<p>
Not really. Mifune has a post somewhere explaining how increasing SAT scores lead to an exponential increasing acceptance rate. Of course having a bad GPA hurts, but say it was a between a Val with a 2000 and a kid in the top 10% and a 2400, with everything else held constant, statistically the latter would have higher chances of admission.</p>
<p>
But that’s just anecdotal, between you and one other person.</p>
<p>My son had a very different conclusion. He scored very well on SATs, better than all his friends (first and only sitting, no prep) – and he observed that there were many kids who were clearly as smart as he was and who were much better students who also did substantially worse than he did on the tests. Because my son went to a very ethnically diverse high school, he came to the conclusion that the tests were biased – because there seemed to be a correlation between test scores and skin tone. (But that is similarly anecdotal – since my son was a white kid at a high school where most of the students were nonwhite, and since he scored higher than the others – every other kid he talked to was likely to have lower scores than his, and random chance would have dictated that any 4 out of 5 kids he opted to talk to would have been nonwhite). </p>
<p>The main point is that my son scored better on the test than people who, in real life, were clearly equally capable to him, if not better. That has been my own life experience as well – I also tend to score very high on standardized tests.</p>
<p>But still, a score difference of 150 is statistically significant. </p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/sat-preparation/865226-addressing-few-concerns.html?highlight=addressing+concerns[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/sat-preparation/865226-addressing-few-concerns.html?highlight=addressing+concerns</a></p>
<p>This is what I mean.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I guess you haven’t looked at the stats as to what a huge difference class rank makes in admissions. Without some other hook, its pretty near impossible for a kid who isn’t in the top 5% of their high school class to get admitted to an Ivy caliber school. </p>
<p>The problem that when you look at individual factors in isolation, you don’t get the whole picture. There is probably a fairly high correlation between grades, class rank, and test scores – so on the whole, the highest ranked students with the strongest GPAs also tend to be the ones with the highest test scores. So you can’t draw a conclusion based on statistics keyed to a single variable. </p>
<p>However, the reason it makes sense for colleges to focus on demonstrated achievement – class rank, GPA, various awards, etc. – is that colleges don’t need more binge drinkers or slackers. If they have a high performing student who doesn’t seem to test particularly well – AND if they are assured that the student comes from a demanding high school – then its a fairly safe bet that the student will continue to perform well in college. A high-end tester in theory should always be able to do well academically – so if that applicant hasn’t performed up to expectations, then it starts to look like a problem with motivation, focus or study habits.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let’s compare calmom’s claim with the results of an analysis. Although I recognize that the sample size is limited and subject to self-selection or lying, the results are meaningful. From the Yale 2013 SCEA results thread:</p>
<p>Total sample size: 148</p>
<p>Asian sample size: 58
Average SAT score for an Asian acceptee (17 were accepted): 2347</p>
<p>White sample size: 52
Average SAT score for a White acceptee (16 were accepted): 2353</p>
<p>The acceptance rate over various ranges for Whites and Asians: </p>
<p>2310-2400: 47% (29/62)
2210-2300: 10% (3/30)
600-2200: 0% (0/16)</p>
<p>(Full analysis: <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/651345-race-college-admissions-faq-discussion-3-a-49.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/651345-race-college-admissions-faq-discussion-3-a-49.html</a>)</p>
<p>Clearly, calmom is mistaken.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think that the bar is that low at every “top” college. But I could be persuaded by authoritative statements from the college admission office itself–confirmed by actual admission results–to revise my opinion. I think there is a subset of “top” colleges that is more demanding of high SAT scores than that.</p>
<p>calmom - a very valid point (post 102).</p>
<p>silverturtle - Up until last year, colleges received the entire SAT history when scores were submitted. Since then, as you know, some schools still request all scores. But this (SAT/ACT/PSAT history) is information that can be easily provided in the GC recommendation if it will help a student.</p>
<p>
That’s not really what I was trying to argue. Class rank is very, very, very important, that we both agree on. But so too is one’s SAT score. I</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Right. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is no way for a school to enforce this request. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My guidance counselor does not know my testing history, nor would I want a recommendation to be a communication of my objective stats.</p>
<p>Re post #105: Where do you get those numbers from? Harvard’s common data set suggests that 25% of its incoming class each year has scores at or below 2100.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Whom are you addressing?</p>
<p>
Harvard’s data suggests that, but it doesn’t mean that. Just because the twenty fifth percentile for each subsection is 700 doesn’t mean that added, up the twenty fifth percentile overall is 2100. Most people with a 700 on one section will likely have another score above that. Also, most of those people probably had some sort of hooks.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To clarify, I meant the score in combination with other strong factors. (GPA, a strong hook, etc.). Colleges clearly say that they look at test scores “in context” – and they mean that. </p>
