<p>wrecherbob, you made a huge mistake contributing. Now you’re going to be part of this unending debate. I regret contributing right now.</p>
<p>They use experimental sections to correlate the scores so they are almost perfectly equivalent.</p>
<p>Please, just stop talking. You’re embarrassing yourself, as you clearly understand neither statistics nor the SAT.</p>
<p>Again, statistics is always flawed and it is always biased. You should know this since you have taken AP Stats.</p>
<p>Oh REALLY? Prove it.</p>
<p>That’s a pretty dumb statement. Of course, it’s what I should expect from someone who’s relied on anecdotal evidence and clearly doesn’t understand many components of statistics.</p>
<p>You can’t prove and disapprove it kamersonsmith. Now where were we?</p>
<p>@wrecherbob: It’s called a joke.</p>
<p>One would have to prove the assertion that all statistics are false using statistics. But if one successfully proved that all statistics are flawed, then the statistics used to prove it must themselves be flawed. Catch-22</p>
<p>If I mention mifune’s and failboat’s statistics, it just going to worsen. So, I concede your victory in this argument, kameronsmith.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As silverturtle mentioned in his previous analogy, applicants are not pitted against each other like that. If the applicants were exactly the same in every way, Bob is more likely to be accepted. But the applicants aren’t the same, and admissions a rather arbitrary process. The admissions officer would see competency in both test scores (although he is not looking at them side by side), but he might appreciate Fred’s essays more, or he might consider Fred to have a more cohesive application, or he might simply be in a better mood. A 2400 student is superior to a 2360 student only if the rest of his application is superior; the difference between two 99th percentile scores has very little bearing on a decision in comparison to the rest of your application.</p>
<p>What’s with the hostility kameronsmith? Which by the way is totally irrevelant to the topic of your thread. If you’re out fishing for advice, making arguments will not help you.</p>
<p>And yes i agree with sententia: mifune’s conclusions are comprehensive but narrow-minded. He assumes that SAT scores is the only thing being sent to the admission officer. Obviously, that’s not the case. One must have the whole package. Those 40 points will not help you attain that whole package. Sure, those statistics posted come from reputable resources but someone on this thread said that admission officers do not prefer a student retaking a 2360. Who are you gonna trust: Mifune, or an admission officer?</p>
<p>sententia: True, said situation would never actually arise. But its logical holds true and is applicable generally: a 2400 yields higher odds than a 2360. With the competitiveness of top admissions, wouldn’t one want to maximize every aspect of the application?</p>
<p>Do you realize what “every aspect of the application” means?
It means EC’s, awards, grades, schedule rigor, rankings, passion, and of course the SAT’s. You said yourself that your EC’s are not in tip-top shape or your grades are not “good enough” (a 3.93 is very good assuming you have the toughest courseload possible); so go maximize that! Why are you worrying about 40 more points on the SAT’s?!</p>
<p>Assume that I’m concurrently doing everything I can to maximize those other elements as well.</p>
<p>As much of what happens when the admissions officer reads your application is subjective, perhaps the statistical approach to admissions is misleading. You seem to subscribe to the idea that higher test scores reflect either higher preparedness or higher intelligence. The study suggests that there is a substantial difference between even two very high scores; is it not possible that there is a substantial difference between the average application at these two levels, considering the applicant with the higher test score is generally more prepared or more intelligent?</p>
<p>Reasons you should not retake:</p>
<p>– You aren’t guaranteed a 2400.
– It might seem like an obsession to admissions.
