<p>SAT is only one part of the admission, so I don't see why they are just soooo important to Ivy's!!</p>
<p>simple answer: it’s not</p>
<p>They’re not so important. They’re probably less important to the Ivies than to most public universities, which don’t have the luxury of maintaining huge admissions staffs to pore over every application.</p>
<p>The reason why they are somewhat important is that they provide a means of comparing students from vastly different backgrounds, who attended vastly different schools with different levels of opportunity, grading systems, ranking systems, culture. They’re hardly perfect for that, but no one has come up with a clearly superior solution.</p>
<p>At most elite colleges, they seem to be used most as part of an initial screen to determine who bona fide candidates are, although no such college has anything like a minimum cut-off for consideration. After that, if they are used at all it is as one factor among many. Small differences in SAT scores are not going to be relevant at all. There is no evidence that anyone cares about the difference between 750 and 780 on an SAT I test. Lots of people with great scores get rejected. At Harvard, about half of the applicants with perfect SAT scores are rejected. Of course lots of people are accepted with less-than-perfect SAT scores (some with substantially-less-than-perfect scores), but hardly anyone is accepted with less-than-very-good scores. Which may mean that SATs are a weak factor in decisions, or may mean that SAT scores are somewhat correlated with whatever qualities Harvard is looking for, so that when Harvard finds those people, they tend have higher scores.</p>
<p>They’re important because of James Conant.</p>
<p>So if I am a student who ranks 1 in my class out of 400 kids, I have good enough extraculs, great recommendations, great background, been in US four years didnt know no english and just worked worked and worked, good character and personality, and have a SAT of 1800, then I should not even consider a school like Harvard? I find it cheap, because who knows what I will do in future, but shouldn’t Harvard be smarter and care about the potential of a student? Sure I might have terrible CR scores on SAT, but I can learn! I find it sad.</p>
<p>Bluepurple, I know a student who just graduated from Harvard, who came to the U.S. in 10th grade. English was her fourth language. She got in the 400s on the CR test the first time she took it. But about 14 months later she had a 700. (Her math held steady at 800 every time.) She was sixth in her class, and was accepted EA.</p>
<p>I am not up on the admissions requirements for non-English speakers. I think you can submit a TOEFL. I am sure that they are aware that the CR and Writing tests are challenging for ELLs. But I am also sure that they probably look for signs of improvement. There’s a bit of a dilemma, because English is the language of instruction and social and academic discourse at Harvard; if you really have trouble with it, you won’t be able to take full advantage of the institution. In any event, you should not assume that one bad SAT test will doom your Harvard application, but you probably have to do something to show that you are a good bet to improve your English. </p>
<p>This is something you should talk to an admissions officer about, or some students there from your original country.</p>
<p>From what I have heard, there is no “minimum”. SATs are just part of your total package.</p>
<p>Should you wish to have a higher SAT for consideration, you did not indicate that you took the ACTs more than once. They might go up. You can also consider the ACT. Despite prepping for the SAT and not the ACT, my daughter scored MUCH better on the ACT.</p>
<p>Harvard does accept students with 1800 SAT scores, just not very many.</p>
<p>They have to standardize intelligence somehow. Do I like the SAT? I think it’s extremely flawed, but I don’t think any other standardized test can do much better. And frankly, everyone here is understating the importance of the SAT. It is still probably the quintessential metric used to determine how qualified an applicant is. Of course, more than half of 2400ers will be rejected, but at the same time how does that compare to the percentage of 2100ers rejected? Generally speaking, SAT scores correlate with admissions results because over-reliance on subjective factors simply randomizes things too much. Your ECs are only as good as your scores unless that EC is a hook.</p>
<p>I will re-take both SAT and also take the ACT for the first time. Which one is easier?</p>
<p>Havard college has two applications:</p>
<p>1.) Male student who made 90% average at his high school with little to no A/P IB program. 90% = A at his school (yes, I know some!). He therefore has a 4.0 on a 4.0 scale. His school also has a very high weighting system for the honors courses he took. He takes many and has a 5.0! It is a small school, so he is on two varsity sports, as well as in their best band. He volunteers weekly with his church’s youth group, and even ends up 7th in his class (of 100). </p>
<p>2.) Male student attends a reknown college prep school. He has a 94% average, but it takes a 95% to get an A (like my high school did). It is a private school with tough academics and lots of competition. His B+ average gives him only a 3.33 on a 4.0 scale. He also takes a lot of honors and A/P courses, gets a lower weighting because their scale is different (my daughter’s current school is MUCH lower than her old school AND doesn’t give weight to as many classes) so he has only a 4.1. Yet he’s doing hard work, and getting better grades. Because his school is so competitive, he is 40th out of 400 kids. BARELY top 10%. Being a school of 3000 students, competition for everything is tough. So most kids have to devote everything to their varsity sport OR their A/P level of studies to do well in either. So this student chooses band for his extra-curricular activity. And they place first in state! But that’s not a personal achievement, and colleges seem to love those athletes, especially in the areas where they will make money (football, basketball).</p>
