<p>I was wondering if it would be necessary to retake a 2300 (780 CR/780 M/740W). It was my first time taking it (middle of my sophomore year). </p>
<p>I know I can definitely raise my writing and math scores, but I'm not too sure about CR. I don't want my score to drop either...</p>
<p>I know colleges superscore, but I personally don't find that too fair. I mean, a lot of my friends have and are planning on taking the SAT 3-4 times, and their superscores are higher than my one-sitting score. If I decide not to retake the SAT, can colleges even see that my score isn't superscored and that I took it in one sitting?</p>
<p>In a word, yes. But if the college superscores, it won’t help you. The colleges get all scores (or whichever you elect to send, if you use scorechoice) and then evaluate them as they see fit… At some colleges this is superscoring, at others it’s not – that being said, to a college that superscores, a single sitting 2400 and a superscored 2400 are one and the same… If the college doesn’t superscore, then this isn’t true. Some colleges superscore, some only look at your highest score from one sitting, and some consider all scores… The colleges evaluate your scores the way they claim to, to the best of everyone else’s knowledge. Retaking a 2300 won’t really help you much, but if making a higher score will make you happy, or give you peace of mind, go for it.</p>
<p>I know some people who’ve bombed CR, and did great on the other sections, and retook only the CR section while sleeping during the M and W sections, and they end up with a ridiculously high superscores.</p>
<p>To me, that’s just really unfair compared to a student who studied all sections and took everything in one sitting… but that’s just my 2 cents.</p>
<p>By definition, “fair” is subjective. Adcoms have the impossible task of sorting through tens of thousands of applications that can blur together after looking at so many. All they can do is establish and publish criteria based on their organizational objectives prior to starting the process, then rely on their humanity to apply these criteria.</p>
<p>Having said that, 2300 is fine. You will not be rejected from any school that you apply to based on this score. Further, I don’t believe that you will receive any further benefit from any school for improving this score. You have checked that box on your applications and should now focus on the other parts.</p>
<p>Well, I don’t really consider it “fair” that colleges place so much value on class rank, knowing that high schools vary widely in their classes’ difficulty and students’ expenditure of effort. At some of the top prep schools, you can bomb a couple of your finals one year and end up near the bottom of your class. Do students who go to ghetto high schools and happen to be the only ones who care about their grades at all (and thus end up valedictorians) necessarily have the same academic abilities as students who work long hours every night to be at the top of their cutthroat prep schools?</p>
<p>rmldad’s right; “fair” is subjective. I say that if you have the opportunity, you should go for it. It’s not like anyone’ll care in the long run anyway.</p>
<p>Superscore is only unfair if you don’t take advantage of it. Sorry bud. And by the way, my one-sitting and superscore are identical.</p>
<p>But anyways, I think that’s a great score for you, especially as a sophomore. If you want to be one of those people who scrape for every last point, then use barron’s writing workbook. But honestly I wouldn’t retake.</p>
<p>Why does everyone knock on a 2300, claiming that it is basically the same thing as a 2400? A 1900 vs. a 2000 is quite a difference, right? It’s not all “luck” between a 2300 and a 2400, in fact, it’s probably a larger gap.</p>
<p>I can understand that once you reach 2300 you have enough intelligence to succeed in college courses. But I also think that 2100 would be enough as well.</p>
<p>^According to the Wikipedia list of 2006 results, 1900 is at the 88th percentile. 1990 is at the 93rd percentile. OTOH, 2200 is at the 99th percentile, and 2400 is at 99.98th-ish. So there is a larger gap at 1900 vs 2000.</p>
<p>I meant that increasing the score from 2300 to 2400 is much more difficult than 1900 to 2000.</p>
<p>I don’t really see how the percentile stats prove anything except that more people have a score between 1900 and 2000 than between 2300 and 2400. Which does not prove that there a difference between a 1900 and a 2000 is more meaningful than a difference between a 2300 and a 2400.</p>
Isn’t that what it does prove? If you have a 2300, only a few people (relatively, and less than 1%) have a better score. But if you have a 1900, 12% of the test takers had a better score, while at 1990, only 7% had a better score. I would rather be in the top 7% than in the top 12%. OTOH, being in the top 1% is hardly a breath different than being in the top 0.5%.</p>
<p>Here’s a thing: I don’t think there’s ANYONE who can perfect the SAT WITHOUT any practice at all. However, getting around 2100-2300 is definitely possible for people who are already highly prepared and intelligent.</p>
<p>So from my point of view, the difference between 2300 and 2400 is just about how much you’ve prepared for the test, and nothing else. Pray tell me, do you think a person can perfect the SAT essay without at least learning the bs criteria the essay scorers use to evaluate?</p>