<p>800W/770CR/680M unsuperscored. I'm retaking it on the 1st but freaking out because I expected a better math score (720 at least), and some of my schools (MIT, Caltech, Harvey-Mudd) simply won't look at my application with a 680, even as a girl going into science. If I don't get it above 720 next time, should I retake in November? (I'm taking subject tests on the october test date)</p>
<p>In general, you will need 1500+ in CR+M for those top schools. Anyway, you should try your best in improving your Math score in the next take. How is your average practice score in Math? You should take SAT2 Math2 also and aiming for 750+. It may help to compensate a slight weakness in math out of a good SAT score.</p>
<p>By the end of intense preparation I was in the 730-750 range. We’ll see how harsh the curve is for the June 1st SAT, those results come out in a few weeks and I’ll update you then. I’m taking the Math II subject test in the fall</p>
<p>@billscho</p>
<p>Do top colleges not care about writing as much as CR+M? Not trying to be confrontational here, just curious.</p>
<p>That would be good because my writing scores are always lower, like around 680 while my math and reading scores are much higher.</p>
<p>What I find interesting is that statistically, a perfect writing section is the rarest of the three, last year out of 1,664,479 students taking it, 8,205 got a perfect CR, 11,494 got a perfect math, and 7,166 got a perfect writing. But traditionally, the CR+M is valued because they were the “traditional” SAT sections before the 2006 redo.</p>
<p>@neuromajor</p>
<p>Also I think that colleges (and society in general) for whatever reason view writing as more of a “skill,” whereas math and CR are more inherent aptitude. I don’t really agree with that but then again its standardized testing… someone is always getting screwed.</p>
<p>@NWskier, I don’t personally see any aspect of the SAT as an aptitude test. And I agree that the test hasn’t eliminated its bias.</p>
<p>You don’t see it as an aptitude test?</p>
<p>Check out it’s correlation with IQ and the bell curve. I’m not saying that between a 730 and a 750 there is a definite 1 pt IQ difference (for example), but I there is obviously a large difference between people who get 2300’s and people who get 1500’s.</p>
<p>I think that the writing section is just as aptitude dependent as the other sections.</p>
<p>Even if you can make a case against the SAT being aptitude dependent, I will assert that our society (and college admissions) treats it as a poorly disguised barometer of aptitude. With the recent addition of writing, they are slightly more doubtful of those scores than of CR and M, but there is still certainly a large societal belief that if you get a 2300 on the SAT you are “smart,” and are inherently more gifted than other people.</p>
<p>I mean even this forum is a testament to the worshiping of the SAT as a predictor of success and smarts.</p>
<p>^ completely agree with above poster</p>
<p>are you happy with a 34 ACT? That’s the equivalent.</p>
<p>100% retake it. 680 will not cut it at top schools. but very nice on writing and CR(which I find to be the hardest 2 sections)!</p>
<p>@NWskier, yes I do know the correlation has been touted in a number of scientific papers. I have a few points to make here. The first, any test that can be studied for cannot truly be considered an aptitude or intelligence test. Yes, there are plenty of students who score above the 2300 range because they are geniuses. But I propose that a high number of students who may not be in the 140+ IQ range can study hard and get exceptional SAT scores. You can’t (or shouldn’t at least) be able to study for an IQ test. Secondly, the IQ test only measures one very narrow interpretation of intelligence. Thirdly, natural aptitude beyond a certain point is not a predictor of success. Students with low IQs will struggle with school and the SAT, because it is formatted to test logic and reasoning, which are the precise skills tested on IQ tests. However, once the IQ line passes 125 or so, success is determined by effort, drive, passion, people skills, ect. I do agree with the perception of SAT as being a marker of “smarts”. But many of my friends who I consider just as intelligent with equatable IQ scores are not naturally gifted test takers, and did dramatically worse on the SAT than would be expected for someone of their intelligence. Others I know didn’t have access to the comprehensive education that many top scorers take for granted. Socio-economic status is, unfortunately, as good of an indicator for performance on the SAT, although there are many naturally bright kids with high IQs born to low income families (as mandated by the bell curve), those kids don’t get the same opportunities and will score lower. I suppose my point is, the SAT shares some similarities with IQ tests, but because you can study for it and dramatically raise scores and that socio-economic status is such a huge factor in SAT success, it is not a true aptitude test. FYI, I scored highly on IQ tests (won’t go into specifics, but above the 140 mark) so I’m not being vindictive on that account. Just presenting my perspective.</p>
<p>FYI, I scored an 800w/790m/800cr for a total of 2390 on the June SAT. I’m glad I retook it!</p>