<p>I guess I've pretty much heard it all..
A1. A 22+ SAT score is compulsory for an Ivy league education
A2. 2400s get rejected but sub2000s arent total rejects either.
A3. Everything above a 2250+ is regarded as more or less the same.
A4. SAT scores and admission chances share a high correlation. A 2400>2390>...
A5. A SAT score is just a number the adcoms look at for 30 seconds.
A6. The basic point of a SAT score is to test your proficiency in 3 fields. For an Ivy, anything above 700 in all fields proves you are capable of handling college.
A7. For colleges that accept all your scores, a 1900 1st attempt to a 2300 2nd attempt is better than a 2200 1st as well as 2nd attempt.</p>
<p>and Subject Tests:
B1. Anything above 750 usually means you're good.
B2. They dont mean as much as the SAT I.
B3. They're just a requirement. Nothing else.
B4. They are primarily used to judge the difficulty of grading at your institution.
B5. Anything below 800, especially for Math II, Chemistry and Physics is sin.
B6. Below 700 in important subjects (read: Math II, Physics) has denial written all over it.
B7. They don't play a role in your decision.
B8. A 2100 in SAT i and a 2400 in 3 subjects is faaar worse than a 2400 in SAT i and a 700,700,700 in 3 subjects.</p>
<p>Which ones do you agree with? Which ones are completely bogus? Let's here your opinion. Truth shall out.</p>
<p>I think A2 is fake. Or else I would get rejected from all my schools haha.</p>
<p>You’ll find, however, that there is an EXPONENTIAL upward trend of acceptance as you rise SAT scores, plotted by Silverturtle, enough that 50% of all 2400ers are accepted into Harvard (think about the regular admission rates : 7%).</p>
<p>Let me tell you (in my extensive experience) which ones i think is real.</p>
<p>A1. Yes. Unless awesome ECs.
A2. No
A3. No, change to 2300+.
A4. Yes, infact silverturtle proved this.
A5. Yes (how long does it take to read a number lol!)
A6. Wrong. Thats a 2100. Good luck getting into any Ivy with that score unless you have good ECs.
A7. DUH. 2300>2200</p>
<p>B1. Nope. 800 is much preferred, since you are going to be compared to a pool of all 800s and adcoms are looking for ways to eliminate subpar people.
B2. Probably
B3. No, they test proficiency in subject matter.
B4. No, used to judge how good you are.
B5. Yes. Add Bio to that. (But I’m a bit biased)
B6. Not necessarily, though you don’t want that.
B7. I’d say small role.
B8. They are both terrible. 2400s rock!</p>
<p>Don’t let SAT scores discourage you from applying to any school. A 2300 won’t hurt you, but if you have a 2000 it won’t be “auto-reject” from the top colleges either.</p>
<p>“Wrong. Thats a 2100. Good luck getting into any Ivy with that score unless you have good ECs”</p>
<p>Well, I know quite a few people with very “normal” EC’s and SAT scores around that mark get into Ivy’s. I, with about 2050, got into 3 and I have no “national” awards or anything of that sort.</p>
<p>Your essay will make or break your application. That’s the only way you’ll stand out. Or unless you have international awards…</p>
<p>No - I’m not saying don’t aim for 2200+ but if you don’t get that, it isn’t the end of your application either.</p>
<p>None of those strike me as completely true or false.</p>
<p>SAT scores matter but they only make sense when you put together the rest of the application.</p>
<p>The poster above me got into 3 ivies with a 2050, I got into Brown and Duke (two out of the 5 schools I applied to - others were YP and Williams) with a 2020. </p>
<p>I know dozens of people with 2200s and a few people with 2300s who did not manage the Ivies+MIT+Stanford but managed other top 30ish schools. </p>
<p>Get the best scores you can with 2 (max 3) tries. That will fill some space on your application but should not, by itself, sway the entire thing one way or the other.</p>
<p>@guitarclassical & prateek92:
If you two got in with a 2020 and a 2050 with no substantial awards, what governed that admissions decision? Your essay?</p>
<p>Some 2400ers get rejected; some sub-2000ers get accepted.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Incorrect.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Correct as far as the available data show (2400 and 2390, for example, are not broken out in any released statistics).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know what you mean by this. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Academically qualified” is not an easily quantifiable or standardized threshold, though most applicants with 700+ on each section and good grades would be characterized as such.</p>
<p>If by “usually means you’re good,” you mean that increasing to 800 will usually not change the admissions decision, then correct.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It varies. Some schools’ internal statistics indicate that Subject Tests better correlate with college GPA than does the SAT, so at those institutions it is reasonable to assume that the Subject Tests will be more heavily weighted. It will, moreover, vary from one applicant to another: for home-schooled applicants or those with very few AP classes, Subject Tests will be more important.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know what you mean by this. If you are suggesting that they hold no admissions value (and we’re operating in the domain of top schools), incorrect. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Incorrect. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Incorrect (though least untrue for Math Level 2). </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your colloquial phrase makes this statement difficult to judge; but, yes, most people who have a Subject Test score below 700 on a relatively inflated test as one of their top two scores will likely be rejected. However, this is influenced by confounding variables as well.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>See B3.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, it partly depends on what those three subjects are and on what school we are talking about. In general, though, I would say that the latter scenario is preferable but not to a large degree.</p>