<p>I'm not disagreeing or trashing anyone's score.</p>
<p>I was just surprising by the attitude that a 2040 was "surprisingly high" for a 3.0 GPA.</p>
<p>I think part of that is motivated by the difference and grade and SAT averages where we come from. I go to a competitive private school where SSAT scores are a factor in admissions and most people have around B+ averages. I presume the grades are higher and scores lower at public schools, though I honestly can't really speak to that with any authority.</p>
<p>That would explain it... I attend a rural public school where high GPA doesn't necessarily correlate to higher SAT's and vice versa... we place lesser emphasis on SAT scores. Our val and sal were accepted to brown and yale/harvard respectively which was really a unique situation.</p>
<p>Oh, I should put that 2.9 in perspective. I think he's ranked at about the 50% mark for our class. And his SAT score is higher than our top-ranked person's. I think that score is probably top 1-2%.</p>
<p>I never said exhaust your resources. I bought the College Board book, read it, did the practice tests, took the test once, and moved on.</p>
<p>And of course, middle class means different things to different people. I forget who, but a recent political commenter mentioned that just about everyone thinks they are in the middle class whether they are or not.</p>
<p>I think my school just does a lot of the SAT thing so they can brag about National Merit semifinalists (among other things).</p>
<p>
[quote]
I would say I'm middle class but I don't see why I need to exhaust resources on a single test that has little bearing but a stupid number that people think translates into college acceptance. I simply went in and took the test and got a 730 math 690 crit reading, 670 writing. I don't feel like I need to exhuast my resources or time on a test that doesn't really do anything for you in my opinion. You have every right to disagree.
<p>Nope, will the college hear my excuses or see any reason for my SAT's. So why make excuses now then? Do you think I care about the opinion of elitist CC members? Exactly, and I think our school does offer an SAT prep class but that is so stupid to me. They are teaching a class on how to beat a test, how is that learning at all? The emphasis on SAT's has become so stupid that the test has lost its principle importance: to test IQ's in a subject related manner.</p>
<p>I agree 100% with your sentiments there disasterous. SAT prep classes and tutors are a pretty big abuse of the system in my mind, though I guess I can forgive most people for using them when everyone they're competing with is.</p>
Put yourself in the shoes of the admissions committee that has to evaluate these elements. How objective are they? The test scores are (or at least appear to be) the most objective. Recommendations are almost completely subjective, unless they are very bad. Essays may not have even been written by the applicant, or may be heavily edited by adults. Grades vary widely from school to school, and even within a single school, from teacher to teacher. Some ECs, such as those related to awards and competitions, are objective, but otherwise it's difficult to tell what it really means that an applicant was the president of a club. So, the SAT is always going to be used to give some objective context to an application.
The other thing is that for the most selective schools, there are essentially two kinds of candidates who are admitted: (1) persons for whom everything is very, very good or (2) persons who have some unique desirable quality or skill, but who still are quite good at everything else.</p>
<p>disasterous, I think rb3 was trying to suggest that you were making excuses, not for you to make excuses. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.</p>
<p>And yeah, SAT prep classes are ridiculous. Unless you can't do the math or...you can't read, the prep classes aren't going to do much. I've noticed that the only way you can prep for the verbal section of the test is to read a lot, starting from a young age. And frankly, by the time kids start thinking about SATs, it's too late to do any of that.</p>
<p>But I also think you're being very hostile and defensive. If you don't care about our opinions, why ask for it in the first place?</p>
<p>It's in my human nature to be defensive and furthermore I like to debate, thus that's why I put a controversial subject on "Yale"'s forum, where people tend to have high SAT's and like to defend the "objectivity" of them. I find it humorous. </p>
<p>To readdress hunt, the SAT's are also "subjective" so I completely disagree with your point there. 1. The writing section (essay) is completely subjective as it is graded by two readers (great writers won't always get high scores because they write differently). 2. A person's background and social class will influence their scores accordingly. 3. Because of test prep/other resources, the SAT's aren't that effective at staying objective as they should be.</p>
