SAT score for princeton

Colleges and Universities A-Z Princeton University
1

<p>Hello all,</p>

<p>I don't post often, but have been lurking around for quite some time now. Now, my best single sitting SAT, and superscore for that matter, is a 2200: CR-680, M-760, W-760. I will be retaking the SAT in November, and was wondering what type of score I should shoot for to have a decent chance at getting admitted to Princeton. (decent as far as top school admissions go). Now, being somewhat new to this whole college chances business, I'm not sure how much SAT/ACT scores impact decisions. For a person like me (GPA UW: 4.0, most rigorous courseload at school, #1 in class [school does not rank though], extremely good SAT IIs, 6 5s, 2 4s on AP tests (8 exams total), decent ECs (JV cross country 3 years, lead member in robotics, team leader in robotics, started free tutoring service, etc.) ) what score should I shoot for. In particular, how much does the math score affect me personally, as I scored a 5 on BC as a junior, and received an 800 on the SAT II math section. Also, how much does Princeton take into consideration the writing component of the SAT score. I apologize for the choppiness/uncohesive nature of this writing; its late at night and im going to go to bed soon. Thank you very much for your advice!</p>

2

<p>Just get the best score you can and don’t worry about insignificant BS. But if you want real data, look at Princeton’s common data set for SAT ranges, how important each part of your application is, etc.</p>

<p><a href=“http://registrar.princeton.edu/university_enrollment_sta/common_cds2008.pdf[/url]”>http://registrar.princeton.edu/university_enrollment_sta/common_cds2008.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Princeton’s SAT percentile ranges, for example:</p>

<p>



         25th      75th
CR       690       790
Math     700       790
Writing  690       780

</p>

3

<p>The higher one’s score the better, but the effect of an increase is minimal once one hits 2300.</p>

4

<p>^ True but focus less on the combined score and more on the individual components. A score of 720/730 or above on CR would put you in a decent position. For math, tons of people get 800s so try not make sure you hit that (especially since your current 760 is like 2 mistakes away from the 800).Writing is given less attention because not enough data exists to ascertain predictive validity. But your current score seems fine.</p>

5

<p>Wow you are almost identical to me in ECs and scores. You should be fine. It all comes down to the essays at this point.</p>

6

<p>Thank you all very much. I feel a lot better about myself, but will still really try to nab those last 40 points in math, and get my CR to around 720-750</p>

7

<p>I don’t want to throw cold water on this, but I would treat the 75th percentile for enrolled students on Math and Reading as typical for unhooked admits.</p>

8

<p>^ I don’t know about that; you’re implying that 75% of applicants are hooked.</p>

<p>Edit: Woops. Now that I think about that, you’re actually implying that greater than 50% of candidates are hooked.</p>

9

<p>Please don’t assume that hooked applicants all have lower stats.</p>

10

<p>Who assumed that?</p>

11

<p>Seriously sherpa, who assumed that? Obviously as a whole, unhooked applicants have far superior stats than hooked applicants. No one said all hooked applicants have lower stats.</p>

<p>I wouldn’t exactly agree than the 75th percentile is the norm for unhooked applicants though. Maybe like… 60th percentile.</p>

12

<p>The 75th percentile is essentially the same as the 99th. Everyone maxes out their SAT scores to like 780-800 on their sections, so variation is minimal.</p>

13

<p>

Seemingly everyone on CC.</p>

<p>

Including you.</p>

<p>Seriously, why do you think that? And in what way is it obvious?</p>

14

<p>To be honest, the required score is lower for those with hooks. I’d say a 2,300 is good enough for anyone, but of course no score is really safe. I’d aim for at least a 2,300, but try to get it up as high as possible.</p>

15

<ol>
<li>“hooked applicants all have lower stats”</li>
<li>“as a whole, unhooked applicants have far superior stats than hooked applicants”</li>
</ol>

<p>1 and 2 are not logically equivalent at all.</p>

<p>But anyway, here is a logical proof of why hooked applicants as a whole have lower stats:
-Hooked applicants have an advantage over unhooked applicants (hence the name)
-Having a hook reduces the need to have high stats
-Not needing high stats will increase the likelihood that hooked applicants with lower stats will be accepted into the college of choice
-Because unhooked applicants DO have a need to have high stats, unhooked applicants with lower stats are less likely to be accepted into the college of choice
-With a large enough sample size (say n>500), unhooked applicants will undoubtedly have higher stats than hooked applicants.</p>

<p>To most people, this is obvious, elementary, and indisputable.</p>

16

<p>RB - I don’t disagree with you and I appreciate you straightforward logical response. I acknowledge that the bar is lower for the hooked. It frustrates me, though, that there seems to be a widespread assumption on CC that accepted legacies, recruited athletes, and URMs are generally otherwise un- or under- qualified compared to the unhooked pool. Take away their hooks, though, and some of the hooked would still be top applicants. Too often on CC people seem to assume they are the statistical cellar dwellars.</p>

17

<p>No one in this forum claimed what sherpa is apparently frustrated with. Not the fact that I said “greater than fifty perfect.”</p>

18

<p>

ST - Your post #8 and the one above it seem predicated on the assumption that most or all hooked applicants are in the bottom 25%. You didn’t “claim” so outright, but what else could have you been assuming in your analysis?</p>

19

<p>I never assumed nor did I communicate that I felt that “most or all hooked applicants are in the bottom 25%.” You must be making a logical error somewhere.</p>

20

<p>I should further support this idea by divulging that I am an URM with an SAT score above the 50th percentile at Harvard. It’s illogical that I would contend that all hooked candidates’ scores are lower than unhooked applicants’ scores are.</p>