<p>Hey you guys, I know that this isn't statistically valid. It was just a way of seeing how my own scores compared to those of the reporting CC'rs who got accepted. Of course it relies on honesty in reporting and there's probably a lot of bias. The bias is probably about the same for all the schools though so a rough comparison is still kinda interesting. Mostly, I guess it says that these numbers are pretty high and the top schools are pretty close together. By the way, I wasn't trying to 'spam' the boards! geez, I just thought it would be fun to share. It's kind of interesting though that some stereotypes show up, like some schools accepting more CC'rs with high math scores.</p>
<p>Exactly. These aren't at all statistically significant in terms of comparing the four colleges, but they certainly are for comparison to individual student scores.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>Hey you guys, I know that this isn't statistically valid.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Good, I'm glad you recognize that.</p>
<br>
<p>As a rough comparison it is worthless, and it's interesting only if you find invalid numbers somehow interesting.</p>
<br> [QUOTE=""]
<blockquote> <p>It's kind of interesting though that some stereotypes show up, like some schools accepting more CC'rs with high math scores<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>You can't say whether those stereotypes show up or not. The numbers you are basing it on are, as you admitted, invalid. That is exactly the sort of conclusion you cannot draw from these numbers.</p>
<p>OK, here's an interesting exercise. Do the same thing, but with the deferred students, and we'll see (roughly, sorta) how much emphasis these schools really put on the SATs...</p>
<p>That would be interesting.</p>
<p>GMA: I can give you the answer: the numbers will be virtually the same. Everyone knows that the SAT's of most kids who apply, especially EA, are all in the ball park. That would especially be true for CC kids. And everybody also knows that SAT's are just part of what gets you in the door---nothing more than that. Once you're over that hurdle, everything else comes into play. Unless you're a 2400 applicant, it contributes nothing else.</p>
<p>Although I agree that SATs get you in the door, there is no denying the difference between a 1900 (average of 633 1/3) and a 2300 (average of 766 1/3). They will be viewed differently right from the start. Anyone with over an 1800 isn't going to be kicked out because of SATs, but they will certainly be given a different kind of consideration than a kid scoring consistently in the mid to high 700s.</p>
<p>Think of all the hundreds of applicants who are practically identical, except half score in the 700s and half in the 600s. Those with the 700s will obviously get in more frequently. It isn't everything, but it does contribute more than simply getting you through the door.</p>
<p>I think the only kids below 2000 that even get in the door at Harvard are legacies, URMs, and athletes. For everybody else, I believe the hurdle is somewhere in the 2100-2200 range. And after that, score doesn't add much , unless you're near or at perfection. Harvard probably has some way of making sure their average SAT scores stay where they need to be for USNews rankings, but that isn't that difficult, because so many kids that are stellar in all the other important ways (GPA, rank, ec's, etc.) are going to have those top SAT's anyway.</p>
<p>p.s. And if you look at the accepted kids from this year, it bears this out...many very top SAT scorers deferred, and many of the accepted are in the 2200's. And a final thought...because this is the first year of the new SAT, I think Harvard may be emphasizing it even less, particularly the writing part.</p>