<p>When Harvard looks at sat scores, do they look at the highest scores from each section or the highest scores overall?</p>
<p>thanks,</p>
<p>yeah. Harvard has said many times that they use the highest scores. They read all of the scores, but when they vote on applications to make the decisions, the committee members usually only see the top scores.</p>
<p>thefishofsorts,</p>
<p>my question was if Harvard looks at the highest scores from each section(like the highest from writing, reading, math) or if harvard looks at the higest score overall?</p>
<p>for example.. if I got 700 on Math last time (2300 total), and get 800 on math this time(2200), would they take 800 from the lower score, or 700 from the higher score?</p>
<p>Sorry if it's too confusing..</p>
<p>they will take your 3 highest scores from any sitting, so you would have a 2400</p>
<p>Seriously?
Well then someone could just take the SAT 3 times.
And concentrate on math the first time.
CR the second time.
And writing the third time.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Seriously?
Well then someone could just take the SAT 3 times.
And concentrate on math the first time.
CR the second time.
And writing the third time.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>But remember, they see ALL your scores and admissions officers are pretty sharp -- they'll be able to read into that strategy and would not be a good thing for you.</p>
<p>I know but some people have no trouble getting a 700+ on all subjects.
They could just make sure they get a 700+ in two of them and an 800 on the other each time.
Well I guess if you're getting a 700+ every time, it wouldn't matter much anyway lol</p>
<p>to rinysline.</p>
<p>well, they take your highest individual scores to make a highest overall scores.</p>
<p>they do not use the highest total score from an entire test.</p>
<p>For example, if you scored 700CR, 800M, 740W, that would be a 2240.
If you scored a 690CR, 790M, 800W, that would be a 2280.</p>
<p>In that case, the committee that would make a final decision would see only the 700CR, 800M, and 800W, and your composite score would be considered a 2300, although they don't really add them up, but look at each sections to evaluate skills, rather.</p>
<p>
[quote]
[quote]
Seriously?
Well then someone could just take the SAT 3 times.
And concentrate on math the first time.
CR the second time.
And writing the third time.
<a href="%5Bb%5Dxjayz%5B/b%5D%20wrote:">/quote</a> But remember, they see ALL your scores and admissions officers are pretty sharp -- they'll be able to read into that strategy and would not be a good thing for you.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>xjayz, if anything of that sort was said to you by a Harvard admissions person, it would settle some debates in the other threads. Can you elaborate, if you have further information?</p>
<p>
[quote]
They could just make sure they get a 700+ in two of them and an 800 on the other each time.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>They could make sure?! The whole reason for retakes, which is something no one did when I was in high school in my region, is that sometimes test-takers CAN'T make sure what they get each time. The test time limits are administered section by section, and (to answer the OP's question) the test scores are considered section by section. So a set of two or three SAT I scores with varying section scores will be considered, by Harvard admission officers, to be an overall set of {highest critical reading score, highest math score, highest writing score}. There has been a concern expressed by some applicants that taking the SAT I more than once (that is, twice or three times) is disadvantageous, despite the statement on the Harvard admission Web site "We consider a student's best test scores." There would, of course, be no ADVANTAGE to doing a retake if the test-taker scored a 2400 the first time. (I can't imagine why a test-taker who knows he has a 2400 in hand would retake, but perhaps you can.) Taking the statement "We consider a student's best test scores" at face value, that would suggest an applicant MIGHT gain an advantage from a retake, but the applicant would have some sense beforehand, I suppose, whether the score is likely to go up on the retake. What I have suggested to applicants, in various threads, is that if they think </p>
<p>a) they will score better (on an overall section-by-section basis, as above) on the retake, </p>
<p>and </p>
<p>b) have nothing better to do (e.g., orchestra performance, finishing a major school paper, debate tournament, math contest, etc.) on the same weekend, </p>
<p>they may as well do the retake FEARLESSLY. (Fear and worry about the retake may affect scores enough to make the retake score no better than the original score.) </p>
<p>Every year some applicants are admitted with SAT I scores below the 25th percentile level of the enrolled class (by definition). But it is generally prudent to have the highest SAT I score, among other desirable characteristics, one can submit to a highly selective college like Harvard. I think you, the applicant, will know best about your own overall admission profile whether time spent trying to get a higher SAT I score is better spent than time spent perfecting high school grades or performance in a challenging extracurricular activity. I simply believe the Harvard admission office when it posts on its Web site "We consider a student's best test scores," so I don't worry that one more test, or even two more tests, would be risky in the uncertain situation that a college admission application generally is. Harvard admits students who submit up to five test scores, so the overall count of test scores submitted doesn't seem to be a ground for worrying.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So a set of two or three SAT I scores with varying section scores will be considered, by Harvard admission officers, to be an overall set of {highest critical reading score, highest math score, highest writing score}.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Whether that is literally true or not is the whole point at issue, and there is plenty of evidence posted that it is (almost certainly) not literally true at Harvard or any selective school that shares Harvard's definition of "highest scores". Your comments correctly point out that when Harvard says highest scores, it means section-by-section best subscores, as do most schools. But that only clarifies the formula.</p>
