<p>Yeah Deity, and I could of sworn that I partially explained the far higher 2400 admit rate in my last post. Also, the last time I checked I thought the 2400 admit rate was only 33%ish at Harvard.</p>
<p>Where is that information?</p>
<p>this whole grade thing is getting out of control, and the answer is DEF not that the score range wholly compensates for fluctuation. there's no way that a 2080 and 2320 are looked at equally. that would be under the most extreme case, which would be the assumption that the person couldve scored 40 pts higher in each section. to make that assumption is extreme</p>
<p>i think that there's certainly no difference between a 780 and 800 but that there is a diff between 740 and 800. the reason some recommend to take the test more than once is to show that you can score on the upper end of the score ranges in real life. </p>
<p>i think theres also a statistical factor involved. colleges always like high numbers to have a better showcase. there's a reason why hyp has higher mean sat scores than other ivies and other top schools. </p>
<p>i definitely agree that having high scores is not the sole factor for admission, and that often times, lower scores beat out higher ones due to other factors</p>
<p>There are no statistics on the admit rates for 2400 scorers, because they only started administering the new SAT last March. I have seen a 50% admit rate quoted in a number of places for 1600 scorers at Harvard, but I don't know whether that's accurate (nor do I know whether they're defining "1600 scorers" for that purpose as single sitting or combined sittings).</p>
<p>I believe that the number of 2400 scorers (at least for a single sitting) is less than the number of 1600 scorers. For the March 2005 sitting, CollegeBoard reported that about 300,000 students took the new SAT and only 107 scored a 2400.</p>
<p>It's also worth pointing out that not all 2400's - or 2100's for that matter - are created equal. The following quote from Larry Summers is in this week's Business Week (yes, I know Summers is resigning, but I think it still reflects the view of admissions at Harvard): "An SAT score means one thing if the student comes from an affluent school, where there are SAT prep courses, and a very different thing if the student comes from a disadvantaged background where there were no SAT classes of any kind," Summers says. </p>
<p>Here's the link to the story, which is focused on Harvard's (and two other schools') efforts to reach out to lower income students: <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/@@hXmiMYUQzP4inB0A/magazine/content/06_09/b3973099.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.businessweek.com/@@hXmiMYUQzP4inB0A/magazine/content/06_09/b3973099.htm</a></p>
<p>Sew, About the 33% admit rate for 2400 I was talking about published dat a I read in a college admissions book (Kohen's I think...). But you're right, it wasn't about the new SAT at all and it was a few years old. I was basing my answer on the 33% admit rate of a 'perfect' 1600 score a few years ago. It might have changed a lot since then - I don't know and it will probably be a few years before the new SAT will be established enough to get a large enough sample size to get a proper answer. The quoted 50% at the moment seems pretty high as Harvard has become even more competitive in the last few years (so percentage should decrease instead of rise), but I don't know for sure.</p>