<p>How many of you here are applying to yale with less than a 2100 sat?</p>
<p>ehh less than 2100 might be tough</p>
<p>I don't necessarily think so. Yale receives so many typical 2200-2300 students with 4.0 gpa with standard math awards and typical captain of a sport + 4-5 meaningless EC's. If you stand out with a 2090 SAT having faced adversity from birth and competed in an EC on a national scale (debate), i think SAT isn't as important then.</p>
<p>^ just as an example right :rolleyes:</p>
<p>PS what about the 2200-2300s that have overcome adversity and competed in an EC on a national scale huh</p>
<p>I am applying to yale ( questbridge finalist )with an 2000 sat and an 31 act also 5.6 wgpa and 3.87 uwgpa. A lot of leadership and community hour services ( 500) also i speak 3 languages fluently ( i am from europe originally, my parents don't speak very good english ), 7aps, community colleges classes, and low income student in a competitive magnet hs ( 4th in my state ). I don't know if i am competitive enough to stand out .. But i applied and now i am crossing my fingers for the best .. Anyway i applied to my state schools too ..</p>
<p>I'm applying with a 2040 SAT, RD</p>
<p>Intl though.</p>
<p>Lol yes, I am the example I described naturally. But what does 2200-2300 SAT's say about you? That you can take a test well? That you know hints and cheats rather than the actual subject material?</p>
<p>It says that you're smart.</p>
<p>Now obviously there are other factors that determine that too, but this is a pretty big one.</p>
<p>Eating, I would disagree there. Under your theory, every perfect score SAT should be accepted by HYPS because they are smart. But they aren't so obviously it is not that much of a determining factor.</p>
<p>Moreover, i would argue the SAT II"s are much more indicative of your academic potential and capabilities (as they test not your so called "reasoning" but rather your "knowledge"). I have read several books which have backed this point.</p>
<p>Not to diminish your outstanding achievement (I say this with no sarcasm), but standardized testing--regardless of whether it's flawed or not--does offer a somewhat objective standard that GPAs and courseload can't. Goodguysm is absolutely right; it will be tough. That's not to say that you can't get in of course; but nevertheless, it will be tough (which is the case for everyone).</p>
<p>I have to disagree with your statement that perfect SATers are not accepted to HYPS because they "aren't so obviously" smart. The more likely answer is that it's HYPS that they're applying to and so there are already plenty of smart people.</p>
<p>disasterous, your attitude is rubbing me the wrong way...
just because you don't have a stellar SAT score doesn't mean they're not important, and just because you (probably ;)) have stellar SATII scores doesn't mean they are.</p>
<p>personally i think SATIIs just measure how well you memorized a specific amount of knowledge, which isn't all THAT difficult when you put your mind to it, but if indeed SATIIs DO measure smartness, then why couldn't the smart people who rocked SATIIs kick ass on SATI?</p>
<p>In any case, good luck on getting into Yale - we all need it, no matter what our SATI/SATII scores are. :)</p>
<p>First of all, I'd like to reinforce freesia's well wishes; I wish you good luck in your applications (especially to Yale, which I'm assuming is your first choice :).) I'm sure that your resume is very impressive, and I agree with you that accomplishments are much more important than scores. My first reply was hasty and rude, because, like freesia said, "your attitude [rubbed] me the wrong way." It just bugged that you posted a nice, well-meaning thread asking for input from people in similar situations, but upon the first reply, you got all defensive and started talking about why you deserved to get in, lol. But rereading your replies, you weren't being as arrogant as I initially perceived you as. It was late at night, lol. ;]</p>
<p>Anyways, as for your comments regarding the SAT I vs. II... well, you can see my thoughts (and contribute your own if you want!) on this</a> page of a thread I made a while ago. Personally, I consider neither type of test really representative of intelligence or of academic ability, because both are really learnable. However, I believe that the SAT I is less learnable, because some people study and study for it but reach a certain "ceiling," whereas for an SAT II, anyone who buys a prep book and memorizes the exact knowledge that is required for the subject test will inevitably do well. </p>
