<p>I'd go so far as to say that it confuses me why some people think a 2400 may get you some sort of advantage of a 2300 or a 2250. I think it's wonderful that Adcoms of HYPMS and Co. bother to look beyond SAT I scores to determine the abilities and potential of a candidate.</p>
<p>The fatal flaw of standardized testing is just that: it's standardized and it's a test. Standardized means that the SAT fails to adjust for the environment and resources of a candidate, none of which is that particular individual's "fault" and none of which will likely determine how he or she can handle the rigors of an MIT experience. And most high school students can attest to how flawed tests (and GPAs that are a result of those tests) are at determining true intelligence.</p>
<p>When there is a multi-million dollar demand for test prep (especially SAT and AP) that is supposed to "guarantee" results, what do you expect them to think? Frankly, if I were admitting kids to MIT, I would find a score of 120 on AMC 12 and 5 on the AIME far more impressive than 2400 on the SAT or a 5 on AP Calc BC. </p>
<p>And I have good reason to believe that I'm right. Statistically, there is a far greater chance of a 200+ USAMO index (computed as AMC12 score + 10*AIME score; max of 300) being admitted than a 2380+ SAT (though these are sometimes intersecting sets). Let's take two examples. Person A has a 2400 SAT I and a 150 USAMO index (120 AMC12, 3 AIME). Person B has a 2250 SAT I and a 220 USAMO index (140 AMC12, 8 AIME). Empirical evidence points to MIT accepting Person B over A almost every time. Why? Because you can't just read a test prep book and get a 220 USAMO index. For most, it's a result of years of hard work and passion.</p>
<p>This isn't to say that SAT, SAT II, and AP scores are useless. To the contrary, they're very helpful. But they're useless alone, and they're pretty much useless when posted in a way that the people on this forum do. These standardized test scores help Adcoms realize the potential of an applicant in the light of his circumstances. </p>
<p>So if you're wondering whether you should cancel that 3 you got on AP Computer Sci AB that you decided to self-teach yourself freshman year when you felt like you were ready but now feel embarrassed because all your classmates took it junior year and got 4's and 5's, I hope you'd reconsider. </p>
<p>Think of it in SAT terms. One kid takes it freshman year after preparing himself without professional help and comes out with a 2250; the other goes through 3 SAT prep courses and 150 hours of practice testing and emerges June after junior year with a 2400. Which would you rather be?</p>
<p>Or, to make it interesting, let's suppose that you had both of these experiences under your belt. Which do you think is more impressive? (Let me give you a hint: It's not the 2400.)</p>