<p>As I look at potentially applying to Princeton and realized that my SAT scores are rather low relative to the average applicant, I was wondering how important are the SATs? Are they merely a check/boost on your application or is it "either you have the 700+/test score and have a chance or you don't have it, we're not going to look at your application at all"?</p>
<p>I recall reading an article from a few years ago that claimed as long as you scored at least 1450/1600, the University did not care how much higher you scored. It said that all 1450+ applicants were essentially the same in terms of testing, and that was the point at which those applicants' personal qualities were more carefully scrutinized.</p>
<p>Interesting thread and a perennial debate actually...i've been wondering about it myself..</p>
<p>They take all of your academic scores and information and use it to compute a standardized measure of your academic ability (it used to be a 1-4 ranking, but I believe they may have changed it to 1-5).</p>
<p>And Princeton is known to be more leniant SAT-wise than some other top schools, like Harvard, Yale, MIT, Caltech, etc. Check it out at collegeboard.com. Search Princeton in the search a college bar, and check Princeton's avg scores. I think about 25% of those admitted scored less than a 1400. Not bad.</p>
<p>How do you think good AP scores calculate in that academic ability measure?</p>
<p>Ahh, gametheory... I hope your right..! :O</p>
<p>gametheory's response is misleading. The reason that the SAT scores of Princeton students are slightly lower than its direct peers is that elite applicants have tended to prefer Harvard or Yale over Princeton. This is, however, changing, and consequently the gap has narrowed (actually, if I'm not mistaken, the latest figures have Princeton at least tied with Yale). Also, many of the bottom quartile of SAT scorers come from hooked groups (recruited athletes, development candidates, extremely underrepresented minorities, etc.).</p>
<p>As for AP scores, Chuck Hughes gives the following rough guideline: a top academic rating would correspond to a bunch of fives and maybe one or two fours, a rating of two would correspond to mostly fours, a rating of three to a mix of fours and threes, etc.</p>
<p>How low are they generally willing to go for hooked groups and URM's? And what if that candidate had less than great SATs but really good APs? Sorry if this is a dumb question.. its just been bothering me!</p>
<p>URMs and hooked groups (legacies, athletes, progeny of big donors) need to be competitive in the applicant pool. Just how competitive they must be is unknown, however, because the University refuses to release statistics about these groups. The fact that they withhold that data leaves one to believe that these groups DO get a significant boost...</p>
<p>Legacies per se probably get the least benefit from being a hooked applicant group; legacy status is a tilt if all else is equal, but it's not going to make up for otherwise poor credentials. URM status confers some benefit, but again won't allow an otherwise poor candidate to get in unless that candidate comes from an extremely underrepresented group (native americans, for instance). Athletes can get very significant boosts, especially since the Ivy League schools tend to manipulate the rules that govern the academic requirements of athletic recruitment, and I'd argue probably account for a significant portion of that lower 25% (but definitely not all and maybe not even half). Pure development candidates will almost always get in, although their numbers tend to be small. The most interesting candidates might be legacies whose families have donated enough to be somewhat important but not enough to be forwarded to the development office. I would suspect, albeit without any statistical evidence as of yet, that these students compose another significant chunk of the bottom 25%.</p>
<p>"gametheory's response is misleading. The reason that the SAT scores of Princeton students are slightly lower than its direct peers is that elite applicants have tended to prefer Harvard or Yale over Princeton. This is, however, changing, and consequently the gap has narrowed (actually, if I'm not mistaken, the latest figures have Princeton at least tied with Yale). Also, many of the bottom quartile of SAT scorers come from hooked groups (recruited athletes, development candidates, extremely underrepresented minorities, etc.)."--GR Elton</p>
<p>Not that I doubt you the least bit, but can you please provide the source(s) of your incredible knowledge, for I'm sure such sources have much more information concerning admissions, and I would too like to equip myself with as much knowledge as possible. Thank you.</p>
<p>For the historical preference of highly elite candidates to choose Yale or Harvard over Princeton, see this</a> revealed preference ranking based on data from approximately 2001. This clear and substantial preference has skewed Princeton's 75% SAT score lower. It also permits us to use the differential between Princeton's 25-75% breakdown of SAT scores with Yale's, as an example, to roughly determine the increasing attractiveness of Princeton among highly elite applicants.</p>
<p>Consider these statistics over the past few years (Yale's available data goes back to 2003-4, so we'll start there):</p>
<p>Year | Yale | Princeton | Difference
2003 | [1,380 - 1,580] | [1,370 - 1,560] | [-10, -20]
2004 | [1,400 - 1,560] | [1,370 - 1,560] | [-30, -0]
2005 | [1,400 - 1,580] | [1,380 - 1,560] | [-20, -20]
2006 | [1,390 - 1,580] | [1,370 - 1,590] | [-20, +10]</p>
<p>Note that the preference for Yale was stable for 2003, 2004, and 2005. Last year, however, the top end of Princeton's distribution (the academic superstars) increased dramatically. This was a consequence of Nassau Hall's increasing success in attracting such applicants. Incidentally, consider that the 75th percentile for Princeton in 2002 was only a 1550.</p>
<p>As for the bottom 25% comprising those groups, I don't have any data per se to back that up, but see my response above.</p>
<p>The first link that you have provided is incredibly interesting; I've quickly skimmed it through and will thoroughly analyze it over the weekend. Thank you very much GR Elton.</p>
<p>SAT scores matter a lot.. those with 2300+ have an admission chance of 20+ % while those getting 2200+ have their chances dropped significantly.. refer to the princeton site for admission statistics..</p>
<p>
[quote]
SAT scores matter a lot.. those with 2300+ have an admission chance of 20+ % while those getting 2200+ have their chances dropped significantly.. refer to the princeton site for admission statistics..
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Correlation does not equal causation.</p>
<p>^I agree with what you said.. definitely SAT will not be a determining factor, but it is not a mere check too.. the higher you get the better chances you'll get.. everyone knows..it is part of the so called academic index that you mention after all</p>
<p>ditto GR Elton</p>
<p>"the higher you get the better chances you'll get.. everyone knows.." - accl</p>
<p>Once again, correlation does not equal causation; SAT scores are not indicative only of intelligence but also of hard work and the drive to succeed - and in some cases, wealth. The combination and depiction/utilization of these four factors in other parts of the application may be what ultimately gets a certain applicant in - it won't necessarily be because of his/her high SAT score.</p>