<p>
</p>
<p>Of course. I would never dispute that. I fully expect that admissions at top schools looks for top standardised testing scores. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>note though, I said “one of the least”. I certainly wouldn’t make a categorical statement like “the least”. Because frankly I don’t deal with such absolutes - especially not for something as non-absolute as college admissions. </p>
<p>If I may quote from myself: You will see that I don’t disregard the SATs at all. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Bilgunn - I think that if you read my post again, you’ll find that my viewpoint does not differ greatly from yours. I certainly don’t think that SAT is unimportant. I do believe that 2400 is impressive. I expect that top schools want to see applicants have good marks ie. 2300+ (for example). </p>
<p>My disagreement is that Christiansoldier is categorising groups of students like they are nothing more than an equation, and treating idiosyncratic things such as performances from day to day like it can be measured and defined. </p>
<p>WHICH, I suppose takes us back to the original point of this thread. Namely what it takes to get 2400. I certainly do believe that a certain amount of luck is an element at play. By luck, I mean things such as level of concentration on a day, how much sleep etc.</p>