Retake 2360?

[kameronsmith]

<p>Because I’ve never gotten less than an 800 in CR on a PSAT, SAT, or practice test.</p>

[wrecherbob]

<p>

Because I’ve never gotten less than an 800 in CR on a PSAT, SAT, or practice test.

Unfortunately that “everybody in this world makes errors” doesn’t look appealing to you right? Just because you got a 800 in everything in math (I’m guessing) doesn’t GUARANTEE you a 800 on the next exam.</p>

<p>For example: I like robbing banks. I’ve never have gotten caught before. I’m going to rob another bank today. What makes it that I’ll be caught? I’ve never gotten caught before?</p>

<p>Maybe my example is a little far-fetched, but I hope you get my point.</p>

[kameronsmith]

<p>If you’d successfully robbed dozens of banks, I’d guess that you could pretty safely rob another.</p>

<p>Of course, hubris might get the better of you.</p>

[wrecherbob]

<p>YES YES YES. I’m glad you brought up my argument/saying of what I said before. Excessive pride is the last thing you want in your way. Like I said. I’m not saying that you don’t have the skills/knowledge to get a 800 on the next test, but we all mistakes and you can’t do anything about that.</p>

[kameronsmith]

<p>Sure, it could happen. That doesn’t mean I’m going to waste my time studying vocab when I’ve never done so in my life.</p>

[wrecherbob]

<p>Do your own thing. I’m leaving this thread FOREVER! because it’s otherwise much dead, unless one of you wants to revive this argument <em>he he</em></p>

[RAlec114]

<p>Based on what you’ve said, you think you can pull it off with a good success rate. Then do it! 2400 is obviously better than a 2360. Like you’ve said, you won’t waste much time as you won’t do much studying, and it’s only one saturday morning. There isn’t much to this argument…</p>

[silverturtle]

<p>^ Reasonable comment. :)</p>

[Jersey13]

<p>

Although you have been hostile to me, I hope you’ll be one of the few CCer’s to get a 2400.

</p>

<p>Few CCers? There’s a pretty decent sized population of CC members with 2400s, this is CC after all lol.</p>

[Sixteh]

<p>Save yourself the time/money and do your subject tests if you haven’t already.</p>

[RAlec114]

<p>^We should compile a golden hall of fame list for all the 2400 scorers.</p>

[shahdin]

<p>^There should also be a 2300 honorable mention.</p>

<p>Lol I think I still have a chance of scoring a 2300. lol</p>

[silverturtle]

<p>Although I recognize that the sample size is limited and subject to self-selection or lying, I would like to throw out an analysis that I completed about a year ago of the Yale SCEA class of 2013 decisions thread. </p>

<p>Total sample size: 148</p>

<p>Asian sample size: 58
Average SAT score for an Asian acceptee (17 were accepted): 2347</p>

<p>White sample size: 52
Average SAT score for a White acceptee (16 were accepted): 2353</p>

<p>The acceptance rate over various ranges for Whites and Asians: </p>

<p>2310-2400: 47% (29/62)
2210-2300: 10% (3/30)
600-2200: 0% (0/16)</p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/651345-race-college-admissions-faq-discussion-3-a-49.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/651345-race-college-admissions-faq-discussion-3-a-49.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>The modest sample size for this analysis is large enough to make those numbers surprising, if nothing more. My perceptions of score evaluation have certainly changed since I completed that analysis (and one for Princeton RD).</p>

[NewAccount]

<p>That is an extremely interesting analysis, silverturtle. </p>

<p>Perhaps it would be better if you retook it (provided you are confident that a 2400 is attainable).</p>

[Adenine]

<p>failboat – sorry, but you don’t know what the hell youre even talking about. Your smart-sounding posts only reek of ignorance. In ELITE college admissions (we’re all on the same page right?), 2100s have an equal chance of admission as 2400s? Who are you trying to fool? Are you really that brainwashed into believing that? Its pretty obvious that isn’t the case as seen by the data from MIT, Stanford and Princeton. what do you have to say about silverturtles post? If you think CC stats are so representative why dont you trust that? silverturtle and mifune pretty much have things nailed down right. But keep the laughs coming. Every time you post you sound like an even bigger fool than you did before.</p>

[fresh101]

<p>Mind You Silverturtle, but those results have a ton of confounding variables. And Adenine, alluding to silverturtle’s results is confirmation bias.</p>

[mifune]

<p>

Originally Posted by kameronsmith*</p>

<p>

Kameron, have you made your decision by this point?

