<p>I understand that 2300 is a fantastic score by all standards. What I don't quite understand is why some people think that colleges look at a 2300 and 2400 the same way. HYPSM and other selective universities receive A LOT of 2300+-scoring applicants, whereas a 2400 is rare.
Thoughts?
*Note: LEAVE ECs AND ESSAYS OUT OF THIS DISCUSSION. Obviously a 2300-scorer with an amazing app would get in over a 2400-scorer with nothing else going for him/her. The ONLY thing I'm focusing on is how colleges look at a 2300 vs. a 2400.</p>
<p>There is virtually no difference between 2300 and 2400.</p>
<p>Of course a 2400 is better. It’s just not necessarily a lot better.</p>
<p>There is actually a distinction between 2300 and 2400. For the formula many colleges use, a different between a 700 and a 800 can result in different outcome in admission, yet to the layman’s eyes they are not different because both are high scores. However, understanding of these scores must be understood in different contest: A low income student with a 2300 will be more impressive than his wealthy counterpart with a perfect score, at least that’s how people often think</p>
<p>2400 is a lot better than a 2300.</p>
<p>A 2400 signals that the person’s ability may be way above the 2400 since thats the highest score while a 2300 shows that the person has a limit if you will. Not sure if that makes sense but a 2400 shows that nothing on the test tripped them up which in itself is amazing.</p>
<p>not much of a difference when it comes to college admissions. sorry.</p>
<p>the SAT is a 4 hour test of aptitude.To score a 2300 u must know ur onions but getting a 2400 means u are extra focused and somewhat lucky.When i scored a 2390 on the SAT i couldnt sleep.But in the end i realised the 1 question i missed doesnt really matter.In short,adcoms dont really see much difference btw both scores</p>
<p>There’s obviously a difference of 100 points…</p>
<p>I like how Flcollegeman puts it.</p>
<p>100 points is a sizable difference, for sure, especially if the breakdown of the 2300 is 800/700/800 (or something similar). A 2400 is undoubtedly better than a 2300. Whether a 2400 is better than a 2390 is a better question.</p>
<p>
And the answer is yes, by 10 points, which is not much.</p>
<p>Of course there is a difference, but this difference is usually negligible during college applications. URM, hooks, ECs, and even gender have stronger influences. The only way I see how having a 2300 as opposed to a 2400 could impact your college acceptances is if there are two people identical in all aspects except their SAT score. Logically, the 2400 dude would get in. </p>
<p>But what are the odds.</p>
<p>a 2400 is not better than a 2300 for the purpose of evaluating candidacy for college admissions. </p>
<p>a 2400 is better than a 2300 for the purpose of deciding which number is higher than the other.</p>
<p>
.i agree with the above opinion.
[AVERAGE</a> SAT SCORE What You Need To Know About SAT Scores](<a href=“http://satteststudy.com/average-sat-score/]AVERAGE”>http://satteststudy.com/average-sat-score/)</p>
<p>The higher the score, the better. There is no doubt that as your score rises, so do your chances of being admitted. I think there were some studies on this. Of course, there were many confounding variables, but I think the general statement still stands.</p>
<p>A 2300 shows aptitude.
A 2400 shows perfection.</p>
<p>As a 2400er, I’m going to say this: it doesn’t help much. And I think a 2300 is still very very impressive.</p>
<p>Ultimately, the SAT is only a standardized test that evaluates students’ abilities to do well on the SAT. It doesn’t have much relevance to in-school achievement or potential. It doesn’t test knowledge or IQ or giftedness; it just tests how good you are at answering ETS-style questions.</p>
<p>The correlation between socioeconomic status and SAT score has a 0.42 correlation coefficient ([Socioeconomic</a> Status and the Relationship Between the SAT and Freshman GPA-An Analysis of Data from 41 Colleges and Universities](<a href=“http://professionals.collegeboard.com/data-reports-research/cb/SES-SAT-FreshmanGPA]Socioeconomic”>http://professionals.collegeboard.com/data-reports-research/cb/SES-SAT-FreshmanGPA)), so I would say a relatively poor student in an inner city school with a 2100 would have a more impressive test score than the student with adequate resources with a 2300. Similarly, if a student’s circumstances (school, family, finances, etc) are taken into account, it’s impossible to generalize that the 2400 is better than the 2300.</p>
<p>@1029384</p>
<p>You’re overlooking the possibility that richer people, on average, are simply smarter than poor people, and that’s why they get higher test scores. This has actually been proven in numerous studies. It makes sense when you think about it: most high-income professions require a moderately high degree of intelligence, and most highly intelligent people don’t become factory workers. Now is a person who makes 400k a year any smarter than someone who makes 200k? Probably not. But is someone who makes 100k a year, on average, smarter than someone who makes 20k or 30k? Definitely. Are there exceptions, like teachers? Of course. But they are exceptions.</p>
<p>There simply aren’t many would-be geniuses in the inner city who can’t flower because they can’t afford expensive prep courses and have to take care of their younger siblings instead of studying because their parents are doing drugs in the next room. That’s just not true.</p>
<p>And your statement about the efficacy of the SAT is false. It doesn’t predict first-year GPA as well as high school GPA, but there is still a fairly strong correlation, and SAT combined with GPA combined with socioeconomic status together are a pretty accurate predictor.</p>
<p>Now for the purpose of college admissions, you’re right. A black or hispanic candidate with a 2100 would likely beat out an asian candidate with a 2300 due to affirmative action. Finances are irrelevant since most schools are officially need-blind and can’t take that into account.</p>
<p>All of that aside, I agree with your basic premise that a 2400 doesn’t necessarily mean a person’s any smarter than a 2300. I got a 2370, and a girl I knew who got a 2320 was significantly smarter than me. She just took it once without studying and didn’t feel like retaking.</p>
<p>“Finances are irrelevant since most schools are officially need-blind and can’t take that into account.”</p>
<p>Actually, few schools claim to be need-blind: [Need-blind</a> admission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Need-blind_admission]Need-blind”>Need-blind admission - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>^ I think you missed an important distinction:
rich people aren’t smarter than poor people because they’re rich…but because they have the resouces to receive a better education. Public school is great, but when a poor child from the city must attend a low standard urban school, he is inevitably missing out on the same opportunities given to children who attend private or even suburban public schools.</p>
<p>I don’t understand why OP would ask such a question while restricting us from discussing ECs, essays, and other parts of the application. Ultimately, an SAT score serves as one small number on an application that the university judges holistically. The difference between a 2300 and 2400 becomes negligible. If HYPSM and other top-tiers decided to highlight that 100 point difference, they would potentially discredit students who have done impressive things, such as donating healthy meals to soup kitchens, with their time rather than prepare for the SATs.</p>