<p>Does anyone know what percentage of people who receive a 1600 get in? Obviously, people with 1600 can have good ecs, bad ecs, etc., and Harvard doesn't base admission entirely off of SAT scores, but any information people have on this would be great. </p>
<p>Also, does Harvard consider 800s on the M and V section but on different days a 1600? I am assuming they do because they take your best scores.
(Please ignore my name too...sorry...very old account)</p>
<p>Thanks</p>
<p>Seems that I've read that about 40-50% of the 1600 scorers (on the old SAT) are accepted. Yes, Harvard combines the best scores from separate sittings.</p>
<p>Using 2000-2 data, 34.6% of 1600 scorers applying RD were admitted, while 61.4% of the 1600 scorers applying under the (then applicable) EA program were admitted.</p>
<p>[Table 5.2, page 160]</p>
<p>Byerly, is there statistics for any other schools in that chart? What about some of the binding programs like Penn ED?</p>
<p>Yale: 55.3%/81.3%
Stanford: 73.7%/89.2%
Princeton: 61%/97.9%
Penn: 87%/99.1%
Dartmouth: 95.4%/99.4%
Columbia: 74.8%/99.1%
Brown: 32.9%/54.9%</p>
<p>Bylerly, that has to be wrong...I think? I thought all of the top schools reject more than half of the perfects now, or at least close. Can it really be that Dartmouth accepts 98%? And why would Brown be lower than every school including Harvard?</p>
<p>Sometimes a bit of "Tufts Syndrome" may be at work when a school has to decide whether or not to admit an academic superstar who is not bound to matriculate and who may have many other schools recruiting him.</p>
<p>Not the ONLY factor at work, but A factor.</p>
<p>Then too, in the Ivies at least, one could cynically suspect that there is a "booster" factor favoring admission of the 1600 scorers: as with athletic recruits, each ultra high scorer offsets a low scorer, keeping the median from falling to an undesirable level!</p>
<p>wow that seems odd...How every ivy has a ridiculously high ED/EA acceptance rate for 1600 scorers except brown. Where did u get those facts from Byerly?</p>
<p>As per the cite above, "The Early Admissions Game" (2003)</p>
<p>Maybe Brown has Tufts Syndrome. I think that the top school that it loses admittees to is Harvard. If a student applies to Brown regular admission and has a 1600, unless the student is in a very rare category (such as being a double legacy or URM) or demonstrates an exceptionally strong interest in Brown, Brown may reject the student, assuming the student is likely to be accepted by Harvard and to go there.</p>
<p>Recently, I met one of the Brown alum interviewers in my area, and when we started talking about the most amazing student we'd ever inteviewed, it ended up that we were talking about the same student. Both of us had never seen such a stellar student and gave the student the best recommendations that we ever had done.</p>
<p>Harvard accepted the student (incidentally after deferring the student EA). Brown rejected the student, the only rejection that the student received among the student's many applications to top colleges. The student is at Harvard, which always was the student's first choice. :)</p>
<p>Brown has always lost a huge majority of the common admits to Harvard. When the "Early Admissions Game" stats were gathered, Brown still shared an EA pool with Harvard, and lost most of the early common admits to Harvard as well.</p>
<p>The principlal reason Brown switched to binding ED was to reduce the size of the Harvard overlap pool and thus to increase its yield.</p>
<p>I think Brown also loses most common admits to Yale and Princeton as well - though not to the degree - or in the numbers - it does vis a vis Harvard.</p>
<p>Clearly, Brown loses cross-admit battles with certain other Ivies, particularly Harvard, but the numbers don't support a claim of "Tufts syndrome," although NSM's story suggests that Brown may have felt that they couldn't get that individual student. Since Brown has binding ED, they wouldn't have to worry about losing early applicants to other schools. Yet, their ED 1600 acceptance rate is still only 54.9. For some reason, Brown just doesn't seem as impressed with 1600 scorers than other Ivies.</p>
<p>That number - 54.9% - dated from the days of open EA at Brown, when it shared an EA pool with Harvard, MIT and others.</p>
<p>Very interesting to see those statistics. Of course, you need more than numbers to get in. Last year my friend got a 1600 and she was deferred and then waitlisted at Harvard; rejected from Princeton, Yale, Stanford, UPenn; and got into Duke, Johns Hopkins, and Brown. She got a full scholarship to Northwestern :) , so it all works out in the end.</p>
<p>Here are some stats for the Class of 2008 at Brown, with the number of apps, the number of admits, the percentage of admits, and the number of matriculants (so that you can calculate yield) in various sub-sets of SAT scorers. This is for the verbal, but the Math is similar:</p>
<p>750-800 3,359 904 26.9% 424
700-740 3,639 627 17.2% 330
650-690 3,184 415 13% 277
600-640 2,271 276 12.2% 194
550-590 1,004 117 11.7% 85
500-540 500 51 10.2% 37
450-490 216 19 8.8% 16
< 450 110 7 6.4% 4
No CEEB Scores 1,003 88 8% 62
Total 15,286 2,504 16.4% 1,429</p>
<p>I wonder how does it work for the new SAT? I have 1600 (in different sittings though) and a ridiculously low writing both times...and don't feel like taking it a third time. sigh</p>
<p>At the Penn meeting I was told that they reject more than 1/2 of the perfect SATs. I was rejected early from Penn with a 1600...it can't be 99.1%!!!</p>
<p>I never realized that a 1600 was a major hook for Harvard in the EA round. My son was such a "single-sitting" scorer (with 800 in writing), but we never attributed his acceptance to his SAT scores. We figured that every student in the country who got such scores would naturally apply to Harvard, and that the majority would still be rejected. The numbers cited by Byerly are as high as, say, something like the RSI acceptance rate, which I've always heard is a serious hook. I also thought that scores in the high 700's would not be viewed as significantly different from two 800's. And I am particularly shocked by those acceptance rates for Penn, Columbia and Dartmouth; I wonder if things have changed in the last 4-5 years.</p>
<p>That's amazing, NSM! I'd love to meet him/her. It's extremely impressive that someone could come across so well to both of you in an interview format.</p>
<p>Bylerly-</p>
<p>Thanks for the numbers, but I doubt that numbers are very accurate. They are far too high. Plus, they are based on data from quite a few years ago, and the process has changed quite a bit since then. Has anyone seen recent stats?</p>