Retake 2360?

[wrecherbob]

<p>Don’t think I’ll leave just yet. One more comment before I take flight. Like jerrry said, I hope you are one of the CCer’s to get a 2400, but when you get your results back and not only not obtain that score, but score lower than a 2360, please don’t come back to college confidential and whine about it. Just leave it as “we warned you”.</p>

[kameronsmith]

<p>

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

Thank you! I hope you too get whatever score you’re hoping for.</p>

<p>

but when you get your results back and not only not obtain that score, but score lower than a 2360, please don’t come back to college confidential and whine about it. Just leave it as “we warned you”.

Thanks for having so much faith in me that you know that’s what is GOING to happen.</p>

[wrecherbob]

<p>Sorry but I just have to come back into this conversation.</p>

<p>

Thanks for having so much faith in me that you know that’s what is GOING to happen.

No. I do not know that is going to happen. I was just pointing out a possibility. And as a person who believes in the accuracy of statistics (that would be you: based on previous comments), statistically you would be getting a lower score than your elusive 2360 that is in the 99.98% percentile. So let’s see, you’re going to spending this time trying to reach a 2400 before you are satisfied. And you’re going to take the SAT next fall when you could have so much time polishing up your overall application. Well…Good luck…Oh I also forgot to mention…Your goal appears to be that it’s either a 2400 or “I’m going to go die in a hole if I get a 2390”. Well, Hope it’s not pride that brings your downfall…courtesy of the play “Antigone” and “The Tragedy of Julius Caesar”. =] Just stating the facts!</p>

[kameronsmith]

<p>The grammatical use of “when” implies a certainty, not a mere possibility.</p>

[wrecherbob]

<p>Oh no! You got me once again! dang…I should’ve said if instead of when…enough of this talk…Good luck on the SAT…or should I say your 2400! May the force be with you!</p>

[cosar]

<p>mifune, 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. The USA Today article you cite is based on a study by Derek Briggs (linked here: <a href=“http://www.nacacnet.org/PublicationsResources/Research/Documents/TestPrepDiscussionPaper.pdf[/url]”>http://www.nacacnet.org/PublicationsResources/Research/Documents/TestPrepDiscussionPaper.pdf&lt;/a&gt;). That study found, based on a survey of NACAC-member colleges, that “in a substantial minority of cases, colleges report either that they use a cut-off test score in the admission process or that a small increase in test score could have a significant impact on an applicant’s chances of being admitted.” The majority of respondents, however, said that there would be little or no impact. Perhaps even more notably, in the survey question that asked the colleges to respond to whether a 20 point increase in the SAT Math or Writing, or a 10 point increase in the SAT CR, would significantly improve the student’s chances of admission, the highest base level tested was 750 (see Figure 2). I.e., the survey didn’t even ask if an increase from 760 to 780, or from 780 to 800, would have any effect on the odds of admission. 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. 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>All that said, I’ll sign off by saying to kameron, good luck on your retake. :)</p>

[failboat]

<p>

How can one indiscriminately assume that the figures provided in the statistical profiles of CC members are correctly or honestly reported?

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>

One’s qualifications do not automatically confer infallibility.

</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>

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>Really? Enlighten me. Where is this “wealth of data” that I am so blatantly dismissing? Where is the illogicality of my beliefs? Please, try to actually impact my case without these subjective anecdotal evidence that you so blatantly accused me of previously. Here are the points that you must refute and refute objectively in order to warrant your own assertion and conclusion, as without the prior data to back up your finding, your conclusion is nothing more than the mere whims of a theoretician. I’m not here to satisfy your curiosity. If you cannot actually refute my statistics then please don’t mislead others into thinking that my research is subjective and illogical in order distract focus.</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>Do you believe that the number of applicants polled from the 2400 category will be anywhere near those polled from the 2300+ category? Can you objectively state that a definite correlation exist between these two categories in terms of absolute probability without knowing sample sizes? You’ll never know if you’re merely dealing with a sample with a small size and large deviation or you’re actually dealing with a representative sample. More importantly however, I don’t care if you can fabricate some elaborate explanation for why this should be viable in terms of analysis - it’s not unless you can objectify your justification.</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>I seem to remember someone else using sets of data of similar quality to pen an elaborate conclusion that now rejects the same data. </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. Would you like to venture on a rebuttal?</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>I still have not encountered any published statistical studies that can clearly prove a positive correlation between SAT scores and admission probabilities on the marginal end of the spectrum. Would you please regurgitate more of these published studies so that I may actually see what I am being accused of ignoring? And once again, my findings are not representative of my own beliefs, merely what the data tells me, in that sense you are correct, a static set of numerical transformations is pretty rigid.</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>There’s a huge difference between conceding to the fact that a difference exist between a 2100 and 2400 and the proof of a causal relationship between SAT and admission probabilities near the 2400 margin.</p>

