<p>the scores are not as important as what you bring to the community. the politically correct social experiment known as "class building" is the current rage. </p>
<p>I have become exceedingly cynical as I go thru this whole process one more time for child #2.</p>
<p>The new SAT is approximately an hour longer than the old SAT and the PSAT. DD said it was exhausting. She knows that she will be able to pace herself better the next time. BUT she did say...almost 4 hours is a LONG time to go without food (none was allowed in her test center). Also, the school where she took the test (not her own...they don't administer the test) hadn't really planned the breaks well. There were long lines at the bathrooms, and little time to really take a "break". She's hoping those "kinks" are fixed by the next administration in October.</p>
<p>After reading this thread I went to go take about a million practice SAT tests. Really, so much should not be resting on such an inaccurate measure of your "apitude". Anyone can have a bad test day, or happen to come accross a few questions they simply don't know. Plus, the varience in preparation just adds to the inconsistency. Who really has more "aptitude", a student with a 2250 who prepared for 400+ hours, or a student with a 2100 who didn't take a single practice test? I really wish the SAT would be eliminated, I don't think it adds anything. You should really be able to judge someone's aptitude by their GPA and recommendations--the SAT is just too much of a variable.</p>
<p>Thumper, I agree with your D! It WAS exhausting, mentally and physically--sitting in a chair for 4 1/2 hours makes you tired, and makes your lower half a bit numb. I was also starving and not allowed food; I bet all the kids in the classroom could hear my stomach growling! It really was a terrible time, and I had a horrible proctor who was AWFUL about announcing the ends of sections and the "5 minutes left" deal.</p>
<p>About the last thing I would call the SAT is "standardized".</p>
<p>A lot of things in life don't make sense. This is just one of many those our age have to deal with. Next we face that only people that go to top schools get many jobs. Fair? No. Part of life? Yes.</p>
<p>That's not true.</p>
<p>Having a degree from a top school helps, but as I'm sure many people on this forum can attest, it will not guarantee you a job.</p>
<p>My mother dropped out of SMU, and is one of the most successful people I have ever met. Because of her personal motivation, sparkling personality, and intelligence, she has always held top jobs and has created a comfy life for my brother and I. My father, a Harvard graduate, is currently unemployed and having some difficultly finding a job. This is mostly, I believe, because my dad is an a$$hole. (My parents are divorced; I live with my mother.)</p>
<p>It won't guarantee a job, but the jobs I'm most interested in only consider kids from about 10 schools.</p>
<p>That's unfortunate for those jobs; they're missing out on a lot of smart, motivated people and independent thinkers.</p>
<p>I assume that you're currently a high school student, although I could very easily be wrong. If you are, I find it strange that you're making your college decision based on which jobs you think you want to be a part of when you graduate. People's minds change; it's a bad idea to base any big decisions on factors that are likely to change.</p>
<p>I find it hard to believe that going to the best college I can is a falwed strategy.</p>
<p>I absolutely agree with you--going to the best school you can is a great strategy. The problem is that "best" in an extremely subjective term.</p>
<p>Do you mean "best" in the rankings? Best in the minds of other people? </p>
<p>Or do you mean best by YOUR standards? Best for you as a person? What are the things you want in a school, big or small, urban or rural, etc? Shouldn't you be choosing a school based on THOSE things, not based on what somebody else says is "best" on a system mostly focused on what their incoming freshman classes' SAT scores were?</p>
<p>It IS possible that these are the same thing, but not only do I doubt that, I also think you don't care--because prestige in the minds of other people is more important to you than your actual college experience. And I think that's sad.</p>
<p>My mom posed this question to me: "If you were the only person on Earth, what school would you choose?" In other words, if other people's opinions didn't exist, where would you actually matriculate? If nobody ever told you that Harvard was the "best" school, would you still want to attend?</p>
<p>My guess is that more than 75% of Harvard applicants couldn't honestly answer this question with a yes.</p>
<p>Some selectice schools like Bowdoin and Holy Cross don't require SAT's.</p>
<p>If I were you, I'd apply to Harvard. You have a lot
going for you.</p>
<p>Your Dad went to Harvard. That improves your odds
of acceptance > 5x</p>
<p>You have 5's in 4 AP tests. I've heard a Harvard Adcom
say they think the AP test scores are better predicter of
student success than SAT1. Ditto says Princeton.