<p>Now, we KNOW that the colleges use their own weighting. But even then, you can’t erase step one…whereby different high schools convert different percentages into different letter grades. Of course the schools send their grading perspectus. But what admissions reader can really know ALL (especially small) schools? </p>
<p>So there MUST be some “ties” broken. My neice, who ended up with a full ride to a good state school versus getting into an Ivy but paying her way…then also got into an Ivy for law school but a full scholarship at a state school…was told that the “A” she earned at her large public school (she was 3rd of 800 kids) was not the same as an “A” at the number 1 private school in our state. Of course it’s not. It’s apples to oranges. BUT…what is to say she couldn’t have gotten that same A at the private school…if she’d been wealthy enough to go there and get that (better) education? </p>
<p>So…there MUST be something “standardized”. When a college receives 10 times the applications for the spots available, there MUST be some way to read between these lines. Applicant #1’s “numbers” might look better. But that is not the whole/true story…and something which tests all students in the same way…is the great equalizer.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I read an article last year about a pair of twin sisters who met this description perfectly. Their parents brought them to inner-city Lawrence, MA, where they worked hard, took advantage of what little resources they had at their disposal, and won over the school administration and the community. One was headed to Harvard, the other to Brown.</p>
<p>Actually, political agenda will trump all the numbers. If the applicants are blacks, hispanics or American Indians, they will have different consideration. If the applicants are athletic recruits, I don’t see how AO can deny the applications unless the applicants are political liability, since coaches are all powerful money guys in the University. That, however, cannot be said to music department. Similarly, it is also very tough for a university to turn down favors from big donors. In recent years, the political agenda extends into the recruitment of “first generation of college student” and “poor”. Fritzsimmons seems quite zealot about it. I am sorry: There is no fair game in university admission. The elite university are fooling themselves with all these anti-merit agenda for their undergraduate student body. They will have their payback time in the future, when their graduates underperform.</p>
<p>Thank you for the insight. I forgot to add that I am a rising IB senior. And also yes, some schools are harder than the other, and my school is not competitive. But that doen not mean I did not work hard. To get an A, you need to be above 93.5 and to show how I have improved my academic: in my freshman year, when I just came to US and my family and I were just adjusting and I didn’t speak English at all, I averaged a 3.8 in Pre-IB (I worked my back off practically, reading and reading chapters over and over–it wasn’t fun but I broke the academic wall–the first one). In my sophmore year, I believe I averaged a 4.6 with not a good teacher (a joker if I may say) for most of my classes. I had to carry the load if I wanted to be successful. I studied and studied and I got a 5 in my AP World History test, when everyone else did not surpass a 2. In IB I pretty much worked like my life did not matter, but the sole point of my existance (I know it sounds nerdish, but I had to do it, I’m not a super-smart person) was to get good grades. I ended up the first semester with 3 A+'s and 4 A’s, and the same thing in the second semester. I averaged a 5.27 in IB, which is much harder than preIB. I think this fact, the curve, does show my commitment, and academic potential. I truely have a hard time believing someone can go in my country (Iran) and learn Farsi in four years at a level to get those grades; ignoring all the changes that life brings, as well. Sure, I do not have high SAT’s but I did challenge myself, in a way I know noone around me has done. Obviously there are so many better applicants, but how many of them could have my background? Most of them would be coming from PhD families, and a wealthy family, which exposed them to all they needed to learn to ace those tests. I do not mean to be imprudent and impertinent but sometimes an individual is unable to show all that he or she has to offer, but time only will show his or her potential. I perfectly understand that there are thousands of applicants out there that are better than me, and I am proud of them, too. I know I pretty much have no chance at Harvard or other Ivy’s but I do not mind a good education somewhere else. I love to learn. I just find it not fair, but fairness theoretically is not achievable anyways.</p>
<p>Thank you.</p>
<p>The SAT is “so important” because, as many others have said, it “equalizes” everyone who applies. For example, if you have two kids who are both vals and have 4.0s UW, how the heck are colleges supposed to know who learned more/is “smarter?” Simple answer: the SAT. Of course, though, college admission offers ride of crappy SAT scores from select minorities on “racism.” Lol…I love it though, the Asians who were just as abused as Hispanics by America are kicking but and taking names on the SAT…so now they are discrimated against by colleges…ironic, no? It almost seems like colleges are trying to cover up the complete lack of mental fitness shown by certain groups of people…an action that is innately sinful. No bitterness here though, I am a white male from NE with a 2340 on the SAT and 35 on the ACT who has gone to public school is whole life…lol so I guess geographic unrepresentation will give me preference to those rich New Yorkers.</p>