</p>

<p>I’ll likely retake it next fall. *

</p>

<p>I fully support your decision. I sincerely hope that your dedication properly rewards you with your desired score and that you achieve admission to a university at or near the top of your list.</p>

<p>

Originally Posted by cosar
while you obviously have some significant debating skills, you should try to be a little more honest about what your sources do and don’t prove.

</p>

<p>You still haven’t answered the question. Where do you define the point at which a score differential becomes significant?</p>

<p>Regarding the study, here is a basic summary: “Yet in the new study, 20% to 40% of officials at 130 colleges that consider the SAT in admissions said a 20-point math increase or a 10-point reading increase would “significantly improve a student’s chances of admissions” if all other factors in a student’s application were the same.”</p>

<p>

Moreover, the survey characterizes those who said that a 20 point or 10 point increase in M/W or CR would be significant as misusing the SAT.

</p>

<p>Sure, there is a slight degree of measurement error in any single psychometric tool. That is the fundamental purpose of the SAT’s Score Range, which is provided to students with their score report. To illustrate a potential scenario, if a student scores a 2280 on the SAT, his Score Range feature will report that his estimated aptitude may yield a 2310 on a subsequent taking. However, by achieving that mark, his Score Range will then be as high as 2340, which if achieved would yield a Score Range as high as 2370, and so forth. Obviously, small score distinctions and their relative equivalencies do not extend indefinitely. </p>

<p>

And the USA Today article you cite quotes the dean of admissions at Harvard as saying “misuse of test scores is a major public policy issue.” Hardly evidence that raising one’s score from 2360 to 2400 would improve one’s chances of admissions at Harvard.

</p>

<p>One generalized statement of the scenario does not confer a clear picture on how SAT scores are actually evaluated there.</p>

<p>

Originally Posted by failboat*
The same reason that someone else may assume that the figures taken from a statistical survey is correctly reported. The same reason that we may assume that figures reported by a college on its admission rate are correct.*

</p>

<p>Which is the more credible source for obtaining statistics – the institution to which they apply or a non-representative sample of high school students self-reporting their figures on a college website? By your reasoning, there apparently is not any valid source for acquiring data. </p>

<p>

There’s a fine line between credibility and infallibility, and I see you’ve decided to disregard my warning about dismissing other people’s ideas.

</p>

<p>But stating your potential position in the “Chinese Ministry of Finance” is completely irrelevant to the topic. Indeed, ostensibly purporting one’s qualifications as part of some self-certified credibility is actually quite condescending from a debate standpoint. </p>

<p>

Can you objectively state that a definite correlation exist between these two categories in terms of absolute probability without knowing sample sizes?

</p>

<p>This isn’t a complicated concept. The uniform display of elevated acceptance rates for those scoring at higher SAT levels demonstrates that better-scoring applicants are more attractive in admissions. The sample size of each group is clearly large enough to be statistically significant; therefore, the acceptance rates exhibit a clear bias in favor of one scoring category over another. Since you believe the scores within a highly spread margin to be equal (at least in terms of admissions at elite institutions), why do the universities not show near-equivalent levels of acceptance frequency in those who are achieving in the 2100-2190, 2200-2290, and 2300-2400 levels? </p>

<p>

The data as presented by MIT, Stanford, and Princeton do not oppose my conclusion.