So ... provided your AP's are in subjects relevant to what
you want to do in college, you should be in great shape.</p>
<p>You say you write well. Write an essay that'll distinguish
you, capture their hearts, and blow them away.</p>
<p>Interview well. One of my neighbors, an old man, interviews local candidates for Harvard. From what
he was saying these interviews are a bigger deal
for Harvard than I'd think.</p>
<p>So ... you may have a better shot at Harvard than the
rest of the Ivies. So b***s to the SAT1 scores,
simply focus on what really matters!</p>
<p>I'm choosing a school based on three key things: The environment I think I would most enjoy, the liklihood of getting the kind of job I want upon graduation and the school's placement rates at the grad schools I want to attend. While I am applying to Harvard, the lower ranked Dartmouth is my number one choice.</p>
<p>Semi, I think colleges do understand that some kids are just poor test takers and that the SATI scores are not always accurate indicaters. Having said that, you really have to consider each school's philosophy separately. I'm not too familiar with the admissions criteria of the schools on your list, but as a general comment the bigger the school the more they rely on statistics. Thus, you may be at a disadvantage at Duke especially.</p>
<p>Smaller schools and LACs tend to view the student more holistically and weak stats MAY be compensated for in other areas. These would be subjective qualities like recommendations and essays and intangibles like character, leadership, intellectual spark. Hooks or talents are just more cherries on top.</p>
<p>I think that Crypic made a good point in that "Your 1280 clashes with your 3.9." This would raise a red flag (e.g. grade inflation) which would require further explanation.
Perhaps your guidance counselor could give some background.</p>
<p>So do take the SATs again. If you're sto;; disappointed by the outcome, don't despair about what you can't control. Concentrate on enhancing those subejectives and intangibles. And think seriously about schools that don't use the SATI!</p>
<p>Wow. You are my stat twin. o.o</p>
<p>I had a 3.98 (one B, all the rest A's in what was the most difficult courseload possible [starting with 1 AP freshman year], technically the Sal if we did that (five vals this year o.o)) but am a horrible test taker. Or rather, multiple choice test taker (essays are my friend). So, I ended up with a 1290 on my first SAT, a 1320 with best of both, and a 31 ACT. However, I did something really silly. I decided that my scores were so low I shouldn't even bother apply to all the school's I'd been interested. Places like U Chicago, Swathmore, Brown, Scripps, Carleton, Oberlin... they were all dropped. My first choice (Reed) was also dropped... until the week before apps were due when I decided everyone needed at least one rejection.</p>
<p>Lo and behold, I got into Reed and was waitlisted at the lesser ranked/ lower stat school I thought I'd be accepted to. </p>
<p>So, the moral of this story is not to limit yourself. Who knows what might happen. Of course, going in knowing you don't have an acceptance in the bag is a good way to approach. Have back ups, but don't not apply to schools because they seem impossible. I did that and came very close to really being miserable. o.O</p>
<p>I would like to second momrath about smaller schools. I don't think anything in the world would have prompted a large school to accept me with my stats, but Reed was willing to look beyond my testing trouble and see the full applicant. Also, you have an essay to shine in. ^_~</p>
<p>Good luck! I wish you the best!</p>
<p>I don't like to say I got a 1280, I got a 2080! Unfortunately I know that the writing is not being weighed as heavily as the other sections, but I've been doing lots of prep and hopefully I will break a 2200.</p>
<p>I'm not going to limit myself because I really do believe that you have a chance anywhere if you demonstrate how badly you want to attend, but it is discouraging. In fact, blaw up there has actually got me seriously considering applying to Harvard. If I can get my SAT scores a bit higher I may really do it.</p>
<p>Also, to all the people who have been saying that you have to factor in URMs, athletes, etc: no you don't. That's why collegeboard gives you the 25-75%. Remember, 25% of the class has scores BELOW the range, and those are probably the URMs and atheletes, so they are already considered.</p>
<p>Do the math again semiserious. About half of every class are those hooked candidates. By all means go ahead and apply to your dream schools, but the fact is that very few non hooked candidates are under the 50%, especially at the ivies.</p>
<p>Oh, I'm not expecting to get in. In fact, I'm rather conflicted because I'd really rather NOT attend Harvard. I'd feel intimidated by my classmates who are all smarter and more motivated than I am. I think that I'd rather attend a well-respected but slightly less cutthroat school, such as UVA, Vanderbilt, USC, etc. I'd rather be one of the best at a slightly less "smart" school than simply mediocre at the "smartest" school ever.</p>
<p>Then I guess I don't understand why you mentioned applying. Personally, I think Harvard and many top schools do a diservice to kids by spreading the word that scores don't matter. Then they reject 10 of 11 kids and proudly proclaim they are the most selective college.</p>
<p>I sat through a session at my kid's school where the adcom made it really clear they looked at the whole person, and that other things could trump scores. Then another parent and I went through 5 years of college books at two good high schools and saw it was simply untrue, the non athlete/URM/legacy/ect. candidates with below their average scores simply were not accepted. Some of them had amazing ECs. The top schools use their below average numbers to get diversity. Good luck to a white or asian non multimillionare, non NBA level basketball player!</p>
<p>what bands do colleges usually group the sat meaning like if some1 has a 700 and another kid has a 730 do they consider them the same like would the be from 650-690 700-740 and 750-800? this is just a question becuase i kno like 1 or 2 questions can really affect ur score by 50 or so points expecially on math. I dunno if my point comes along as clear but i mean like when 2 candidates apply 1 can have like a 1350 and another a 1400 but only differ in each section by 20 or 30 points. But does the 1400 recieve a lot more clout than the 1350?</p>
<p>The admissions lady at Yale said, "SATs are less important than most applicants think, but more important than any Admissions Officer will ever admit."</p>