<p>They certainly are, but you're not alone by any stretch of the imagination. And, realize that all these high standardized test performers are certainly applying to more than several low acceptance rate colleges simultaneously:</p>
<p>So you mean that when USC or University of Chicago sends my son a letter telling him he's been identified as one of the most promising high school students in the country, they're REALLY saying that he's among the 176,617 most promising high school students in the country?!</p>
<p>And, of course, as a functional matter the numbers in each range are much higher because most private universities and LACs superscore. (The College Board, where the OP's numbers come from, only counts single sitting scores.)</p>
<p>So then what about people who test more than once? For example, I would be counted 2150-2190 range then again in the 2250-2290. Wouldn't this throw a bix problem in there then? Most people who test highly don't get their best scores the first try, I would assume.</p>
<p>The problem is we're dealing not with percentiles, but absolute numbers. Add up the number of freshmen admit slots to the top (your definition, not mine) 15 schools, and you'll see why seemingly high scores put big fish into an ocean.</p>
<ol>
<li>Not every top test-taker applies to top schools (money reasons, interest reasons...)</li>
<li>Not all the top-test takers are interesting people</li>
<li>Not all the top-test takers have good grades.</li>
</ol>
<p>NewEngSocSciMan: when you're right, you're right. My point, and believe me when I say it's my only point, is that the sheer number of "superlative" scores (which still are an important factor in college admissions) is increasing while the number of admit slots is not.</p>
<p>I am NOT in any way passing judgment of what a high standardized test score means, or doesn't. Folks should not be judged by an SAT/ACT score, but the fact remains that it's used heavily as an initial screen in many institutions.</p>
<p>
[quote]
the numbers in each range are much higher because most private universities and LACs superscore
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree with "higher," but disagree with "much higher." What I mean is that I think the number of 2400-scorers by superscoring is no greater than 150 percent (one and a half times) the number of 2400-scorers by single-sitting scoring, and so on down the list of score levels. This is, of course, an empirical question, and I have written to College Board asking them to publish a table of individual student scores on a superscored basis comparable to the table they already publish </p>
<p>showing the highest single-sitting composite score for each student in a particular graduating class. </p>
<p>If you would like to help resolve the factual issue, I would encourage you to write to College Board asking them to publish a superscore table to go alone with the single-sitting table.</p>
<p>One thing that is for sure is that most colleges have to dig down fairly deeply into the score rankings simply to fill their freshman classes, by the pigeonhole principle (there aren't enough high-scoring students to fill up all the freshman classes at all the most desired colleges).</p>
<p>Yeah, looking at the chart makes one aware of what a rarified little world we have on CC. My son's scores are low by CC standards, yet the chart says he's in the 94th percentile.</p>