<p>
</p>
<p>I wouldn’t because I don’t want to waste so much time just to get the four points to get a 100. And the good thing about tests in school and college is that they are often given back, so you know your mistakes.</p>
<p>That’s the spirit kameronsmith! Never back down!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The reality of this, though it varies by individual, does not preclude the reality of another’s discriminating between the two scores because, well, they’re meaningfully different.</p>
<p>I have to sort of agree with that silverturtle. =]</p>
<p>I’ll qualify a bit, though: Most of the time, something more significant than 40 points on the SAT differentiates two candidates; but when an applicant has the opportunity to objectively increase his or her chances, it should be tempting.</p>
<p>Great, I’m in a debate with silverturtle, but I have to agree with silverturtle’s response since it is true.</p>
<p>The only way in which a 96 and a 100 (or a 2360 and a 2400) wouldn’t be meaningfully different would be if this was a question: What letter is the correct answer?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not going to refute this, you’re absolutely correct.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then it would be even more ignorant to assume that they convey true or even relative admission probabilities for respective students of each category unless they all have the same sample sizes. In fact, unless the median SAT score of the school is over 2300, we know for certain that this cannot be true. The only other possibility to assume such is if you indeed thought that those were absolute probabilities of admission with respect to the population, in which case I would not blame you, as that is how they wanted to convey the data. So no, it shouldn’t be one of the stupidest things you have heard in a long time.</p>
<p>
There’s no reason they need to have the same sample size, so long as they are all large enough for analysis. Without the underlying data, I couldn’t conduct a significance test but I’m guessing the differences are large enough to be statistically important.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Did I say it was a multiple choice test? Well, I guess I implied it. However, if it was a free-response test, the person with the 100 is clearly knowledgeable or more prepared than the one with the 96. If it was multiple-choice, some hypothetical situations can exist. For example, the person with the 100 may have guess on one question and get it right. Another one: person with the 100 may have guess on a bunch of questions correctly, but that’s rare yet those guesses can be arrived through deductions from knowledge. The common generalization a person can make toward someone who has a 96 and someone who has a 100 is that they are both competent.</p>
<p>(And great, a debate with kameronsmith, too)</p>
<p>Both being competent does not mean they are both equally good.</p>
<p>My English teacher is a competent writer. That doesn’t mean she’s John Irving.</p>
<p>A waste of time to retake. My son got a 2140 on his SAT and got accepted to Yale, Harvard, and wait-listed at Princeton, and got accepted to every other university he applied to. They are looking that you made the most what your school had to offer, made good grades, and have an over-riding passion about something, that thing that makes you, you. Good app essays and teacher recommendations are important too.</p>
<p>I’ll part with one final analogy because it seems that some posters’ opinions are colored by their negative concepts of the predictive validity of the SAT Reasoning Test (though it has been positively demonstrated): </p>
<p>Bob got 800 on the SAT Subject Test in Chemistry; Fred got 750, a likewise respectable but nonetheless inferior score. Knowing nothing else, whom would you select as having a higher aptitude in chemistry? It is certainly possible that Fred misbubbled on a few questions, or that he had to self-study a sizable portion of the material and therefore may have a greater potential. Moreover, Bob could have luckily guessed his way from 750 to 800. My guess is that most people, though mindful of these mitigating factors, would select Bob. Although this aphorism is not fully relevant, I thought I’d share it for its light comedic value and, superficial, cogency:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is true, but at least they’re competent (not referring to your teacher and John Irving). When you go to an Ivy League college, you don’t expect everyone to be equally good, do you?</p>
<p>heleta: Oh boy, don’t you just love your anecdotal evidence!</p>
<p>
No, I expect them all to be exceptional in different ways. But I also expect adcomms will make rational decisions. Ceteris peribus, a 2400 student is superior to a 2360 one.</p>
<p>You know, every SAT exams administered are different. So, someone who scored a 2360 would have scored a 2400 on another exam. Or someone who has scored a 2400 would have scored a 2300 on a different SAT.</p>
<p>So, with the intellect you have right now, you can score a 2400 on a different SAT exam.</p>
<p>I totally agree with jerrry! True different tests are different and have different perspectives</p>
<p>jerrry4445: Not necessarily.</p>
<p>The whole reason the College Board does curving is to ensure that scores are equivalent across test dates.</p>
<p>wrecherbob: A test with a perspective? Now that’s something I’d like to see.</p>
<p>Are they 100% equivalent though?</p>
<p>I mean how can College Board tell which test is harder and which is not? I feel if there way of determining which tests are hard and which are not by looking at which tests have higher/lower scores on average is too arbitrary! If they had a standard or a non-changing meter that they follow by, I would have more confidence in the real purpose and the administration of the SAT.</p>