– It’s a waste of money and a Saturday morning.</p>
<p>Ok then! I see no reason why you shouldn’t. I mean, it’s every high school kid’s dream to say “I got a perfect score on the SAT’s” before he/she graduates. At most, this will not maximize your “whole package” but it will add to your personal satisfaction. Good luck!</p>
<p>Given the recent flow of dialogue added to this thread since I last read it, I will be responding to some statements from a few pages back. I apologize if it is not clear to whom I am responding.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How can one indiscriminately assume that the figures provided in the statistical profiles of CC members are correctly or honestly reported?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Read this: [Mere</a> 30-point bump on SAT can pay off big in admissions - USATODAY.com](<a href=“http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2009-05-20-SAT-prep_N.htm]Mere”>http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2009-05-20-SAT-prep_N.htm)</p>
<p>From the article:</p>
<p>"*A 30-point boost in math and critical-reading scores on the SAT reasoning test is statistically meaningless yet could make or break a student’s chances of admission at “a substantial minority” of colleges, a research paper says.</p>
<p>And the more selective the college, the more that bump pays off, it finds.*"</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why is it necessary to use “inordinately stupid?” Where do you define the point at which a score differential becomes significant? Is a 2320 the “same” as a 2360 since the scores are relatively equal? Would it then follow that a 2280 is the equivalent to a 2320, and declare a 2240 equivalent to a 2280 (and so forth)? Absolutely not. From [these</a> tables](<a href=“http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/sat_percentile_ranks_composite_cr_m_w.pdf]these”>http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/sat_percentile_ranks_composite_cr_m_w.pdf) alone, it quickly becomes clear that aptitude discrepancies become clear as scores fall. (Also, please note that there are several unique combinations of raw scores that may yield a 2400, but fewer distinctive possibilities to obtain a 2390 and 2380, for instance.) </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You provide a forceful and perfectly valid point.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One’s qualifications do not automatically confer infallibility.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you continue to dismiss the wealth of data that does exist to prove the illogicality of your belief that transcending beyond a score threshold provides nothing but diminishing, negligible, or nonexistent returns? I seriously call into question the reliability of your data if you arrive at that conclusion. Furthermore, what incentive do universities have to neglect the SAT’s ability to assess individuals across a highly broadened periphery? Performance above some arbitrary level does not reveal trivial, waning, or tenuous degrees of additional academic aptitude. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure, you received a favorable score and obtained admission to a reputable school, but what relevance does one case hold? A 2400 does not serve as a prerequisite for admission to any institution; it simply confers a more suitable qualification. Do you believe that your chances would have been precisely equal if you had attained, say, a 2140? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Failboat, you seem to be confused or you may have simply misread the data. That is the acceptance rate of those who attained scores within the given range, not the percentage of the student population that had those respective scores. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your data are self-reported, whereas the set used by MIT, Stanford, and Princeton (as provided by cosar in #110) are substantiated and provide a diametrically opposed conclusion regarding the positive correlation between standardized test scores and admission.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is a wealth of information that supports my position regarding the affirmative relationship between standardized test scores and college acceptance. I still have not encountered any published statistical studies that favor the common existence of “ceiling meritocracies.” Please note that my argument is not derived from any ideological bias; I am simply regurgitating published figures. However, similar to what silverturtle correctly stated, these debates are often mired by a certain degree of intellectual rigidity due to personal beliefs regarding the SAT’s proper authority or consistency in discriminating aptitude disparities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Indeed, considering all things equal, colleges must assume that to be true.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Given that you have finally conceded the basic truth, are you going to remain rigid in your belief that the lack of a correlation exists between test scores and admission beyond a certain score total?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is completely misrepresentative of my statements and irrationally dismisses my acknowledgment of competing factors. The statistics provided by Princeton, MIT, and Stanford do support the qualitative renderings that I provided for the basis of my statements here and in “Addressing a Few Concerns.”</p>
<p>Kameron, have you made your decision by this point?</p>
<p>holy moly …It seems it’s like 5 million people vs mifune…but unfortunately I’ll have to side with the consensus…</p>
<p>
Thankfully, mifune’s argumentative skills are up to the challenge.</p>
<p>
I’ll likely retake it next fall.</p>
<p>Once again it’s a personal choice. I personally believe this thread has basically exhausted all the possible arguments there is to bring up. I’m leaving because it starting to sound like either your a ■■■■■ or your just being a perfectionist and bragging. Either reason doesn’t really pertain to me. Adios mis amigos!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Although you have been hostile to me, I hope you’ll be one of the few CCer’s to get a 2400. :)</p>