<p>The question at hand was not what mathematical calculation is performed by the admissions office, but whether that calculation is used blindly as a total and all-purpose substitute for the score report.</p>
<p>I take the Harvard admission officers at their word when they say on the Harvard admission Web site, "We consider a student's best test scores." I have seen no verifiable information on CC nor anywhere else to cause me to doubt that statement.</p>
<p>"They could just make sure they get a 700+ in two of them and an 800 on the other each time."</p>
<p>^I wish I could make sure of that, lol.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I take the Harvard admission officers at their word when they say on the Harvard admission Web site, "We consider a student's best test scores."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The subject was not Harvard's honesty, but what they do and don't do with multiple SAT scores (which can of course depend on other parts of the application). Your interpretations of Harvard's statements are apparently contradicted by further statements from their admissions representatives and ex-admissions officers, and by parallel statements from other selective institutions with the same highest-scores policy. The Harvard-specific statements have been posted and are verifiable; one was published, others were by active CC posters. For the parallel situation, here are two examples of institutions with the same policy as Harvard ("superscoring") and similar descriptions of it on their web site, where admissions directors clearly indicate that the reading process at their institution indeed can differentiate between a set of multiple SATs and a one-sitting superscore of the same.</p>
<p>One of UPenn's admissions directors, quoted in the Montauk book that you cited, states that a "really radical jump" in SAT scores, 200-300 points, would raise suspicisions that the applicant may have cheated, and invite a call to the College Board. </p>
<p>Rice's current dean of admissions, who is quoted in the 2006 book by Eva Ostrum (ex-Yale AO) and provides an endorsement on the back cover, states that when she sees applicants with "three, four, five SATs in junior and senior year", "you begin to question their judgement". Ostrum also quotes an admissions officer from Mt. Holyoke saying that, when they required the SAT, it would "color [their] judgement" of a candidate to see too many tests.</p>
<p>Yale has the same policy as Harvard. Both on its web site and in a direct answer on from Margit Dahl (admissions director) in the interactive Q & A quoted above, they take pains to clarify that readers of the file see ALL scores. The questioner did not mention this; but Dahl, and Yale on its web site, deliberately introduced the point, apparently to clarify that there is a potential for consideration of ALL scores.</p>
<p>Note that while Montauk was never an admissions officer, his own synthesis of the many admissions officer opinions he solicited, is simply "Do not take the SAT more than 3 times". He also writes that "admissions officers start to look skeptically at applicants who take the SAT too many times". He did not extrapolate from the Notre Dame quotation as an indicator of what Harvard, Yale and Princeton do.</p>
<p>Both Ostrum's book and Montauk's give balanced descriptions of the pros and cons of multiple SAT taking, and they are certainly far from alarmist about taking several exams. But they do not have any prior agenda to discredit either position, and some people here might do well to emulate that open-mindedness.</p>
<p>So this would sum up to say that no college makes it disadvantageous to take the SAT I more than once, because two or three times isn't too many times, right?</p>
<p>Since you can pick which test dates for your ACT, it would make more sense to super score that test. Wouldn't that be easier??</p>
<p>Personally, I think that people put too much weight into both test, and that's why standardized test do not carry that much weight after a first read. There are too many people who know how to "beat the test". Colleges are not new at this. If you are going to find out what kind of person you are dealing with before you make a final selection, you will rely on personal qualities, course load, and commitment to there communities and themselves. Are you a risk taker, or do you look like every other applicant?? </p>
<p>Do you seek leadership opportunities, or are you content with what is given to you??</p>
<p>I believe that those are the questions colleges really look for in your applications.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So this would sum up to say that no college makes it disadvantageous to take the SAT I more than once, because two or three times isn't too many times, right?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As soon as you define unequivocally what that phrase "is disadvantageous to take..." means, it should become clear that your statement is either information-free and correct, or meaningful but refuted many times over.</p>
<p>Refuted how?</p>
<p>Equivocal statements allow hiding from a clear refutation by switching interpretations.</p>
<p>As soon as you give an unequivocal definition of what, exactly, you mean by the mystery
phrase "disadvantageous to take", I will be happy to either refute it or establish its lack of information content.</p>
<p>Likewise I'm sure.</p>