<p>Okay thank you.</p>
<p>Honestly I hate the idea of super scoring but I think most colleges do it… Anyways you should be fine, but I don’t think the score will necessarily help you, but it shouldn’t hurt</p>
<p>@lukelev07
lol you do realize qualifying a ridiculous statement with “that’s just my opinion” doesn’t suddenly make your claim defensible?</p>
<p>while the word “good” may have varying connotations depending on context, the word “better” is pretty straightforward: objectively, a 2400 is better than a 2300, a 2300 is better than a 2200, and so on and so forth. the SAT is meant to provide a holistic analysis of your abilities, and though it clearly isn’t perfect in that regard, it’s one of the best tools that admissions officers have for that purpose.</p>
<p>arguing that a “2400 isn’t worth it” just seems kinda petty, and insulting people that have scores in that range is unnecessary + makes it seem like you’re rationalizing about your own score :P</p>
<p>that having been said…
~1600 = average
1800-2000 = really good
2000-2200 = awesome
2200+ = !! yay</p>
<p>@metroplex, Well, some 2400’s do get rejected because they have virtually nothing else to show on their application. Top schools would rather admit an 1800 or 2000 who has lots of potential to succeed, rather than the aforementioned 2400 student. In this case, the 2400 SAT score doesn’t really do much…</p>
<p>@rspence
yeah, but the opposite is true as well. someone with extraordinary ECs and a very low SAT score has a slim chance at getting into top 10 schools because those schools are so preoccupied with their rankings and average SAT scores.</p>
<p>what i’m saying is that it never hurts to have a high SAT score. you can’t dismiss its impact in the application process simply because it isn’t necessarily the deciding factor for admissions. it can still hurt/help your app a lot.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It can hurt if you are spending time chasing 2400s when you could be doing that which makes a bigger difference to your application, but more importantly to reaching your goals in life, no?</p>
<p>It seems that some of us are still clinging to the belief that test scores are just meaningless numbers and that if you bomb the SAT you can still get into Harvard if you have a great personality. Unfortunately, SATs do matter, otherwise colleges wouldn’t ask for them. Also you can hardly compare good test scores with good sports, one is an ordinal variable while the other is a nominal variable.</p>
<p>@rspence, I’m not sure about your personal experience, but every single kid i know who has gotten 2200+ at my school is super involved in clubs, sports, and community service. If someone has the grades and extracurriculars to get into an ivy, of course they’re going to make sure they don’t blow it on the SAT and go for the best score possible by studying. A great score won’t get you into a college necessarily, but its one less reason for them to reject you.</p>
<p>True, while SAT scores are definitely important, they rarely make the determining factor (unless they’re really low or something). My SAT score wasn’t that great (2070) but I had other awards/EC’s/community service to add on my application.</p>
<p>Where do you go rspence? Sorry if I missed this</p>
<p>2400= decent, 2390 and lower is failure. </p>
<p>I kid, I kid. I think for me, good is 2250+ and bad is <1900.</p>
<p>@perazziman
once again…that argument could be used in reverse as well. if you’re so busy pursuing your ECS that you neglect your academics & standardized tests, that’s equally detrimental. i don’t think either should be given precedence above the other. concrete credentials like scoring high on the SAT are important because colleges need a (relatively) fair way to compare you to other applicants.</p>
<p>the thing is, either you’re naturally a good test taker - in which case you score well without having to dedicate time and effort - or you’re a motivated/dedicated student that works hard to get a high score. if someone is the latter, why assume that they aren’t equally involved in every aspect of their life? it doesn’t make sense to believe that someone that’s willing to put in countless hours of studying to attain a near-perfect score would somehow neglect the rest of their application. they’re obviously a really concerned student that’s invested in their future.</p>
<p>which is why it doesn’t make sense to act as if people with 2400s are “cave-dwellers” or whatever.</p>
<p>@Avalde4, MIT…it’s right under my username.</p>
<p>X<1900
Bad
1900<X<2000
Decent
2000<X<2100
Average
2100<X<2200
. Above Average
2200<X<2300
. Good
2300<X<2400
. Very good.</p>
<p>Overall, it’s pretty much impossible to define a good or bad SAT score, since that’s quite subjective. The best way is to compare with the national average of 500, std deviation 100 for each section.</p>
<p>With respect, rspence, you’re an atypical applicant. Your accomplishments in both Scrabble tournaments and mathematics gave you huge EC hooks. For applicants with average (or even above-average) ECs–who constitute the majority of the applicant pool–SAT scores will have a significant impact on chance of admittance, and most would not get by with a sub-2100 score as you did.</p>
<p>EDIT: Addressing the 2400 “cave-dweller” stereotype (which is truly stupid), I studied for the SAT for about two months (around 30 minutes a day + a test every weekend) and got a 2400. Studying did not take up much of my time, and I’m sure many people with lower scores studied significantly more than I did. Classifying perfect-scorers as academic hermits with no social or extra-curricular success is simply unsubstantiated and, dare I say, reeks of jealousy.</p>
<p>“X<1900… Bad
1900<X<2000… Decent
2000<X<2100… Average
2100<X<2200…. Above Average
2200<X<2300…. Good
2300<X<2400…. Very good.”</p>
<p>Your brain is badly warped.</p>
<p>@StudiousMaximus, true, which is another reason why SAT scores are only part of the application. My ACT score is higher, though, so it’s not just a 2070 that is taken into account.</p>
<p>I agree, I know several people at my HS, MIT, and elsewhere who have scored in the 2300 range (a couple at 2400). I have to say that all of them are unusually bright in some other field, whether it be math research, science, music, etc. None of them are the stereotypical “cave-dwellers,” those who spend hours a day studying for the SAT and doing nothing else.</p>
<p>For me, anything below a 1700 is bad. 1700-2000 means average, and 2000+ is good. 2250+ is god status.</p>
<p>My standards go like this:
<1500 not so good
1500s, technically average but could do better
1600s meh
1700s, good enough for state schools ¶ and such
1800-1990, pretty good
2000s, really good
2100s, great!
2200s, awesomely smart, worth applying to top schools
2300+ super super genius</p>
<p>That’s the stadard I hold for myself, sometimes my friends if I know they have similar academic expectations as me…I change my standards based on the person in question and his/her circumstances though.</p>