So I scored a 1510 (800M, 730 E) and a 34 (35M, 33R, 35S, 33E). However, I have not taken Subject Tests yet, which I definitely plan on doing. My question is, should I retake the SAT or ACT to improve my chances or just take the subject tests? Both SAT and ACT are first-sittings for me, and I am pretty confident I can raise my score.
*1530, not 1510. Sorry about that. Typed it wrong sorry.
I always recommend that students have at least a 750 on each section and preferably above a 1550 total for very, very selective schools like Princeton, MIT, and Columbia. Anything below a 750 can look like a weakness.
According to Princeton’s website, 4.5% of applicants with SAT scores between 1380 and 1490 get in, while 8% with at least a 1500 get in (compared to a 5.5% overall admit rate). I think it is fair to assume that the lower end of the 1500s is probably below 8% while the top end is probably above 8%. When rates change so dramatically between 1400s and 1500s (nearly double) it would be foolish to think that these rates suddenly stop correlating with higher scores.
I remember like 5-10 years ago, during the days of the old SAT, Princeton released stats for students who got in the 2300s, which I would assume corresponds to roughly 1530 or 1540 on today’s test. Princeton’s overall acceptance rate at the time was around 7% and the acceptance rate for applicants who scored in the 2300s was around 18% (over two and a half times the overall rate . Perhaps we can infer from this that higher scores even with respect to the 1500s can and do make a big difference, though there are some admitted weaknesses with this inference–perhaps I am grasping at straws.
More convincingly, according to MIT’s website, 11% of students with EBRW scores between 750 and 800 are admitted, whereas only 7% of students with EBRW scores between 700 and 740 are admitted. This is a big difference–a student with an EBRW score of at least 750 is over 50% more likely to get an acceptance letter than a student with a score in the lower 700s. The practical implications of this should be clear.
Even more strikingly, at MIT 9% of students with Math scores between 750 and 800 are admitted, whereas only 2% (!!!) of students with scores between 700 and 740 are accepted. The extent to which this phenomenon occurs at other schools is unclear. MIT does have a stronger math and science focus than many of its peers, but I also get the sense that at top schools a math score in the lower 700s is decidedly unimpressive and probably even viewed as a weakness in the application.
These numbers also should make one wonder what the admit rates are for students who score even higher, say above 780, on a given section. People on CC have given me flack in the past for suggesting that improving scores beyond 750 can make a big difference, but I think there is good reason to assume that improving scores beyond this point does make a big difference. If it didn’t, I assume many colleges would be more transparent in what stats they release. Assuming that after 750 higher scores magically stop correlating so strongly with higher acceptance rates seems unwise.
Some might argue that it is not the higher SAT scores that helps these students with higher SAT scores get in. They argue that higher SAT scores are correlated with more impressive students. Maybe. MIT’s website claims this (dishonestly so I think). But I have two responses to this. First, when the differences in acceptance rates are so dramatic between the lower and upper half of the 700s do you really want to take the chance? Second, do we really think that tippy top SAT scores correlate that well to impressiveness in other domains? Do we really think that students who score above a 750 on EBRW are at least 1.5 times as impressive as their peers who score in the lower half of the 700s? Likewise for math. The SAT is a telling exam, but I am skeptical that it is that telling.
And, to those who comment on this post, I recognize that I played fast and loose with numbers. None of this was intended as a formal analysis. Still, I think the numbers are sufficiently telling. Students should try to score in the upper half of the 700s on each section of the SAT.
Additionally, one thing I didn’t consider, which would probably change the analysis considerably, is that many of the students with lower scores who are admitted are hooked in some way (e.g. recruited athlete). If we were to remove hooked students, I assume the numbers would become even more striking.
Ideally, both.
For the schools listed by the OP, I’d agree.
I’m one of them. But in the absence of data, neither of us can prove our theory.
I have no dog in this fight, as I never even considered applying to MIT, but IMO, MIT is more transparent than most colleges. Everyone is free to believe or not believe. This is a case where I choose to believe. YMMV.
Valid for D1 schools,but not applicable, IMO,at MIT. Athletes there get no bump (or a feather on the scale, depending on the sport) in the admissions process.
there will be 10 applicants for every unhooked slot with a 34 or higher or 1530 or higher at those schools. MIT requires subject tests. And without a hooked category (URM, being from wyoming, pell grant eligible) the shear numbers are stacked against one. So if you get double 800s on subject tests you would stand out more
My son got triple 800s in one sitting on the subject tests and still didn’t get into MIT. 
