<p>failboat: Simply spouting your accomplishments does not automatically grant rigor to your analysis.</p>
<p>silenceizsik: I just read the passage, underlining anything which stands out as important (particularly potentially-vocab words). I then go through the questions and always look back at the passage for justification: never choose an option without direct support in the textual evidence.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then you entirely misses the point of the post.</p>
<p>^everyone says that textual evidence thing. it makes it sound so easy… but in truth it’s not lol. but I guess that’s all there is to it… even though its so hard.</p>
<p>Sorry, I think for CR there are really two types of people: readers and non-readers. If you’re a reader, it really is that simple and easy. All you have to do is skim the passage and answer the questions. For non-readers, it’s apparently much harder.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re very welcome, however by narrowing the range of the bins used to create the relative admission rates, we begin to see large deviations in acceptance differences. When we then account for the single instance deviations, we see why the correlation probabilities are so low.</p>
<p>To be fair, rerunning the test did show that Yale displays very significant correlation between SAT and acceptance rates at the 2300+ range while MIT and Harvard are only marginally insignificant.</p>
<p>Kameron what you’ve said is true. But just based on my own experience, I think there’s more to it than just that. I like books and I like to read charles dickens and other great scholarly works, and I would say that I like reading (english class) more than I like math. But I found out through the SAT that I’m actually very lopsided - I’m much better at math and I’m absolutely terrible at reading. So I guess it’s not what you like or who you think you are, but more what skill you are born with.</p>
<p>I just wanted to offer up a couple more data points that I’ve located on admit rates by SAT range - these are from Dartmouth and Brown. Remarkably consistent with the Princeton, Stanford and MIT data. Admit rates rise through each range, peaking at 800 for each test section. At Dartmouth, for example, the admit rate for applicants scoring 800 on the SAT CR was more than twice the admit rate for those in the 700 to 790 range (38.6% to 17.4%). Brown breaks the ranges into 50 point increments. The admit rate at Brown for applicants scoring 800 on the SAT CR was 23%, versus 16.6% for those in the 750-790 range and 13.5% for those in the 700 to 740 range. Similar trends for SAT Math and SAT Writing. While these data don’t prove causality, and I’m still skeptical that increasing one’s composite SAT from 2360 to 2400 would really improve one’s chances of admission in any material respect, I’m at least forced to consider the possibility. Though I would find it sad, as well as a bit of an indictment of admissions committees at these schools, if the difference between getting one or two questions right or wrong on the SAT really had an impact on the admissions decision.</p>
<p>[Testing</a> Statistics](<a href=“http://www.dartmouth.edu/admissions/facts/test-stats.html]Testing”>http://www.dartmouth.edu/admissions/facts/test-stats.html)</p>
<p>[Brown</a> Admission: Facts & Figures](<a href=“Undergraduate Admission | Brown University”>Undergraduate Admission | Brown University)</p>
<p>Discussions on this topic from another forum, just more views from different posters for the OP to consider:</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/901153-hyp-75th-percentiles-sats.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/901153-hyp-75th-percentiles-sats.html</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Cosar - thank you for communicating your recent findings. However, it is an absolute necessity that forty points constitute a reasonable margin in which to differentiate candidates. Obviously, if no distinctions are completed between forty-point margins across the entire score continuum, then the SAT would not be an evaluative measure at all. </p>
<p>Effective evaluation of the test would include making gradual quantitative distinctions between scores along the complete spectrum, such that a forty-point difference would merely affect a substantial minority of all applicants (which apparently – and rightfully – is the case, as per a statistic you posted previously). But please realize that it is quite inevitable that a ten-point discrepancy will impact an admissions decision at some point when holding the meritocratic worth of all other criteria constant. For instance, by dragging a student’s SAT score across the entire score range (600-2400), it is rather unavoidable that, at some point, there will be a threshold at which an admissions decision will be influenced.</p>
<p>To anticipate the possible charge that cosar’s statistics still convincingly fail to demonstrate some level of causation – aside from the causational impact of the SAT itself - then exactly how are the significant categorical disparities stimulated? Of the other separate contending factors in college admissions, below is a realistic account of what exactly the SAT may or may not be “correlating” with:
[ul]
[li]GPA: Somewhat; there is a mild positive correlation between GPA and aptitude demonstrated on standard instruments. However, the evaluation of GPA is often contingent on one’s comparative performance relative to an applicant’s classmates – since there are obviously varying degrees of difficulty among schools and specialized grading scales. In the absence of such information, GPA becomes an even greater subjective criterion (although I, personally, am not ideologically supportive of the idea of precise ranking systems). </p>[/li]
<p>[li]SAT II: Similar to GPA, achievement test scores are somewhat, but far from exclusively, correlated with aptitude performances.</p>[/li]
<p>[li]Awards: Perhaps if the awards involve recognition for accomplishments on SAT-like evaluations. </p>[/li]
<p>[li]Extracurriculars: Although co-curricular commitment may be readily distinguishable among students (which is fairly irrelevant in regards to SAT performance), this is a highly skewed category and often appeals to institutional needs. </p>[/li]
<p>[li]Job/Work Experience: No.</p>[/li]
<p>[li]Volunteer Experience: No.</p>[/li]
<p>[li]Summer Activities: No.</p>[/li]
<p>[li]Essays: Once again, although perceptible levels of demonstrated skill exist between essays, this part of the application is not quite the best measurement for obtaining a grasp of one’s verbal aptitude, given the revisions and near-absolute certainty of outside assistance.</p>[/li]