<p>To contradict myself, though, I believe that the SAT IIs are more... relevant. The ability to remember and apply knowledge is probably a better skill to have than the ability to think in the particular way that is necessary to do well on a reasoning test. But the value of both tests is severely diminished when you consider the fact that every applicant spends a different amount of time preparing for them -- and the fact that some people have just been *exposed to more knowledge.<a href="The%20latter%20is%20%5Bi%5Dmore%5B/i%5D%20applicable%20to%20subject%20tests%20--%20as%20I%20said%20in%20the%20other%20thread,%20of%20two%20students%20who%20take%20the%20World%20History%20test%20cold,%20someone%20whose%20World%20History%20class%20covered%20the%20entire%20curriculum%20has%20an%20advantage%20over%20someone%20whose%20class%20only%20covered,%20say,%20up%20to%20the%201800s.%20%20However,%20one%20could%20argue%20that%20the%20same%20principles%20come%20into%20play%20on%20the%20Reasoning%20test,%20as%20some%20people%20have%20been%20exposed%20to%20more%20vocabulary,%20explicitly%20learned%20more%20grammar%20rules,%20etc.%20%20That's%20debatable,%20but%20I%20won't%20go%20into%20it%20here.">/i</a> </p>
<p>Like I said in the other thread, though, both tests are inconclusive. So the whole debate is kinda moot, lol. </p>
<p>OH WELL ANYWAYS GOOD LUCK AT YALEEE</p>
<p>The SAT I is "less learnable" for a reason; it isn't meant to be "learned." If everyone seriously just took it cold it would accomplish its purpose in admissions (the original intent of the test makers, perhaps). The SAT II's on the other hand are mostly pure memorization. </p>
<p>And, the idea that standardized tests test how well you can think a "certain way" is bull. It doesn't take much work for a truly intelligent individual to narrow down answers, and then choose the one the text best supports (and even if this is the case, it's pretty simple to apply whatever "lens" you need in the decision making process). Plus, you could make the same argument for any test, ever.</p>
<p>Edit - forgot to add, my argument doesn't really apply to the new writing section, because that is pretty much just memorizing grammar, etc.</p>
<p>I took it cold and did well, so I'm inclined to agree with you. </p>
<p>But even the SAT I depends somewhat on your educational background/exposure to knowledge. I mean, as much as I'd like to think that everyone has been exposed to enough vocabulary to do well on CR through retention of meanings and educated guessing based on prefixes and suffixes, and that everyone has been exposed to enough writing to be able to deduce grammatical rules without studying them explicitly, the truth is that kids who have been better-educated in these areas are at an advantage.</p>
<p>eh, i just dont like CR cuz of the sentence completion questions. cuz i just dont like how they give you the words and have you plug them in. as for myself, i like the freedom of being able to formulate my own words rather than having them given to me.</p>
<p>and those no error questions on writing are soooo not fair... ACT ftw, lol.</p>
<p>As someone who looks down on standardized testing in general (frankly, I find it to be a ridiculous means of determining intelligence), I think it's fine to apply without a 2400 on the SAT or a 36 on the ACT. Now, getting below a 2000 might be a little low, but even so, I still feel that at some point a string of valedictorians with perfect SAT scores who worked at soup kitchens every weekend of their lives has to get a little boring. If there are other things about you that stand out and make you interesting, I think you should go for it. Numbers are numbers; your essay says far more about you, imo. ;)</p>
<p>Good point square girl. I'm not disputing the fact that getting a 2400 on the SAT's is fantastic, and indicative of some kind of intelligence, I'm simply disputing the fact that the SAT's are the "sure-fire" way of determining a person's worth in Yale or any other ivy league school for that matter. The economic advantage many students have on the SAT's is ridiculous (I've heard about several cases in my school where students paid over $4000 for tutoring for the SAT I - ONE SCORE!?). That just shows how much unnecessary emphasis applicants and colleges alike are putting on the SAT's.</p>
<p>well... sucks. what are you going to do about it?</p>
<p>i mean the facts are, things aren't going to change any time soon so you have two options:</p>
<p>1) retake it again and do better
2) stop harping on the issue and see what happens.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As someone who looks down on standardized testing in general (frankly, I find it to be a ridiculous means of determining intelligence)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Standardized testing has it's place in college admissions. It gives AOs a tool to use to compare students that have had very different academic opportunities (eg. prep school that offers 30 AP courses vs. rural public that offers none--I got this example from the head AO of a selective LAC) and grading systems (eg. using AP and Subject tests to help put grades into perspective). Of course there are problems, such as access to expensive prepping (though just about anyone can afford the xiggi method ;)), but no system is perfect, get used to it.</p>
<p>^ I agree with entomom, it puts all your grades in perspective. Squaregirl, I think someone who has a 2400 on their SAT and works at a soup kitchen every morning is a truly outstanding thing, and belittling someone like that is sort of immature.</p>