<p>To begin I do not intend this to be a trolling thread. This is a genuine question.</p>
<p>I recently took the June SAT exam. My scores were:</p>
<p>800 CR
760M
800W
11E
For a 2360 total. I made one silly math mistake and it brought my score down 40 points, that darn curve. </p>
<p>For schools like MIT and CalTech and Stanford, which I hope to apply to in addition to various other top schools, would a retake of the SAT for the 2400 Superscore be advisable?
As background this was the 2nd time I'd taken the SAT, the first time I got 2230 (710M, 720CR, 800W 12E). Also, if I retake, I fill that it is unlikely I will score 800s on both CR and W again, so a 2400 superscore would be what i'd be aiming for. </p>
<p>The reason I am asking is because I know these schools are math/science intensive and feel a high SAT math score is extremely important. Aside from that, I have not taken SAT IIs yet (I have just completed my junior year) but I play to take MathII, Chemistry, and Literature in October, and this SAT again in November if advised to retake. I have many extracurriculars, but this question is without regard to the other aspects of my application. </p>
<p>So, should I retake the SAT for that 800math and a 2400 superscore? Or will schools like MIT, Caltech, Stanford, and other top schools simply ignore it? Perhaps if I scored an 800Math II they make ignore the 760 in SAT math reasoning? Any advise is appreciated. Thanks.</p>
<p>But anyway, I got those exact same scores and got in, so I think you should be okay with your scores. I’ve heard that MIT considers your SAT2 math score in place of your SAT1 math score, so if you have an 800 on SAT2 math 2, you have a 2400 to MIT. But I’m not 100% sure about this.</p>
<p>^ Very cool post mollie. I was wondering if you have similar evidence for other top colleges? Or is it only MIT that publicly acknowledges this?</p>
<p>Ahh this is making me feel better. Hoping the same principle applies to other top schools. I would really rather not take the test again haha. Thank you lidusha and molliebatmit and starsaligned!</p>
<p>Other top colleges’ data (which I also brought up in the thread that spratleyj mentioned):</p>
<p>[ul][<em>]At Stanford, applicants with 800 on the Critical Reading section of the SAT are 64% more likely to be admitted than applicants with 700-790.
[</em>]At Stanford, applicants with 800 on the Writing section are 58% more likely to be admitted than those with 700-790.<br>
[<em>]At Princeton, applicants with 2300-2400 on the SAT are 130% more likely to be admitted than applicants with 2100-2290.
[</em>]At Dartmouth, applicants with 800 on the Critical Reading section of the SAT are 122% more likely to be admitted than applicants with 700-790.
[<em>]At Dartmouth, applicants with 800 on the Math section of the SAT are 68% more likely to be admitted than applicants with 700-790.
[</em>]At Dartmouth, applicants with 800 on the Writing section of the SAT are 118% more likely to be admitted than applicants with 700-790.
[<em>]At Brown, applicants with 800 on the Critical Reading section of the SAT are 39% more likely to be admitted than applicants with 750-790.
[</em>]At Brown, applicants with 800 on the Math section of the SAT are 28% more likely to be admitted than applicants with 750-790.
[<em>]At Brown, applicants with 800 on the Writing section of the SAT are 46% more likely to be admitted than applicants with 750-790.
[</em>]At Brown, applicants with 36 on the ACT are 119% more likely to be admitted than applicants with 33-35 and 273% more likely to be admitted than applicants with 29-32.[/ul]
This is seemingly at least partly causal, given the extent of the gains. Nonetheless, retaking 2360 is not worth it.</p>
<p>I don’t think you can call that a causal system without a decent controlled experiment (which no one in his right mind would agree to) or a comment from an admissions officer that there is a causal system.</p>
<p>Maybe, on average, students who take the time to study for an 800 might also be very dedicated in other areas, like volunteering or coursework. Maybe, on average, they’re more dedicated than students who get 700-790s. Maybe, on average, students who get 800s on critical reading or writing are also very good writers, and write very good college application essays. Maybe, on average, the essays of students who get 800s on critical reading or writing are better than those of students who get 700-790s.</p>
<p>^ Yes, I discussed that in the other thread. It seems highly unlikely to me that the confounding variables can account for the extent of the advantage (i.e., off by probably a factor of ten from what I would expect if the relationship were merely correlational and not causal).</p>
<p>I’ve been weighing myself a lot more often than usual, and I’ve noticed that I’ve been losing weight. I made a chart of my weight vs. the number of times I weigh myself in a day and it turns out that weighing myself causes me to lose weight. But wait! It turns out that the only scale I have access to is at a gym, and each time I weigh myself I also hike a few miles on the StairMaster. But really I was only using the StairMaster for fun (it’s so shiny!) each time I walk past it on my way to the scales, so I didn’t think it could have that much of an effect on my weight.</p>
I don’t know the admissions webpages of other schools the way I know MIT’s. Still, I would strongly suspect that other schools also treat SATs this way.</p>
Still, I would strongly suspect that other schools also treat SATs this way.</p>