<p>^ yup. some people are just very skeptical that there is even a big difference between kids in those ranges, so they don’t see why the groups would be any different except in SAT scores.</p>
<p>the skepticism is understandable, but almost certainly misplaced i think…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>nothing wrong with that</p>
<p>Silverturtle’s analysis is incredibly shallow and smacks of cherry picked data. There are quite a few considerations when deciding whether to retake the SAT</p>
<ul>
<li>are you likely to get a higher score</li>
<li>is the difference in score likely to make a significant difference to admissions</li>
<li>how much is the money that you spend on the SAT worth to you</li>
<li>how much is the time you’ll spend taking the SAT worth to you</li>
<li>how much is the time you’ll spend preparing worth to you</li>
<li>is the expected benefit worth the cost</li>
</ul>
<p>As far as the 2nd one goes, if you already got a 2250+ it’s really not likely to make a big difference. As for the others, it’s up to you.</p>
<p>I wish silverturtle would be here to defend his position.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>:D!! Works for me, yo.</p>
<p>Now that I’ve heard many opinions, I have to agree with some posters.</p>
<p>It seems that grouping a range of 100 is a mistake; a 700 is very different from a 790. A 790 = 800, but 700 =/ 800. At least, this is the explanation that makes sense to me. </p>
<p>So for future “worriers”, as long as you have above a 750 on each section, YOU’RE GOOD. xD</p>
<p>Thank you CC for the help haha.</p>
<p>Sorry I wasn’t around when this was first posted in order to respond.</p>
<p>
I gather that the excerpt of my guide that the OP quoted is being interpreted by this poster as the totality of my communication on the matter. </li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
<p>This is incorrect, as all of the issues delineated by this poster, as well as the preclusion of conflating causes and correlates that predictably arises elsewhere in this thread, were discussed in my guide. Also, the charge of cherry-picked data rings hallow given the number of statistics cited, the caveat that my intended demonstration was merely that any, explicitly not all, schools rejected threshold consideration, and that this accusing poster provides no contravening data.</p>
<p>Posters’ quick relegation to the agnostic claim that correlation does not properly and solely yield causation needs to wrestle with greater complications. While it is true that those with higher scores will generally, for example, produce better essays and achieve higher grades, this intuition stretches plausibility when to it we impute the previously cited magnitudes of admissions chances differentials even when scores are very high. It seems comfortably conceivable that applicants with scores around 2250 and higher would show no significant, reliable differences in the subjective strength of their non-score application attributes. </p>
<p>An additional complication for the rejection of admissions-driven causality of higher scores is that schools that claim to practice threshold-based admissions, like MIT, have statistics that agree with this claim much more than the statistics at other top schools would agree with such a claim if it were made by those institutions too. Those who object to the causality conclusion would need to convey a reason for the greater confounding value of non-score correlates in the score-admissions function at one school over another. Seemingly, this has not been done, and none comes to mind.</p>
<p>An honest look at all the available data, never neglecting a keen eye for the potentiality of disturbance by mere correlates, does in my experience precipitate the conclusion that, to speak roughly, higher scores mean better chances. At some schools, this may be untrue or less true. Differentiation may have a threshold but a higher one than the data can show. Distinctions may be idiosyncratic among admissions officers: To some but not others, two similar scores may be functionally equal. </p>
<p>Whatever the case, sufficient doubt exists to err in the abstract toward the conclusion that an applicant would be better served by having a higher score, even if that preferable positioning does not manifest in more acceptances for that particular applicant because the aim is simply to improve chances. There is no suggestion that higher scores hurt; there is strong but possibly inconclusive suggestion to the contrary.</p>
<p>I write “in the abstract” because my orientation in this post thus far and in the excerpt posted by the OP risks being pedantic and unpragmatic. Subjectivity should predominate in my analysis at this point, so I will outline some of my relevant opinions:
[ul][<em>]As stated, my reading of the data in light of estimates of unseen variables nonetheless supports the validity of the higher score-higher chances philosophy. In other words, there is no clear threshold score beyond which it would be unhelpful in admissions to improve, if one applies to some top colleges.
[</em>]What can be deemed “soft thresholds” do seem to exist, however: Score gains become less helpful the higher the score range in question. Improving from 1900 to 2100, for example, is much more probative in admissions officers’ determination of academic qualification than is improving from 2100 to 2300, which will accordingly offer less admissions benefit.