<p>Here is something that I would like for you to address however:

Princeton, which publicly displays it admissions statistics, visibly does not treat the SAT in that fashion. Princeton admitted 26.3% of its students who scored between 2300 and 2400, while admitting merely 11.4% percent of applicants who scored between 2100 and 2290. That is incredibly significant and not coincidental. The SAT assesses differing levels of aptitude across its entire score continuum, not a part of it. Again, I will repost what I stated in a previous thread

</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>So please, tell me, 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>

[wrecherbob]

<p>Fail boat just basically said what I was literally was about to say. Thank you =]</p>

[kameronsmith]

<p>failboat: mifune has pointed to data independently available from Princeton, MIT, and Stanford. You continue to reject this data for seemingly no reason, despite its high credibility and usefulness.</p>

<p>Your quibbles about sample size are ungrounded. We can look at MIT’s data, for example, and see that all the applicant pool ranges are sufficiently large (>1000) to be credible sources: [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>[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>

[failboat]

<p>@Mifune, with regards to [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>Please provide instances where an AdCom officer must consciously compare two students whose scores differ by 20/10 points. Now tell me how often this happens. This is literally the only cases where the stats given in the article would actually be effective.</p>

[failboat]

<p>

failboat: mifune has pointed to data independently available from Princeton, MIT, and Stanford. You continue to reject this data for seemingly no reason, despite its high credibility and usefulness.

</p>

<p>Once again, I am not rejecting his data, please reread the following:

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. Would you like to venture on a rebuttal?

</p>

<p>Would you like to venture on a rebuttal? Maybe some rhetorics to soften it up?</p>

[kameronsmith]

<p>How on EARTH do you reach that conclusion, when the data quite clearly shows a disparity in acceptance rates between SAT score ranges?</p>

<p>I’m not going to even bother rebutting a senseless argument without any sort of evidence or logic to back it up.</p>

[wrecherbob]

<p>I have to be honest, I have never seen a heated argument that’s like this. Kamersonsmith, just stop arguing and giving the public reasons why you need take it again! In fact, who knows, you could be studying some vocabulary words for Pete’s sake that’ll get you a 2400. Never in my life have I seen such a person like you. JUST GO TAKE THE FRICKEN THING JEEZ! It’s a personal choice. I could go about blasting around that it’s a personal choice. Do we really care if you’re telling us reasons why you should take the sat JUST to get a 2400? No. Should we? no. Will we? no.</p>

[kameronsmith]

<p>Guess I better study some vocab, since an 800 clearly isn’t good enough. Oh, wait: that can’t improve.</p>

[failboat]

<p>

How on EARTH do you reach that conclusion, when the data quite clearly shows a disparity in acceptance rates between SAT score ranges?</p>

<p>I’m not going to even bother rebutting a senseless argument without any sort of evidence or logic to back it up.

</p>

<p>If you lack the ability to observe simplistic patterns, then there’s no use for me to waste more of my time on your trivialities. The only reason that I still remain in this thread is because Mifune actually posts interesting rebuts.</p>

[kameronsmith]

<p>Do you live in a world where up is down?</p>

<p>Look at this data: [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>Now tell me where you see ANY pattern to support your absurd conclusion.</p>

[wrecherbob]

<p>

Guess I better study some vocab, since an 800 clearly isn’t good enough. Oh, wait: that can’t improve.

Wow. You just fell into my trick. Exactly my point. You can’t improve.</p>

[wrecherbob]

<p>That’s just implying that you’re going to get a 800 on the next SAT. Wow…Such a BRAGGER!! There’s never anything in life where you can’t improve on! Jeez…Can you please start applying these skills to everyday life instead of just on this one test that you’ve clearly already jumped over and can totally get rid of out of your life?</p>

[kameronsmith]

<p>

Wow. You just fell into my trick. Exactly my point. You can’t improve.

I can improve on writing. I can’t improve on CR. They’re entirely different sections. Can you comprehend that?</p>

[wrecherbob]

<p>Ok. What makes you so sure that you’ll get a 800 in CR next time. What about math? Who knows, you might’ve just made a careless mistake on the writing. You want to take this further? How about mentioned that everybody on the face of this planet is fallible and liable to error?</p>