<p>
</p>
<p>When, then, does the difference become important? What’s the threshold? Therein lies the problem with such a claim.</p>
<p>Now, I do not espouse the idea that one should spend significant amounts of time to improve his or her scores by small extents. But to argue that admissions officers should consider, for example, a perfect 50/50 on the SAT Subject Test in Math Level 2 to be the same as 39/50 is logically incoherent. Luckily, all the data indicate that the higher one’s score is, the better. The only things that belie the common sense conclusion and the objective data are some admissions officers’ claims. I do not believe them, so yes, I suppose I would consider calling them liars in that respect to be correct.</p>
<p>Let’s start by remembering that we are talking about SAT subject tests here, which are only a relatively minor part of the application.
Also, I have read “Addressing a Few Concerns” . The same flaw exists - the data , in no way , addresses the problem of separating out the rest of the applicant information. The paper referenced is of uncertain value, and, of course, it addresses the ‘regular’ SATs, not the subject tests. It is not even entirely clear how precise the data related to SATs in the small range above 2300 was or how it was gathered. The point of the paper referenced is something else entirely as well. It is actually merely a ‘working paper’, meaning that it does not appear to have been published in (and therefore vetted by ) any journal.</p>
<p>Wouldn’t that still be a pretty high score? I don’t know of all the cons to keeping bad scores (or what you consider to be bad), but I would just keep them and then retake, especially if you took another test that day.</p>
<p>The basic problem I see with making such a big fuss over the difference between a 750 and 800 on the Math 2 subject test is that it is just not a very good test of the highest level of math achievement/ability. It is a fairly short test, covering only rather basic material. Students who are far past the material and make a couple of sloppy mistakes will score below students who have spent countless hours drilling. But clearly, the former are very strong in math, and quite likely to be stronger than the latter.
I know of a goodly number of kids who are very strong in math. Most of them took the math 2 in 9th grade. Not all of them scored an 800 - some merely got a 750+. But they have other , more important math achievements - 5s on the AP calc BC in 7th/8th/9th/10th grade, high scores on the AMC12/AIME/USAMO, solid Bs and As in upper level college math course, high placements in other state and national math exams.
Is it reasonable to imagine that an admissions officer at, say, MIT will say “Oh…USAMO team member, taking honors topology but just a 780 on math 2 in 9th grade- clearly I’ll reject that one in favor of this kid who got an 800 on the math 2 on the fourth try and is in pre-calc as a senior”. Somehow that seems absurd. Now, of course, there is more to the story of both these imaginary applicants as well, and we can all come up with more background for each to tip the scale as we will. But, I still find it absurd to argue against what has been asserted again and again by those who actually make the decisions.
We, in fact, know that other SAT scores are not weighted greatly. The written part of the ‘regular’ SATs, and , in particular, the essay subscore is ignored or weighted lightly by many schools. The essay there is, in fact, similar to the math 2 test. It’s a tolerable measure of very basic skill, but not a good measure of anything beyond that.</p>
<p>About 16,000 students applied to MIT in 2009. About 2,000 were accepted. Is it unreasonable to hypothesize that the majority of those 16,000 students’ scores and GPAs approached perfection? And is it unreasonable to assume that many more than those 2,000 accepted students were qualified for admission? </p>
<p>Applicant A has played piano for ten years, won multiple math and science awards, scored a 2250 on the SAT, and earned a 750 on the Math II.</p>
<p>Applicant B has played violin for ten years, won multiple math and science awards, scored a 2250 on the SAT, and earned an 800 on the Math II.</p>
<p>While the analysis of your exaggerated scenario is certainly valid, it’s ignorant to assume that, given the opportunity, MIT would not favor applicant B over applicant A.</p>
<p>Actually, my ‘exaggerated’ scenario is that of individuals I know. I know and have know MIT students/graduates and a few professors for about three decades now. Admissions to MIT is not all about the scores, and it is certainly not all about just the SAT scores. The applicants you propose would have a lot more to their applications as well. Did one struggle to find any challenge at his/her school? Did one take the SATs a dozen times and enroll in a prep course in high school? Is one blind? Is one from a small town? Did one write a great essay? Is one a faculty kid? Is one full pay? Did one take the math 2 in 9th grade? Did one take the math 2 on the day that he/she was very ill?