But I agree with the others, take the SAT and ACT one more time and see what happens.
@Hthorton, while your test scores and your GPA are important, I believe your essays and your ECs will help differentiate you from the sea of 1500+ SAT scores. Put yourself into your essays. Show your unique voice. Research the colleges’ programs so you can write with specificity. The admissions officers will need to visualize what makes you uniquely you. That said, I think it can be good to take the tests up to 3 times. If you apply to Yale, remember they take all scores. Good luck!
Also, we know someone with 1550 SATs ( I believe 800 Math) and amazing ECs who was not admitted to MIT.
“Perhaps we can infer from this that higher scores even with respect to the 1500s can and do make a big difference, though there are some admitted weaknesses with this inference–perhaps I am grasping at straws.”
Probably more likely that the variable that doubled the acceptance rates was not the score itself but the influence of “other” in the sense that those in the highest group had more remarkable achievements (or other favored attributes) than those in the less high group.
“First, when the differences in acceptance rates are so dramatic…”
The difference that may look so isn’t dramatic. It’s like the difference between statistical significance and meaningful difference. Yeah it looks like a reliable difference but is it really “dramatic”? no.
" do you really want to take the chance?"
Shouldn’t that depend upon what the alternatives are to spending more time studying for the tests? The issue isn’t usually doing nothing for hours vs studying for the tests. If studying for the tests takes a student out of meaningful activities, then there is a cost that needs to be factored in.
I would say that the difference between 9% and 2% is dramatic. I’m not sure how much more than 4.5x as likely to be admitted one would need to see to be considered significant.
OP, it is a good question as to how much time you would spend preparing for the SAT a second time, and what else you could do with that time to improve your application.
Subject tests come first - they are required.
Unless you are completely time-constrained, I would say that investing the time to prep for and take one of the tests again is worthwhile (from the concordance, you seem to do slightly better on the SAT). My opinion is that there is indeed a point above which the scores are kind of lumped together, but at MIT, Princeton, etc., I think it’s 1550.
(fwiw, with 20% of Math 2, 13% of Physics, and 10% of Chemistry Subject Test takers scoring 800, I suspect MIT has thousands of applications with at least three 800 scores, and rejects 70% of them)
To reiterate a few points/to respond to a few comments:
-
I think it would be very, very, very surprising if higher SAT scores magically stopped correlating with higher acceptance rates once 750 is reached.
-
You might think they correlate so swell because higher SAT scores are correlated with being more impressive in other areas and this may be part of the difference in acceptance rates. But lacking data, to be safe one should assume that it is the higher SAT scores that make the difference. It might be impressiveness in other domains, but do we really think impressiveness in other domains correlates this well with SAT scores–we’re talking about relatively small score differences. Look at a school like Stanford: they are know for prioritizing impressiveness in other domains (more so than many of their peers) and their standardized test scores are lower than those of their peers. The most impressive students often don’t have the highest test scores.
-
Perhaps ‘dishonest’ was the wrong word. I probably should have said ‘incorrect’–I have no idea whether they think they are telling their truth. Yes, I would agree that they are more transparent than most of their peers. However, if higher SAT scores (beyond a 750) did not correlate with higher acceptance rates, what would be the harm in releasing acceptance rates for every score? Colleges claim that higher scores beyond a certain point don’t make a difference, yet not even one school has put their money where their mouth is (doesn’t this seem fishy?). I think admissions officers rely on standardized test scores more than they should and more than they think they do. There are only so many factors by which to differentiate students and I think that admissions officers use standardized test scores as a crutch to some extent. Again, they may not realize this. A given person probably cannot tell that she is admitting 15% of students with a 1530, yet 25% of students with a 1570. I think if colleges were to release data sets on scores vs. acceptance rates, everyone would see the truth for what it is, everyone would study much harder for the SAT and ACT, and colleges would no longer be able to use these tests as well to differentiate applicants.
-
A higher score is of course no guarantee. I would guess that students with a 1600 are accepted probably around a quarter of the time. Other factors (the college’s relationship with the high school attended, hooks, whether the applicant applied in the early round, outstanding essays, outstanding ECs, other test scores, etc.) can play a bigger role in admissions.
-
It is not generally the case (especially not during the summer–a great time to prepare for the SAT (yes, even before senior year)) that time devoted to one thing means time taken away from the other. High school students are very busy, unreasonably so, but they aren’t being productive during all of their waking hours, especially not during the summer.