</p>

<p>Actually, in fact, they explicitly do contradict your standpoint. Significant disparities in acceptance rates among the ranges that you claim to be equally competitive counter your claims, plainly and with an obvious degree of transparency. Highly perceptible admission differences point to the converse of your inference, no?</p>

<p>What is your assessment of silverturtle’s analysis in #193? If you find CC statistics to be perfectly ideal (which they clearly are not), are you simply avoiding those data in order to satisfy your preconceived favoritism (i.e. a 2100 yielding the identical admission hopes as a 2400)? </p>

<p>

There are 10 people who scores 2400, of which 2 are admitted. There are 100 people who scores between 2300 and 2400, of which 10 were admitted. Would you say that there is a higher likelihood for a 2400 applicant to be admitted?</p>

<p>There are 100 people who scores 2400, of which 20 are admitted, there are 100 people who scores between 2300 and 2400, of which 10 were admitted. Would you say that there is a higher likelihood for a 2400 applicant to now be admitted?</p>

<p>…with the pronounced differences in the sample sizes between these categories, how can you go about blasting others for their lack of depth when you yourself fail to address something as simple variations in the sample sizes?

</p>

<p>Making up numbers to illustrate the importance of sample size doesn’t amount to anything. I can positively assure that the data collected from multiple applicant pools of over 30,000 students (e.g. Princeton, Stanford, MIT) are in a sufficient quantity to properly synthesize and draw realistic conclusions.</p>

<p>[Princeton</a> University | Admission Statistics](<a href=“http://www.princeton.edu/admission/applyingforadmission/admission_statistics/]Princeton”>http://www.princeton.edu/admission/applyingforadmission/admission_statistics/)</p>

<p>[MIT</a> Admissions: Admissions Statistics](<a href=“http://www.mitadmissions.org/topics/apply/admissions_statistics/index.shtml]MIT”>http://www.mitadmissions.org/topics/apply/admissions_statistics/index.shtml) </p>

<p>[Applicant</a> Profile : Stanford University](<a href=“http://www.stanford.edu/dept/uga/basics/selection/profile.html]Applicant”>http://www.stanford.edu/dept/uga/basics/selection/profile.html)</p>

[failboat]

<p>

Actually, in fact, they explicitly do contradict your standpoint. Significant disparities in acceptance rates among the ranges that you claim to be equally competitive counter your claims, plainly and with an obvious degree of transparency. Highly perceptible admission differences point to the converse of your inference, no?</p>

<p>What is your assessment of silverturtle’s analysis in #193? If you find CC statistics to be perfectly ideal (which they clearly are not), are you simply avoiding those data in order to satisfy your preconceived favoritism (i.e. a 2100 yielding the identical admission hopes as a 2400)?

</p>

<p>

The data as presented by MIT, Stanford, and Princeton do not oppose my conclusion. In fact, with the exception of Cornell, all of the schools that I have surveyed off of CC display similar trends in terms of relative acceptance rates.

</p>

<p>By noting that relative percentages of admission are not uniform across different ranges of SAT scores does not provide justification that there exist a correlation between the two variables. True, a definite trend may be able to be seen that higher SAT scores on the marginal ends do indeed display a positive trend line. The sample from CC concludes with the following probabilities:</p>

<p>

Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Acceptance Deviation between 2300-2350 and 2350-2400
0.18137254902
Stanford University's Acceptance Deviation between 2300-2350 and 2350-2400
0.144444444444
Cornell University's Acceptance Deviation between 2300-2350 and 2350-2400
-0.476363636364
Yale University's Acceptance Deviation between 2300-2350 and 2350-2400
0.16
Harvard University's Acceptance Deviation between 2300-2350 and 2350-2400
0.214646464646
Princeton University's Acceptance Deviation between 2300-2350 and 2350-2400
0.144444444444</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Again, with the exception of Cornell, every school have significantly higher overall acceptance rates in the 2350-2400 range. However a conclusion cannot be drawn from this data as, once again, the correlation between the two variables cannot be established by merely looking at the acceptance rates within each score range.</p>

[mifune]

<p>

True, a definite trend may be able to be seen that higher SAT scores on the marginal ends do indeed display a positive trend line.

</p>

<p>Thank you for recognizing that.</p>

<p>Indeed, a favorable score on the SAT Reasoning Test may also associate with stronger qualifications on other standardized instruments. But much of this may be attributed to the strong causational impact of the SAT itself, as it objectively and reliably assesses and compares the cognitive aptitudes across the entire applicant pool.</p>

[silenceizsik]

<p>kameron - a little off topic, but how exactly do you approach the CR passage based questions? you seem quite good at them…</p>