<p>@Constantius Imagine a new SAT that has scores that range from 0 to 3600. A 1850 on the old SAT corresponds to a 1850 on the new SAT, a 1200 corresponds to a 1200, etc. The scores from 2400-3600 are all from the people who got a 2400 on the old SAT. All this does is raise the ceiling; it distinguishes the top students. In this test, you know someone who gets a 2400 did better than someone who got a 2390 and worse than someone with a 2410, but on the old one a 2400 only tells you that they are better than a 2390; their new score could be anything above that.</p>
<p>@NASA2014 wrote:
“My friend got in not me. I meant to say that but I was lazy you know. My SAT socre was 950.”</p>
<p>=)) </p>
<p>Well no wonder he got a 950 SAT score^</p>
<p>Of course!!! You’re only 99.7th percentile…Gimmie a break.</p>
<p>Well, it is a great score, as you know. But if you want to take it, and you are THAT close to a 2400, then take it for fun if you like! Why not? You might get a 2400. Or not. Either way, it’s ok. </p>
<p>@NASA2014 assuming your friend had a decent gpa, he goes to usu for free now right? because it’s just an index score for usu</p>
<p>Please don’t waste 4+ hours taking a test that you got an amazing score on again. Plus, writing is the least important section on the test.</p>
<p>You definitely have a high-enough score, so retaking is in no way necessary (rather more of a pain since the SAT is a horrible test). However, since you did get a 11 on the essay and only lost points in the writing section and grammar is fairly easy to fix up with a bit of practice, I think you can comfortably raise your superscore by retaking the test. But then again, the SAT sucks and is a horrible experience so…</p>
<p>@Sesquipedalian4 Also, about a 3600 SAT, if it were to be instated, I don’t think the 2400-3600 should distinguish solely those who get 2400s (i.e. don’t miss a single question or something like that) on the normal SAT, but rather provide an opportunity to show deeper knowledge in the sections (i.e. on the math section maybe, after the initial 800 points, there could be 100 points of SAT II math, 100 points of AMC math, 100 points of Olympiad math, and 100 points of advanced college math), so then high scores on the SAT would be more determined by depth of knowledge rather than not making any mistakes and further not making any mistakes. Then, maybe if someone (who knows very advanced material) gets a 2200 on the normal SAT due to mistakes, the could get a 3300 on the extended one due to a similar occurrence of mistakes, while if someone (who knows the SAT content very well, but not much beyond that) gets a confident 2400 on the normal SAT would only get a 2600 or so on the extended one.</p>
<p>Then again, the SAT is not meant to test that kind of depth, but rather more along the lines of general aptitude - do you have the necessary fundamental skills to pursue higher education? And how well can you master those fundamental skills? Which definitely does make the 2300-2400 range more about stupid mistakes rather than actual skill. IMO, there really isn’t any significant difference among 2400s, and among 2300s and 2400s for that matter, since it mostly comes down to mistakes at that point. Definitely, there are people who are much more confident in their answers and some who guess more, but at that 2300-2400 range, I would still think it’s not as much skill-based as mistake-based.</p>
<p>@kiritio69 The point I was trying to make was that a 2400 means you were limited by the test, not by your abilities. How a 0-3600 test should be implemented is an interesting question, but wasn’t what I was focused on solving. </p>
<p>@Sesquipedalian4 So essentially, 3600 was just an arbitrary number you chose that could’ve been anything else higher than a 2400 as long as it “raised the ceiling” and further distinguished the 2400s from each other?</p>
<p>I get what you’re saying, but I still think, all things considered, that the majority of people who score a perfect 2400 do so based on luck. I’d say most people within the 2300+ range have the ability to “go beyond” a 2400 if it were allowed, but they were simply unlucky enough to make a few human errors, so they simply remain their current, much less glorified (though still very respectable) scores. To me, 2400s will always primarily imply luck, and any implication that whoever scored it has done so because they’ve hit some sort of limit will merely be an afterthought.</p>
<p>@Sesquipedalian4 ahh okay that makes more sense - the wording of your post I think threw me off a bit. I have the same frustration with tests like the SAT, since personally, it seems to come down to what mistakes you make rather than what you know once you get in that 2300+ range. </p>
<p>Actually, instead of raising it to 3600, collegeboard is lowering it back down from 2400 to 1600. If they do the same thing two more times, I’ll be a happy camper.</p>
<p>No</p>
<p>Oh yeah. If you believe you can do better, then retake it. Get the waiver. It’s free and you only need to send your highest, if not superscoring for all times you have taken it. Most importantly: Keep your motivation. You can conquer it.</p>