Your scenario, eastbound, is exceedingly shallow. Very few adcoms would ever reduce candidates to such a tiny slice of information.</p>
<p>There is always some subjectivity in the college admissions process (as with most selection processes). Clearly, MIT is not going to accept someone with a math 2 score of 300. However, they do, from time to time, take students with SAT scores that CCers would scorn. Looking at the CDS for 2008-2009, 1% of the accepted students had a math (not math 2, but regular SAT) score of under 600. Now, does a 700 look better than something under 600? Of course it does. And, given the numbers, it is clear that the odds are long for the sub-600. Does a 750 look better than an 800 - yes, but does it matter? I’ve seen nothing to suggest that it does, and been informed by solid sources that it does not. I have never seen any stats on rejects for kids scoring 800, but I know that they are turned down. And, I know that the difference between 750 and 800 is a couple of questions , in math that is generally fairly far below the level applicants are working at. So I stand by my initial assertion. Can anyone prove solid evidence to the contrary? Bring it on!</p>
<p>A higher score will yield a higher chance at admissions. It is that simple.</p>
<p>Would you rather want an 800 on Math2, or a 750? Ask yourself why you want an 800. Is it because it is better than a 750 and will increase your chances at getting into your school of choice? It probably is.</p>
<p>Would rather have a 4.0 GPA or a 3.9 GPA?</p>
<p>Would you rather be rank 3 over rank 1? </p>
<p>The answers are pretty obvious. Saying that a 3.9 = 4.0, rank 3 = rank 1, and a 750 = 800 is absurd. </p>
<p>How much it will help you - that’s when you will need an in depth analysis. But to think “which is better, a 750 or 800” that’s common sense: the 800 WILL give you a better chance. SAT II’s are like what, a solid 25% of your objective scores (among rank, GPA, SAT 1)? It will matter. There’s no doubt…</p>
<p>Now if you feel that getting 50 points is not worth the effort, and you would be better off doing something else and settle for the 750, then fine.</p>
<p>Can someone answer my question? Do colleges consider percentiles, or do only the scores appear on the transcripts? For example, someone with an 800 in Math Level 2 that got 50 out of 50 should be more favorable then someone with 43 or 44 out of 50, right? The person with 50 is probably 99th or 100th percentile, while 43 or 44 is probably like 90th. So do percentiles appear, and do colleges care about them?</p>
<p>maybe scores are logarthmic??? that is, higher IS better, but closer to perfection yields fewer benefits the closer you get. (just had a test on logs/lns/exponants, which is why its in my head)</p>
<p>@Krazy: I believe colleges only see the scaled scores</p>
<p>“It’s just common sense.” is not a valid argument. Data and logic can provide a valid argument.<br>
We are also talking about subject tests and , as far as I can tell, no schools list admissions stats with regard to subject tests. Only a few list the data for 800s on the regular SATs. One is Brown. And yes, kids with an 800 in at least one section (data is by each section and there is no data for totaled SATs) generally are admitted at a slightly higher rate than the 750-790 scorers. But there is no data for subject tests. One can presume that higher SAT subject test scores , in general, matter. But there is no data to suggest that admissions committees care about the difference between 750 and 800 on the math subject test, and considerable commentary from folks in the field (both high school counselors and admissions committee members and folks who have been both) to the contrary.</p>
<p>No data that suggests that admissions committees care about the difference between a 750 and 800? You don’t need data - it’s common sense. If I were one, I would value an 800 over a 750. Who wouldn’t?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Generally, the burden of proof falls upon those who argue for a reality that contradicts what should be happening.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This holds little weight, as admissions officers often claim the same about SAT Reasoning Test scores. Enough of what admissions officers say is demonstrably false that I would not feel comfortable believing them in this context.</p>
<p>I would be interested to know what else silverturtle has found to be ‘demonstrably false’ in the statements of admissions officers.
I will note that there is no reason for several of the individuals I have spoken to on this point to lie and considerable reason for at least some of them to be honest. For example, it is clearly in the best interests of the college counselor at my child’s school to do his/her best in terms of getting seniors into excellent schools. Why would this individual give out bad information?
“What should be happening” - Silverturtle, this is exceedingly feeble.</p>
<p>If 750 and 800 are not different from each other, then why do we even have a distinction between the scores? Why not just call them “A” scores or whatever?</p>
<p>RAlec114 - well…what you might do as an adcom is hardly relevant. I , and quite a few others that I know would act differently.
“It’s common sense.” - hmm…I consider all the statements now proven false that this has been attached to. I imagine you are all bright enough not to need a list.
thrill3rnit3 - Indeed. Actually, I think that would be fine. Reducing the range to something like 1 to 10 or 20 would be quite acceptable to me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How so? I have frequently and recently supported my position on that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Such a practice would reduce admissions officers’ capacity to meaningfully discriminate among applicants by clustering a quarter of the test-takers into a single score. What’s the point of requiring test scores if almost the entire applicant pool has the same score (which could be indicative of a broad range of demonstrated abilities)? If the scale of a test facilitates misinterpretations of scores by admissions officers (e.g., if certain questions were arbitrarily disproportionately weighted), I would likewise fully support a reduction in the exactness of the scale. As it is now, however, I see no problem with better performances on a test resulting in higher scores, and those higher scores, in turn, being viewed more favorably by admissions officers. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They often report that they do not discriminate among scores at the high range. The data convincingly disprove this, unless getting an additional couple questions correct on a standardized test significantly positively correlates with the strength of the subjective factors of one’s application. </p>
<p>Moreover and quite importantly, they often inaccurately present the extent to which various factors are considered. Having attended several dozen information sessions, I can attest to the distortions that admissions officers disseminate. I have heard admissions officers say, for example and among other things, that one’s location in the country has no effect on his or her chances; that applicants will not be penalized if they are unable to participate in extracurriculars for some valid reason; that legacy applicants receive effectively no boost in admissions these days; that the applications of children of substantial donors will receive merely an additional glance by admissions officers; that being dedicated to a single EC (even without leadership) is much more positively viewed than being the president of numerous clubs to which the student does not seem dedicated; that having extraordinarily strong peers at a high school who are also applying is not in any way a disadvantage to the applicant; and, coming from an admissions officer at a top school, that even students with almost all B’s will have a very good chance if it appears that the student was challenging himself/herself. Additionally, underplaying the extent to which affirmative action affects the chance of admittance for underrepresented minorities is nearly pervasive. </p>
<p>So, I hope you excuse my incredulity when I am told that 740 is seen as worse than 750 but that 750 is effectively the same as 800. I close ungrammatically: having better scores, equals better demonstrated ability, equals higher chance of having higher ability, equals higher chance of admittance (all else equal).</p>