<p>I too go to a public school with an average score around 1400, but my SAT composite is 2370. I did most of my prep for free through CC and only bought the CB Blue book, along with use of the library. I don’t mean to single you out in particular, but using average school scores is not an excuse for an SAT score below the Yale median. There are other environmental factors that should be given consideration, but I don’t think that anybody should be given a second look because they were better than the average scorers around them.</p>
<p>There are many more reasons why a GPA could be low than the negative ones you provided. The basic fact is that both are pretty garbage measures of anything in their current formats.</p>
<p>hahalolk:
</p>
<p>No, you don’t know that. </p>
<p>mifune:
</p>
<p>LOL. I cannot think of any possible way in which the latter could be measured definitively.</p>
<p>almostcrimes:
</p>
<p>Your own experience is pretty cool, even though it sounds like a massive lie, but one example (or even multiple) is not going to change a general idea which is supported by pretty basic reason. It’s just something that could be kept in the back of the mind when looking at SAT scores.</p>
<p>True though my point was I don’t find it fair to completely exclude sub 2100s. In the context of national scores anything above 2000 is really quite good. Though the ivy pool (especially Yale) is fierce there are mostly likely going to be incredibly intelligent applicants who didn’t break the 2100 threshold. Last year someone from my school got into Yale with a 2090. He was/is an amazing student/person and the idea that he would have been discounted for answering one question wrong is a little scary.</p>
<p>There are so many trivial reasons why a perfectly bright individual might not score above a 2100 on the SAT.
I got a 770 on the math section because I missed one question.
I also received a 690 on the writing section because supposedly, I did not answer four of the questions. I don’t remember not answering any questions - if anything, the machine malfunctioned and didn’t pick up the marks.</p>
<p>^ Yeah cutoffs don’t make sense, if a person missed one question that could bring there score down 50 points. Then people will complain about 2090’s not getting in.</p>
<p>As I stated on the first page of this thread, I believe that this discussion would receive slightly more diversified responses if a score threshhold of 1800 was discussed. Even so, I am still not ideologically supportive of bare academic qualification cutoffs.</p>
<p>No, I know for a fact that I can’t run under a 9.6 for a 100, unless I had the aid of some wonder pill that is not out yet. At that level of skill, they all train equally hard, and it really just comes down to who’s having a good day and who is just naturally better. Trust, I know track very well.</p>
<p>Regardless of the fact, I think that the admissions office is enlightened enough to tend to stray away from people who would agree with the original question.</p>
<p>^He is referencing the fact that many applicants receive advantages in the admissions process that are irrelevant to academic talent and/or conferred benefits that fail to properly compensate for any circumstances that prevent an applicant from attaining and demonstrating merit.</p>
<p>^whoa, mifune, i always have to re-read your posts like three times to understand what you’re trying to say. it sounds like legalese to me. :P</p>
<p>to what unfair advantages are you referring? socioeconomic or general affirmative action? athletic recruitment? the fact that people from underrepresented geographic areas get a bit of an advantage? i don’t think that sub-2100 acceptances are all that common, and i don’t see why they should become even more unusual.</p>
<p>A little dose of realistic medicine:
Our HS is what you would call an Ivy feeder. Over the last four years, we’ve had over 200 kids apply to Yale. I don’t know exactly how many made it, but I will tell you is this: the average SAT score of those accepted is over 2300. And that includes the hooked. The only kid to get in with an SAT score below 2200 was a highly-recruited athlete.</p>
<p>Look, if your score is below 2100 and you want to apply to Yale, go for it. Circumstances can change for the better if you come from a poor school, are valedictorian, etc. Be realistic though. Tens of thousands of kids have higher SAT scores and would gladly take the next available spot at Yale. Unless you have something really going for you, forget it. You can always pull the “What does the SAT matter?” argument, but I could bring about the same argument: “What’s the difference between going to Yale and a, say, school in the 20s/30s in USNWR?” The answer to both is probably “not much,” and yes, they are directly related. The “get 2000+ and you’re golden for any school” rhetoric is an obviously blatant lie spewed by adcoms to encourage applicants and boost selectivity numbers.</p>
<p>It is basically an indirect way of communicating that objective standards are often indiscriminately lowered for particular subgroups - which is true.</p>
<p>hey guys, I’m thinking about applying to yale and I got 2210 in my first SAT. Some people are saying that we need 2300+ to be competitive. Would the score hurt me? I don’t know whether I should retake or not.
Thanks</p>
<p>@ Natalle, not everyone who applys and gets accepted to Yale has a 2300+ on the SATs. A 2210 is very impressive, IMO. Keep in mind that SAT scores do not just entirely break an applicant. They take the holistic approach: essay, scores, recommendations, the whole nine. Good luck :-)!</p>