[<em>]Those who agree with my general premise tend to overestimate the degree of admissions benefits conferred by moving from a very high score to an ever higher score. Along those lines I apologetically accept the title of this thread, the technical truth of my previous writing notwithstanding.
[</em>]I have stated but am here compelled to further emphasize the considerations and harms relevant to retaking the SAT and otherwise stressing about it. The added efficacy of one’s preparatory methods and in turn the expectation of score increase must affect decisions to retake. The anticipated admissions benefit of the expected score increase matters and is, again, probably smaller than you may first assess. Whether you seem unable to cast aside the mentality of SAT preparation as a chore is important, because we should generally only be doing things for college admissions that we enjoy doing; the means to an end philosophy seldom finds that end satisfactorily. What could you be doing for admissions instead? Essays, for example, can often be rethought and improved. What could you instead be doing for advancing personal and social enjoyment, or the lives of others?
[li]Advice in summation that will suffice for almost everyone: Psych yourself up to invest some effort in preparing for the SAT and/or ACT for a meaningful but not protracted period in your junior year of high school by taking a reasonable number of practice tests using good strategy (which you can learn online). Take the test officially when you feel ready. If you are confident that the score you earn does not represent either your present capacity of the capacity you feel you can and would like to work toward, prepare for an additional modest period of time and then retake. Otherwise, simply redirect your attention to other matters and move forward.[/ul][/li]I hope that this clarifies my stance and offers a helpful, healthy paradigm.</p>
<p>Thank you silverturtle! </p>
<p>Would you mind expounding on the practice, application, and usefulness of superscoring?</p>
<p>In particular, how much of a stigma is incurred by achieving a score by superscoring rather than by a single-sitting?</p>
<p>For example, my superscore is 2340, but my single-sitting is 2300. I am inclined to assume that colleges would disregard the 2340 as not actually attained.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Superscoring, unlike Score Choice, is done not by the applicant but at the discretion of each college’s admissions department. As you seem to know, it yields a score that is the total of the best section scores you have achieved on any administration of the test. Superscoring cannot explicitly be detrimental, because more than one test date’s scores are considered only when a higher score results. </p>
<p>The practice reflects the philosophy that underlies why colleges are willing to let students take standardized tests more than once as well as why preparing for the tests is not counter to the spirit of them: They are to show the best that you can reasonably do. To this end, we assume that of two scores, the higher one is a better indicator of your abilities than is the lower score or even the average. We dismiss that luck could be a significant factor in contributing to the higher score, instead rationalizing the lower score as a fluke of misfortunate or under-preparation. These thoughts seems fair to me but naturally disadvantage those who are averse to preparation and retaking. </p>
<p>Superscoring is particularly useful for students whose potential is not reliably on hand, such as those who tend to fall to test anxiety. So such a student could do poorly on the Math section one test day because, say, they were using a calculator about which they felt uncomfortable but still succeed on the other sections; a superior Math performance from a previous or succeeding test date would compensate. Superscoring also facilitates the opportunity for directed preparation, which is advisable when a very high score has already been achieved in one or two but not three sections; the other section or sections ought to be the primary focus for a retake, whereas maintenance of one’s skills for the stronger section or sections would also need to be a salient consideration without the luxury of superscoring.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To whatever extent a superscore is not as favorably viewed as that same score achieved in a single sitting, the relationship must be limitedly mitigatory, never quite harming your chances such that the superscore is anything worse than moot. In almost all cases, though, I imagine that schools that advertise a policy of superscoring have admissions officers who consider superscores on the same or nearly same grounds as if the score were achieved in one sitting. Some concerning questions may arise for those who retake the test many times (I’m thinking more than twice), such as those of priorities and obsession. But in those cases, preemptory use of Score Choice is wise. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your inclination appears reasonable if a college does not superscore, but if they do (and most do), then I have no reason to assume they will operate contrary to their claim. The admissions difference between 2300 and 2340, no matter the case with superscoring, is minor, however. Both are excellent scores and worthy of personal pride.</p>
<p>Thank you for the comprehensive reply! You answered all my queries and suspicions.</p>
<p>May I ask how admissions went for you, silverturtle? </p>
<p>I think you attended Brown, but I did not read the comments after your guide.
Also, though it is quite out of context, which colleges do you consider the most and least influenced by standardized test results?</p>