<p>My scores...
SAT1 :2280(Cr-750, Ma-760, Wr-770)
SAT2: Math Level 2:800, Phy:800
Big Deal!
It isn't going to help me a bit at Princeton! They will boot my application straight away. That place is crawling with such people.
SAT= Stupid Aimless Trash....No point in giving it. The higher you get the more people there are with similar scores. Get a life people, you have an entire FORUM on SAT when you should really be worrying about how many medals you have. Which seeing your pathetic obession with SAT would be negligible.</p>
<p>Thanks for the info.</p>
<p>I don’t know why so many people want to aim for Princeton, UPenn, UChicago, Stanford, Notre Dame, and MIT. I mean they’re all great schools, but there many other schools out there that aren’t in first tiers and they’re still good colleges.
Graduating from Harvard doesn’t mean you’re going to be better or more successful than other people – you just gain the respect from many people and employers after you graduate.</p>
<p>There are people who graduated from NYU, Cornell, Michigan, BU, BC, and STATE schools and they’re all very successful in what they do.</p>
<p>Wow, I’m sure that simmering bitterness makes a great impression in interviews. You can decide to be angry (although I’m not quite sure WHY you’re frothing at the mouth…most people would be thrilled to have your scores), or you can decide to make the best of it and be happy wherever it is that you go. You are far from a victim, so don’t think that somehow the world has it in for you. HopefulEagle took the words out of my mouth that there are plenty of people that went to “inferior” schools that got an outstanding education and went on to happy and successful lives.</p>
<p>Yeah…I’m agreeing with HopefulEagle86. I don’t particularly care about SAT’s myself - a single test doesn’t really say anything, at all, whatsoever about a person - but at the same time…CALM DOWN.</p>
<p>Ivy League is entirely overrated. Looking back in fifty years, if making your way into an Ivy League was the best thing you’ve ever accomplished, then you really haven’t done anything worthwhile. I know someone who went to Oxford, as a Rhodes Scholar. Guess what? She works at a radio station now, ten years after the fact. </p>
<p>I myself am applying Ivy League - and I have (slightly) lower scores than yours. But If I don’t make it, then whatever. I’ll go instate to a school that is just as good, easier to get into, and save a ton of money that I can spend touring Europe, or donating to people who just want to go to school, period.</p>
<p>SATs aren’t the only thing that calculate into getting accepted into HYP. If you have other great hooks, ec’s and gpa you might get accepted.</p>
<p>although after that i sure as hell hope you don’t, people who apply are much more better candidates than you, stop living in the past.</p>
<p>You need the SAT to compare everyone in the nation on the same scale, your score is great stop complaining.</p>
<p>go kill yourself</p>
<p>EDIT: directed towards sarvarox</p>
<p>This entire thread is pointless.
Very few people think the sat is everything
People say that graduating from harvard doesn’t help. Quit being *****es. Yea it does. The very fact that you know one person who graduated from harvard that isn’t a millionaire and you’re dissing him just shows that it’s a good university.
Yea plenty of rich people graduated from state universities… How many poor people graduated from those places? Much more? Yea.
