<p><a href="tokenadult%20wrote:">quote</a>
I think it's quite debatable whether most admission committees at most highly selective colleges operate as post #7 speculates they do.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The "speculation" in post #7 was as follows:
"... even if [Stanford] does superscore, that doesn't mean it's going to pretend the bad scores never existed."</p>
<p>Not only is this statement recently corroborated by Stanford's admissions dean (as tokenadult knows), but NOT ONE UNIVERSITY has ever contradicted it, i.e. stated unequivocally that it will always "pretend the bad scores never existed".</p>
<p>Nonspecific statements about considering the highest scores, "only" the highest scores, the best scores, that more tests aren't penalized, etc abound --- and are generally refuted by the same universities if the discussion reaches the level of detail that distinguishes between (a) having a superscoring policy, and (b) operating (for every application, no matter its contents) as though non-highest scores don't exist. No university, given the opportunity to distinguish between those two possibilities, has EVER stated that its practice is the second. </p>
<p>As to how many of the top schools specifically confirm post #7, by indicating that they can or do consider the lower scores (or the number of sittings, or other information derived from the score report beyond the highest scores): </p>
<p>-- we have seen in recent College Confidential discussions statements from Caltech, MIT, Johns Hopkins and Stanford admissions people that make it clear the entire score report is read, taking the low scores into account (either always or for some applications). Princeton states clearly that it takes all scores into account in their review, as does Johns Hopkins. </p>
<p>-- Posters in CC quote admissions representatives from Duke, Yale, Williams, Dartmouth, and other schools as indicating that more than three SATs can, at least in some cases, be viewed negatively by admissions. Published remarks of the (current) admissions director at Rice and the director at Yale (3-4 years ago) also give specific numbers or patterns of retakes that can work against a candidate. </p>
<p>So the evidence currently available suggest that MOST top schools work exactly as post #7 mentioned: too many retakes can work against the candidate, and the admissions reading does not operate as though the lower scores don't exist. Tokenadult has posted (50 times!) a rather dubious claim that some comments by a Harvard admissions officer prove that Harvard never makes any use of the score report beyond the highest scores. As a matter of simple logic and in light of all the evidence about admission at other top schools, that claim is itself "quite debatable" until Harvard speaks more specifically about this matter.</p>