<p>this is kind of late, but going back to the whole “a low income student should be considered with a low SAT score because they didn’t have enough resources to study from” thing; i just want to say this is not a legitimate excuse. when i first started prepping for SAT’s, i was scoring 1800’s, but in the end i scored a 2400 on the real thing. i did this without spending a SINGLE cent. no classes, no books, no tutors. i just got about a hundred books from the library, and practiced and studied from these books. i made a huge improvement, so its not like i started out with a huge score.</p>
<p>i’m sorry, it’s kind of irrelevant to the current conversation, but i just wanted to make this point.</p>
<p>I am using the word “broad” in the sense that reading, writing, and mathematical reasoning are aptitudes that are very representative of the skills required to excel in nearly all academic situations. In essence, the SAT rewards the students who wish to improve upon these skills through study. Yes, these are basic subjects, but they are broadly applicable. This is primarily the reason why the SAT is a very good - but not a perfect - indicator of future success.</p>
<p>I agree with your opinion that such students should not be indiscriminately prioritized over their peers. However, there are legitimate concerns that some personal circumstances are not advatageous to individual achievement and success.</p>
<p>^^ i understand what you’re saying; students with extreneous situations that are appropriately explained on their apps should definitely be given a second look over. but assuming that a lower sat score is excusable solely due to a person’s income level is a dangerous assumption; individually, however, i see how your point is true. it’s just, individual circumstances should not be assumed for a whole population.</p>
<p>I absolutely agree. Disadvantageous backgrounds fully deserve to be considered but such circumstances are not constant across all members of that particular sub-group.</p>
<p>^ I, too, am glad you did not go there (i.e. get in). Yale wants quality applicants: those who do not judge the university based on the Internet postings of high schoolers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Low income doesn’t excuse you from studying for the SAT, but it definitely should be considered. Low income students don’t have access to the high-priced tutors or prep courses that offer better preparation than, say, Princeton Review or Kaplan. Low income students may not have the time to work through “a hundred” books because they have to work, take care of siblings, etc. </p>
<p>Conversely, I think it’s asinine to simply assume that high income students just bought their way to a high score. I am fortunate enough not to need FA and even so, I spent all of $25 on prep materials. I did fine on the test.</p>
<p>So no, income shouldn’t excuse you from trying. A decently-motivated student with some spare time should be able to prepare well without making a $2000 investment into tutors.</p>
<p>From what I’ve always understood the SAT used to be a kind of IQ test, but that was well before prep age started. It may be interesting for colleges to know the intelligence of applicants, but SAT is not an instrument anymore that can be used for this purpose. As the results are also not indicative for the academic level of a student, I fail to see why the SAT still exists.</p>
<p>It’s exactly as useful as GPA (ie, it’s helpful but not perfect, and Ivy League colleges don’t only use that one test to decide who gets in or not).</p>
<p>Regardless of peoples’ opinion, 2100 is the 25th percentile for matriculated Yale current freshmen.</p>
<p>Of those scoring 690 or less:</p>
<p>349 offers of admission were made to Verbal
362 offers of admission were made to Math
349 offers of admission were made to Writing</p>
<p>A total of 1958 offers were made. If we assume roughly that 350 or so scored a combined 2100 or less (this is just a guess since I don’t have data based on aggregate totals), that’s 18% of all offers of admission.</p>
<p>I’m sure this info riles the rejectees with 2300s and such but as you’re all aware, Yale’s holistic evaluations include much more than just the test scores.</p>
<p>I would like to believe I have at least a chance with a 2080, it’s unfortunate that people even feel that “cut offs” should exist. I come from a public school with an average score around 1400 and don’t feel that factors beyond my control should be held against me when private schools with an average score of 2000 exist.</p>
<p>What happens then to the recruited athlete, legacy, etc with a 2090? Are they, too, automatically elliminated? I personally applied with only my ACT score so would they cut off ACT scores at 32 or would you even go so far as to say only 34-36s should be considered, even though 33s are still 99th percentile? There are millions of reasons that one may not have a 2100 or higher, and any school claiming to evaluate holistically (no matter the prestige) has reason to not glance at those in the 98th percentile or even a bit lower.</p>
<p>Some who are under 25th percentile (that got in) could be similar to me; 75th percentile scores in two sections, but a 690 in the third section.</p>
<p>Also, on an unrelated note, mifune, if I recall correctly, you retook a 2350 (and a 2360 as well I think), and you’re supposed to send all SAT scores to Yale. Make sure you did that…</p>