<p>[li]Teacher Recommendations: Maybe; but the quality of letters of recommendation is often contingent on a subjective interpersonal assessment and that individual’s ability to effectively transmit positive regards.</p>[/li]
<p>[li]Interview: No. [/ul]</p>[/li]
<p>Essentially, it is the same scale and elite institutions are securing an applicant’s competitiveness through multiple measurements, as is necessary due to the slight statistical measuring error of any one. Given the more substantial difficulty of evaluating other criteria on non-standardized continuums, it is fully reasonable that there is an associative desensitization with respect to the aforesaid criteria. </p>
<p>Thus, based on an intuitive appraisal of the competing dynamics, it is practical, logical, and discernibly accurate to believe that the highly conspicuous correlations between SAT scores and acceptance rates are due, in large part, to the profound causality of the SAT itself. Given the SAT’s palpable influence on bettering the selectivity ranking of universities, the greater preference in favor of higher-scoring students is certainly explicable.</p>
<p>No. as long is schools no it is first sitting then the scores will look amazing…</p>
<p>mifune, here’s another one for the collection, from Amherst: <a href=“https://www.amherst.edu/media/view/181593[/url]”>https://www.amherst.edu/media/view/181593</a>. See the tables on page 2, same pattern.</p>
<p>Anyway, while I am now forced to consider the possibility that relatively small jumps in SAT scores may have more of an impact on the college admissions decisions than I had previously thought, I am by no means ready to concede that this is a rational way of going about the admissions process. Looking at the March SAT curve threads, it would appear that the difference between none wrong and 1 wrong (out of 54 questions) on the math section was 30 points. The difference between 1 wrong and 2 wrong (out of 67 questions) on the CR section was 20 points. Can you seriously tell me that, all other things being equal, a candidate who gets an extra one or two questions right on a given sitting of the SAT (out of a composite total, counting the writing section, of 170 questions) is a superior candidate? Or that a candidate who takes the SAT two or three times and, one of those times, gets an extra one or two questions right - or is one or two questions better if you mix and match among the two or three sittings - is a superior candidate to one who takes the SAT only once and doesn’t get those one or two extra questions right? I’m sorry, but that’s still a bridge too far for me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Okay, thanks. Amherst’s disparities are unmistakably distinct.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure, I fully understand your concern. But as difficult as it may be, there indeed must come a point at which fine discriminations must be made among applicants, even if the demonstrated ability differences are not necessarily substantial. Of course, this may pertain to any qualification, not necessarily standardized test scores.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. Recall that the human difference threshold for numbers is zero. :)</p>
<p>@cosar: Sure, I share your concern. It might very well be a stupid way to differentiate between candidates. But it’s what colleges appear to do—and that’s all that really matters.</p>
<p>kameronsmith,</p>
<p>If that was your first time taking the SAT, definitely retake it in the fall. If, however, the 2360 was your 3rd time, most people would probably advise against it. This debate will never cease on a forum like College Confidential.</p>
<p>kameronsmith, I haven’t read the entire thread, but unless you’re planning on majoring in journalism or the like I think you’re scores are excellent. I have no statistics to wow you with, just my personal opinion that testing is boring and stressful. Why take it again if you don’t have to?</p>
<p>To the various admission statistics link posters: is there a place where I could find all of the admission statistics links for various colleges? I have tried searching for the pages of other colleges but I can’t seem to find any others, probably because there are so many different titles used to describe them.</p>
<p>^I would check out the Common Data Sets posted by colleges. There’s a handy thread about it on collegeconfidential:</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/76444-links-common-data-sets-posted-colleges-24.html#post1063796699[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/76444-links-common-data-sets-posted-colleges-24.html#post1063796699</a></p>
<p>Perfect!! Thank you so much 
</p>
<p>Looking through a few of the data sets, they have a ton of useful info. Sadly the Common Data set doesn’t include admission percentages for different scores, which is what I’m specifically looking for (similar to the Amherst link from above <a href=“https://www.amherst.edu/media/view/181593[/url]”>https://www.amherst.edu/media/view/181593</a> )</p>
<p>Unfortunately, this data is not in the common data set, nor have I found it in any other consolidated location. Probably because it seems that many colleges don’t report this kind of data. Just so you have them in one post, I’m repasting the links I’ve previously posted in this thread, covering Princeton, Dartmouth, Brown, Stanford, MIT and Amherst. I’ve also searched the admissions sites for Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Cornell, Penn, Caltech, Williams, Pomona and Swarthmore and have not found this kind of data on any of those sites. If they report it, I haven’t been able to find it. If anyone has any other links, please add them.</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/)
[Testing</a> Statistics](<a href=“http://www.dartmouth.edu/admissions/facts/test-stats.html]Testing”>http://www.dartmouth.edu/admissions/facts/test-stats.html)
[Brown</a> Admission: Facts & Figures](<a href=“Undergraduate Admission | Brown University”>Undergraduate Admission | Brown University)
[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)
[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)
<a href=“https://www.amherst.edu/media/view/181593[/url]”>https://www.amherst.edu/media/view/181593</a></p>
<p>Alright, thanks for searching! Pomona is the specific school I’m looking for, and I just might be out of luck there. The Amherst link appears to be a page sent to high schools, so I’ll check with my guidance counselor to see if she has any info.</p>