How many state u graduates work on wall street? A lot. How many ivy league graduates work on wall street? A lot more. </p>
<p>People who say you can get just as good of a job coming from state universities are right. But people who say that the same amount of these people get these jobs as ivy league grads are being ignorant. </p>
<p>You know one harvard person that doesn’t have a job. how many state u graduates don’t have jobs? A lot more. </p>
<p>It’s okay to go to a state u. Life isn’t ruined. It’s not bad. But don’t diss the top places. Some Graduates from state universities are just as talented… But still the harvard graduate will get the name brand and the job. </p>
<p>It’s unfair to always diss top schools because you know one graduate who isn’t rich</p>
<p>I might tick a number of people off with this one but here goes: as a high school teacher in a college prep program I am told about most of their SAT scores because the kids openly talk about them so much. I haven’t done any official studies but I have always found, without exception, that my students who are better thinkers and analyzers always outscore their classmates who MAY be “better” students because they might be better organized or they just care more. In other words, the naturally brighter kids do, do better on the SAT. Now, what about college… the students who score high on the SAT but who are not internally motivated or not organized struggle in college, especially the first few years. I have had many students who not near as naturally bright as their peers, but who work hard and are organized who are very successful in college, in fact everyone single one of them in recent years have no problem in college, where as many of the “super bright” ones are back home after the 1st year. </p>
<p>So I guess my final conclusion is that the SAT might be a fairly good indicator of raw innate intelligence, but organizational skills, in my opinion, are a far better indicator of future college success. </p>
<p>Maybe colleges are more interested in the student who shows a high level of raw intelligence with strong organizational skills as determined by his or her high school record and if so, I think the SAT certainly helps with that, although I personally feel that the organizational skills is the most important.</p>
<p>i’m pretty sure the OP is more annoyed at the fact that you need great extracurriculars and awards / presidencies of clubs almost more so than grades to get into the schools he desires to attend.</p>
<p>SAT scores are about as meaningful as whether or not you can lick your elbow.</p>
<p>But can you lick your elbow?</p>
<p>^^aluminum boat, i completely agree with you. people who deny the statistical proof that Ivy and top tier grads have it better off in job-finding and money-making are largely ignorant.</p>
<p>^^proud_mom, what do you mean by ‘organizational skills’ being more important than sheer intelligence? Actually, what do you mean by organizational, because the stretched argument that you seem to be making is: secretaries, who have very good organizational skills, are more important and successful than researchers, who are generally stereotyped to have bad organizational skills. If, however, by ‘organizational skills’ you mean ‘work ethic’, then i’d completely agree with you-- it doesn’t matter how smart you are if you’re a lazy bum who isn’t willing to do the work. But i think that it’d be hard to find people who are completely and exclusively on just one side of the spectrum; intelligence is acquired, and it takes hard work to acquire it, which is why many smart people have good, complementary work ethics which then allow them to be successful. </p>
<p>^^sarvarox12. i’d just like to correct one minor error that you have in your original post: the higher your scores go, the more standard deviations away from the mean your score is. therefore, the higher you score, the LESS people there are with similar scores and the easier it is to discriminate between the good students and the best students. Hopefully universities such as Princeton would not commit such a minor, but fatal error as you have, but sometimes i certainly question whether or not they do know the difference since there are so many overly-qualified people being rejected</p>
<p>I see the SAT as lightly as you guys do. That’s why I’m winging it on this week SAT I reasoning test, hoping to score alright so that I could go to a good well-known college. Not aiming for HYP, too much work and effort. I’ll be alright with Cornell or any of the really great UC schools.</p>
<p>So it seems that only Lewdawgdude has brains enough to understand what i was getting at. o and nitrohawk and all other ‘college-aspirants-who-have-0-IQ’, you should be the ones killing yourselves. atleast that ways the world’s average IQ will rise by a coupla points.</p>
<p>oh and shen0211, i was being SARCASTIC.</p>
<p>sarvarox12, regardless of its inportance in adcoms’ mids, it’s still necessary for comparison because it serves as a <em>standardized</em> examination. Grades aren’t standard across schools, so they use the SAT to compare applicants in that regard. You might say that AP is a better way to compare, but isn’t that then just trading one test for another?</p>
<p>Shen0211: I did mean to say that a lack of organizational skills is critical. I have plenty of students with a “great work ethic” and they really want to do well, but they end of getting lower grades because they overlook simple details because they can’t find their guidelines or they get a zero because they left their paper at home because something unplanned (as it always is) happened in the morning and they left the paper on their desk because they didn’t get their stuff ready for school the night before. I could go on and on with examples, but in high school there usually are enough grades in a quarter to overcome these little problems but in college there usually are not enough grades to help them when they drop the ball. </p>
<p>Now I definitely agree that students with a “poor work ethic” mess up in school very quickly, but those that can’t get their self more organized really struggle. They will spend more time fixing needless errors are playing catch-up. As for those researchers who aren’t known for having strong organizational skills I would bet they have someone, like a personal assistant, helping them stay organized. It is hard keeping all of your ducks in a row if you aren’t organized.</p>
<p>Now I won’t even touch on the comment about secretaries because I have all of the respect in the world for them.</p>