<p>
</p>
<p>Don’t generalise please.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Many (and I would say most) people don’t have the time/resources/energy, nor even WANT to take the SAT practice test that many times (ie. 100). </p></li>
<li><p>I think that you will find that many people buck your guidelines, I know someone who got 2400 on the first go, having done only 1 or 2 practices. I know people who did mediocre-ly in the practices (ie. 2100 to 2200) and got a 2400. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>I’m sure that someone that does do as many practices as you’re suggesting and does do well in those practices is no doubt highly qualified and has a great shot at getting a 2400, but **I hardly think that you can impose categories like that on the general population. **</p>
<p>and besides, SAT is not the be all and end all. Nor is standardised testing. I heard directly from Harvard and Yale area officers that they look at everything, and SAT is one of the least considered points.</p>
<p>They want to build an interesting class with diverse and compelling personalities. Not load it up with a bunch of fanatic test takers.</p>