The quantitative (test scores and GPA) profile of any applicant, again, is just one facet of the admissions process. We don’t know what the OP’s qualitative profile is: EC’s, essays, LOR’s, URM, SES, etc. The OP’s question really depends on his/her qualitative profile. Even apart from the rest, if his/her EC’s exhibits very high level of accomplishments, then the answer to the OP’s question can change.
I personally know of many kids that have been admitted to these schools and their peers with the below average quantitative profile but with very high, note-worthy accomplishments. One such student was accepted to Harvard based on his demonstrated leadership in an international organization. (And let’s not forget David Hogg, the latest example). Another student (way below the OP’s test scores and with less than impressive GPA) was accepted to Columbia/Juilliard joint degree program based on her musical accomplishments. My musician son’s SATI and ACT scores were very similar to the OP’s while his SAT Math II score was at high end and his SAT II Bio at a lower end of 700. His GPA in an IB Diploma program was 3.93 (unweighted) and 4.64 (weighted). If my son hadn’t exhibited a distinction in his music related EC’s, I’m inclined to believe that he wouldn’t have been admitted to Princeton. I’m also inclined to state the same pretty much for the majority of my son’s fellow musicians at Princeton. Another student that I’m quite familiar with was admitted to Princeton, on the other hand, with a set of garden variety EC’s but a very impressive quantitative profile. The same for another local student who was admitted to MIT. I don’t know of anyone around me, in fact, who was admitted to MIT based on the strength of non-academic related EC’s.
If the OP, or anyone else for that matter, is un-hooked and indistinct in EC’s, I’d recommend re-taking the tests with the goal of scoring as high as possible while focusing on other qualitative facets of the application, particularly the essays and LOR’s. I’ve always maintained that, in today’s admissions paradigm, up to 80% of the class at these schools each year is given priority seats to recruited athletes, URMs, legacies, development cases, SES, well-connected (politically and administratively), PR useful (big names that sell the college brand) and even to wealthy scoundrels with devious schemes. Those unhooked and indistinct, in other words, have about 20% seats remaining to compete for, and their best chances are going in with the higher end scores, GPA and compelling essays and other qualitative elements that make one stand out above others. I also know that for the vast majority of quantitatively dominant applicants, they usually end up at excellent top schools even if their select choice schools disappoint them.
@skieurope You keep saying athletes get no bump at MIT. Based on what I see (anecdotal evidence, to be sure) I believe that may have been the case in the future but not any more. My son knows 3 students from out town who were accepted to MIT this year and all are athletes. They have very good scores and grades but people who are more outstanding academically were rejected. I think some MIT alumni interviewers here said the same thing, and I’ve heard from a couple of MIT faculty who said they observed changes in the recent incoming classes.
@yucca10 As I’ve often said, the plural of anecdote is not data. And I will fully admit that I have no hard data to support my position on MIT athletic recruiting. But my comment is based upon what MIT says:
https://mitadmissions.org/help/faq/does-mit-recruit-athletes/
plus what I have heard from students/parents in the process. People are free to believe/disbelieve. Regardless, as I said upthread, whatever bump one may get for a particular sport as MIT is negligible compared to a D1 school. Additionally, your other quote also comes into play:
Which applies to every single top private (and most public) school; highest stats do not always equal acceptance.
But this is all OT for this conversation.
Are you talking about freshman or transfer admission? In another post you say that you will be starting at GA Tech in the fall. http://talk.qa.collegeconfidential.com/transfer-students/2137068-transfer-from-georgia-tech.html#latest
Oh, good catch @happy1 . If we’re talking transfers ,then Princeton needs to come off the list. Princeton’s transfers are basically limited to cc transfers, vets, and other non-traditional students. An applicant from a 4 year university, particularly one at the level of GA Tech, has zero chance of transfer acceptance.
@yucca10 @skieurope at least for Soccer, the MIT coach said if the applicant can make it to the “final pool” the coach can pull the application. Also, at least for this team sport the coach ranks the athletes by number so that the admissions committee is seeing that info as well. So while MIT soccer coaches don’t have nearly as much pull at Ivy, U. chicago, NESCAC, etc. they do have pull for those who can make it to the final culling. Since it was a close friend’s kid I don’t have more information than that, but MIT has had some teams on par with NESCACs so they must have more then zero pull in admissions.
The coach’s also screen for math/science scores and subject test scores etc… before they even encourage someone to apply