<p>After accessing my SAT I exam scores the other night, I could feel nothing but utter dissatisfaction. Yes, a 2100 is "decent" for most colleges, but it simply is not enough for the academic institutions I am aiming for: Harvard, Princeton, Yale, MIT - and of course, my first choice, Stanford. </p>
<p>I have also taken the Biology SAT II test, which, to my dismay, I scored a 780 on (I anticipated an 800). I will surely retake the Biology exam, in addition to the SAT II's for Chemistry, Math II, and possibly physics. I will attempt ace those tests with hopefully an 800. </p>
<p>However, my main concern right now is my incompetent 2100. As stated previously, a 2100 simply is not enough for a British-Asian scholar. I'm also a junior, so I am running out of time. All these factors add to the exigency to achieve "SAT supremacy" - a locution I employ to denote SAT I scores of 2300+. I know the exigency of my academic conundrum, but I have one question I must pose before I go on a quest for a 2300+: is a 2300 significantly different from a 2350, or a 2400? Yes, I passed first grade mathematics, I know that the score is a few tens of points off, but I am asking this question in the context of college admission officers. What would Stanford admission officers think about it? The reason is because I do intend to get a 2300+, but I do not know when to stop studying. Should I merely halt my studies to indulge in something more meaningful after I reach a 2300? Or should I put in two times as much effort to get the 2300 to a 2400? </p>
<p>Essentially, my inquiry is this: how noteworthy of a difference is a 2300-2340 compared to a 2350-2400 in terms of college admissions. </p>
<p>EmperorLelouch - Personally, I don’t think there’s a significant difference between 2300 and 2400, i.e. a 2400 will certainly help you, but it will by no means make or break your application. Ultimately, your “numbers”–class rank, standardized test scores, GPA, etc.–are just the beginning; they <em>qualify</em> you for admission. What really distinguishes you from other qualified applicants will be who you are as a person (as oppose to who you are as a clump of scores and statistics)–what the admissions officers learn from your essays, recommendations, and extracurricular activities.</p>
<p>So, to answer your question more directly, I think you should invest time into your extracurriculars and essays (as well as the fun things in life, like watching Code Geass! :D) after you have a 2300. Even if you don’t reach that goal, don’t stress. Your SAT score does not define who you are. Just work with what you have, present your individuality in the best light, and you’ll still stand a good chance at HYPMS. </p>
<p>Of course, everything I’ve just written is my personal opinion, and I’ll admit that I’m on the idealistic side (eh, Suzaku and Euphemia were always my favorite CG characters, if that gives you any idea :P).</p>
<p>The thread discusses the relationship between SAT scores and acceptance rates, as observed in a formal research study. However, before you interpret the study’s results as proof that a 2400 is way better than a 2300, I want to point out that the study was published in 2004. Admissions today is (I’d think) pretty different from admissions seven years ago. There are also a ton of possible confounding variables and other factors to consider.</p>
<p>GreedIsGood - I don’t like what you’re implying, and I also think you’re dearly misinformed. Silverturtle is apparently too polite to say it, but I’m not: he is accomplished in many ways beyond his test scores. Plus, being admitted to Brown, Columbia, and UChicago is not at all a bad result. :P</p>
<p>I’ve heard from more than one experienced college admissions individual (folks who have ‘sat on both sides of the table’) that small differences (100 to 150 points) at the higher end of the SATs (2100 or so) just does not matter. I also really see no reason to retake a 780. Surely, you can find something better to do with your time.</p>