certainty even with perfect scores at any school.</p>
<p>What your kid will have to do is differientiate him/herself from the rest of the high scorers and present themselves as a person who has something to offer both in and outside of the classroom.</p>
<p>Stockmarket, where did you get those numbers?</p>
<p>They seem a little bit screwy. Dartmouth's 99.4% admit rate for ED is both a) unreasonably high and b) implies that at least 166 kids with 1600s applied early (since 100/.6 = 166.66) which is much higher than I'd have thought, even over the course of a few years.</p>
<p>I can't imagine how stockmarket's data can be reliable, because I can't imagine that all of those schools released that information for any period. And unless a lot of years are covered, there may be a sample-size problem with some of them, especially the 100% Chicago numbers. I would guess that means about the same as the 9X% numbers elsewhere. If you look at the various scattergrams floating around, it's clear that Chicago regularly rejected kids with SAT I > 1500, notwithstanding that its overall acceptance rate was around 40%. I doubt 1600 was, or 2400 is, an absolute guarantee there.</p>
<p>But, to the OP: Adding straight 800s on the SAT IIs wouldn't make those numbers any worse, and for most of the schools they can't get much better. And for the colleges that were rejecting substantial numbers of 1600 kids, I sincerly doubt that the issue was their less-than-perfect SAT II scores, or that perfect SAT II scores would have made all the difference. (Assuming, which I don't, that the numbers are accurate in a meaningful way.)</p>
<p>Looking at Dartmouth's Common data set (pg. 10), they break down their SAT scores in increments of 100. Even then 68.7 % scored between 700-800 on the verbal and 69.8% scored between a 700-800 on the math. There is no break out by perfect 800 scores.</p>
<p>The common data set figures also refer to admitted students, not to applicants. They don't get you anywhere near what stockmarket's numbers purport to show.</p>
<p>I do not have the source. My kid forwarded these data to me as she got it from someone in her prep school. She told me that there was study on this sort of data. However, I do not have an explanation as I told in my earlier posting that I can not cite the source.</p>
<p>My guess is that data could be based on a combined score of one or more SAT1 exam. Like someone scored 800 in math and 760 in verbal and in next SAT1 exam 780 in math and 800 in verbal so their highest SAT 1 score is 1600.</p>
<p>Another explanation I can think of is mutiple years of data.</p>
<p>I'm not irritated by the question, but I am in agreement with JHS on most points.</p>
<p>It's easier to score 800 on SATIIs than on SAT1, so the number of perfect SAT + SATII scorers may not be much lower than 900. (checking the stats of the admits at top schools would confirm that many have perfect scores on sometimes more than 3 SATIIs.).</p>
<p>Perfect SAT scores will get an applicant a serious look, but other factors are very important, too. An applicant with perfect SAT but so-so grades that are not explained may well be deemed an underachiever and rejected on those grounds (perhaps unfairly, but c'est la vie). </p>
<p>At the top schools, factors such as ECs count for a lot. Many applicants also have achieved higher than what the SAT measure: APs, college courses, competition awards. Measured against such applicants, a student whose only achievement was perfect SATs might not be competitive. Of course, many perfect SAT scorers have other achievements as well.</p>
<p>Finally, there is a mystique about perfect scores. But adcoms look at ranges of scores rather than absolute scores. A score of 750 is probably as good as a score of 800.</p>
<p>"The College Board, which administers the test, said that only 939 students out of 1.4 million taking it in 2004 scored 1600"</p>
<p>
Finally, there is a mystique about perfect scores. But adcoms look at ranges of scores rather than absolute scores. A score of 750 is probably as good as a score of 800.
</p>
<p>There's an entry in MIT admissions officer Matt McGann's [blog[/url</a>] that unequivocally supports this idea.</p>
<p>
[quote]
People make a big deal about test scores. No one seems to believe me when I tell them that when I'm reading an application, I just glance at the test scores to get a sense of them before moving on to the more important parts of the application -- that is, who you are. But here's an example. So, I'm reading this application of a student, a pretty strong student, who's definitely overcome some challenges recently. I come to the second to last piece in the folder, which is the guidance counselor letter (the last piece is the interview report). The GC makes a big deal of the student's "scoring the magic 1600 on the SAT." Now, when I started the case, I mentally noted to myself, "Okay, this student has scores that are fine, let's move on," but it didn't really make an impact on me that the student had "the magic 1600." Yes, scoring a 1600 is something that you, your school, your parents, and your guidance counselor can be very proud of. But it's not something I'm going to bust out my highlighter for, circle in big red pen, make it the focus of your case. In fact, I don't think I have ever in my summary of a student used high standardized scores as an argument to admit that student.</p>
<p>I wanted to share this with you because this case was one concrete example of just how little we care about the small differences in competitive test scores. A student with "the magic 1600" is not implicitly better to us than a student with "the spellbinding 1400." Scores are one tool we use to help us in admissions. And yes, your grades and test scores (especially your grades) are important. But as I have said in the past, what ultimately really matters to us is who you are, what qualities you bring to the table. We want people who are academically curious and passionate, people who will bring their various talents to MIT and share them with others, people who will be good roommates, good mentors, good friends. We do not admit test scores. We admit people.</p>
<p>Let me tell you one more story that I often relay. I was doing a regional reception in a city a few years back, and afterwards a student -- we'll call her Artemis -- comes up to me and tells me that she has a 760 on the Math SAT. As I was about to tell her that her score was just fine, she keeps talking, to inform me that she was going to take the test again, since "clearly" her score was "too low." I was like, "What?!?!" I "ordered" Artemis to not take the Math SAT again, and instead to have a picnic on that Saturday. Because to us, a 760 math is the same as any higher score she could receive on the retest.
[/quote]
from [url=<a href="http://matt.mitblogs.com/archives/2004/11/whats_the_big_d.html%5Dthis">http://matt.mitblogs.com/archives/2004/11/whats_the_big_d.html]this</a> entry](<a href="http://matt.mitblogs.com%5Dblog%5B/url">http://matt.mitblogs.com).</p>