@Erin’sdad “It seems there were 1400 36 scorers and about 300 who scored 2400 last year.” If you are correct that proves my point. It seems there are more than 4X as many people who got a 36, therefore it is less rare and less valued. I would imagine it is still a great score. Or perhaps the reverse is true, a 36 is valued but a 2400 being rarer is valued more.
Also my quote was taken out of context since I was responding to T26E4’s hyperbole.
" For a fair comparison, you need to look at 2350-2400 in SAT…I doubt you know the numbers of either anyway." What numbers do I not kknow @billcsho why do I have to look at 2350. My point was about a 2400, not a 2350 and from what I recall when I was looking up my own scores a 2350 is def not a 36, especially since in some score charts a 2320 is the upper range of 34.