<p>I base my numbers by looking at the fall off point at admissions – there are stats available for some top colleges that will tell you the score range at which admissions become negligible. That would be at roughly the 5% level, not the 25%. (The convention of reporting median 50% score range seems to have given rise to the myth that colleges never accept one-fourth of their students – the bottom 25% of test scorers just seem to miraculously show up on campus, despite the fact that they had no chance whatsoever of being admitted.)</p>
<p>
Actually, if you add up the 25% numbers, it comes out to 2080 – I rounded up, recognizing what you say. You are probably right that a full 25% of the enrolled students don’t have cumulative scores below 2100… but at the same time a significant percentage probably do – perhaps 15%, perhaps 20%. </p>
<p>Keep in mind that the same rationale applies to the top end of scores. That is, the 75% level probably is NOT 2370, as the total scores would indicate – but significantly less - because most students who 780 or above on one section of the test probably score lower on other sections. And the “most” in terms of extrapolating out a lower score is probably a much bigger subset than the “most” when it comes to extrapolating a higher score, because statistically its is a lot easier to have a lower score than a higher one. (There’s not much room to go up at 780… there’s plenty of room to go down at 700).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s your speculation and conjecture. The “hook” could simply be class rank, a strong GPA, strong recommendations, etc.</p>
<p>calmom:</p>
<p>I agree with your post #97. My point was that a college would not care about a xxxx one-sitting or a xxxx superscored, if the latter had more of what the college was seeking that year. Thus it is THEIR interest to NOT care about single sitting (assuming they superscore).</p>
<p>However, for unhooked candidates, my guess is that the psychological threshold is 2100/32 for highly selective colleges. Number below that need to be much stronger in “other stuff.” OTOH, 40% of Brown matriculants had <700 SAT-CR and 37% had <700 on SAT-M.</p>
<p><a href=“Undergraduate Admission | Brown University”>Undergraduate Admission | Brown University;
<p>If one considers minority status, legacy status, athletic status, and national accomplishments hooks, then the amount of people with hooks at Harvard may be quite large (over 20%, most likely, using just the percentage of URMs at Harvard). I would not be surprised if half of the people with an SAT score less than the twenty fifth percentile had some combination of the hooks listed. I would argue that it might be more like five to ten percent, but I think we are reaching a similar conclusion. I have nothing against you calmom, just I disagree with the specifics of your viewpoint.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re grossly undercompensating, as an anaysis of the top-end would reveal, even if we assume that almost all high-scorers attend top schools. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Even a superficial glance through the decisions threads on CC will validate hahalolk’s “speculation.” No one familiar with college admissions could consider a strong GPA or class rank to be a hook by any stretch of the word. </p>
<p>calmom, as post #105 indicates, colleges discriminate well into the upper echelons of SAT scores.</p>
<p>With respect to post #115,</p>
<p>Brown’s data that you linked to likewise indicate discrimination even among very high scores.</p>
<p>
CC gives you a narrow range of self-reported (and sometimes falsified) anecdotal information from students who by definition are obsessed about their chances of getting admitted. The vast majority of admitted students don’t even come near CC. </p>
<p>Most kids with lower SAT or ACT scores would be intimidated from posting because of the hostile environment here. If a kid posts their scores in a chances thread and they are on the low end for that school, the response is invariably ridicule – everyone leaps up and says there is no way that the kid will get in with those scores. </p>
<p>I have on several times told posters that I thought their chances were good based on holistic factors and later received PM’s when the kids were admitted to the very schools they were told to give up hope on. </p>
<p>The fact that your rely on anecdotal information from a very narrow, self-selecting group is somewhat telling, I think. When my son was applying to colleges it never occurred to him to compare scores with anonymous people on line – and he opted not to retake with a first-sitting score in the mid 1400’s (out of 1600) – simply because his score seemed high enough. He, like me, was looking at the bottom of a median score range, not the top, as being the threshold to meet. Kids like him don’t come to CC and posts their results - they don’t really care about their test scores, they care about whatever their academic or life interests are.</p>
<p>The elite colleges LIKE applicants who are great athletes or who demonstrate passion – the very same kids who might be way too busy to study for and sit through multiple administrations of a test, and who don’t have time to go posting their “stats” on CC either. </p>
<p>No matter how you cut it, one-fourth of students who are admitted at any given college have test scores that are at or below the 25% mark. Anecdotal information on CC notwithstanding.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Passionate kids don’t have time to type a post on an Internet forum? I consider myself quite passionate, though my post count wouldn’t indicate that by your standards.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I suspect that at least half of students at top schools have heard of CC. Perhaps a current student could comment on this. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What an absurd, offensive, and grossly over-generalizing statement.</p>
<p>calmom, you have not refuted the data in post #150, which clearly disprove your claims. Unless, of course, you are making the illogical assertion that decisions thread respondents are disproportionately likely to be high-scoring acceptees and low-scoring rejectees.</p>