<p>I agree that the writing section is subjective, which is why I suspect schools probably don't pay that much attention to that section either. But as for the rest of the test, everybody takes the same test and they are scored on the same scale. While there are problems and issues, it is still the most objective measure colleges have to look at, and they are going to use it to put a candidate in context.</p>
<p>Actually Hunt, Harvard,s research shows that the writing score is the only one that really has any correlation to success in college. (CR next and Math last)</p>
<p>I would actually agree with Hunt over you 2by2. The writing score is too subjective to truly correlate to college success. The essay portion is almost 30 percent of the writing score and it is graded by two readers (who truly think they are grading it "correctly") who have their own subjective opinions despite the so-called "rubric" they grade with (and please don't parse my writing for mistakes and say that's why I have a low writing score, thank you).</p>
<p>I think that the writing score is probably more objective than most of us think. Obviously the readers don't have very much time to read each essay, so I think they really just focus on grammar and spelling, clarity of writing, organization, and whether or not you're actually saying something. The specifics don't matter; they're not looking for inspiring metaphors or unique voice... they just want to know that you can write coherently.</p>
<p>Now I'll admit that I have a pretty high SAT score, but I think that the inverse of the argument you're trying to make is true as well: people with low SAT scores tend to attack the test as irrelevant. I agree with you that the test is absolutely not a perfect measure of intelligence, and SAT prep certainly creates havoc in the system, but the test is still the only standardized part of the application. While I agree with you that it may not be as objective as it's supposed to be, it still is the most objective part of the application.</p>
<p>Sorry disasterous, I know that it's human nature to be defensive. But in an argument there's a difference in being defensive and defending your point. I think it would serve you a lot better if you were more of the latter and less of the former. I actually agree with many of your points, but the way they are framed makes me want to disagree with you. There is a certain belligerency to them.</p>
<p>I apologize for being belligerent. Obviously I can't change anyones mind but I like to debate for the hell of it. Even if I had great SAT scores, I would still doubt the effectiveness of the "standardized" test. (By most people's standards I DO have high SAT's, but here less than 2400 is considered less than spectacular).</p>
<p>"Even if I had great SAT scores, I would still doubt the effectiveness of the "standardized" test."</p>
<p>We would never know if this will be true, since it's all about bias and perspective.</p>
<p>It's cool if you want to talk about the usefulness or uselessness in this case of SATs, but please, don't try to elevate your scores anymore. You could also say by 'most' people's standards, a 1800 is a HIGH score. I've literally met people who bragged about their 'fantastic' SATs, and after I congratulated them, they revealed that their score was actually like a 1700. </p>
<p>Besides, you realize you applied to Yale with SATs in the lowest 25 percentile, so why not stick with Yale's standards? </p>
<p>I have to concede one point to you, however, and it's that it's actually true that I for one, am no longer impressed by any score lower than a 2400...maybe the SATs are getting easier, b/c it seems like every other day I find out someone else I know has a perfect score. But I do think a ~2200 is very respectable, so I'm not a complete scores snob :)</p>
<p>I honestly am not trying to say your scores are terrible or that the SATs are awesome/perfect/whatever, I'm just adding some thoughts, perhaps in a manner equal in bluntness to your own. I apologize in advance if any comments of mine were too offensive and whatnot.</p>
<p>To put it in perspective, a 1940 is 90th percentile, which is the same percentile as getting an 800 on the Math2C
A 2200 which you find 'respectable' is at the 99th percentile</p>
<p>hellosail, thank you. I actually don't like the flower itself, just the word. :)</p>
<p>rb3, and you are absolutely correct. except i was referring to yale's 'middle 50 percent SATs of first year students':
SAT Critical Reading: 700 - 800
SAT Math: 700 - 790
SAT Writing: 700 - 790
This pretty much says 75% of enrolled students had at least a 2100.</p>
<p>Using the national percentiles aren't going to do much good here - we're not on the U of Montana forum...let's raise the bar a little.</p>