<p>Hmm, yeah, colleges only like perfect people and a 2330 is far from perfect so I'd say if you didn't go for it you'd pretty much be annihilating your chances at any school better than a CC.</p>
<p>All these sarcasms are distasteful. Think about it, if you had a 2330 and even remotely thought that you could get a 2400, all of you would be considering it. Sheesh...</p>
<p>to the OP: obviously there are going to be people bashing on you for your "insanity" and there are gonna be people telling you to retake it. Do what you think is best for you, but keep in mind that 70 points probably won't make or break you in the end.</p>
<p>If you got a 2330, I do not think you should retake.</p>
<p>If you got like a 2200, I think you should, especially if you think you can do better.</p>
<p>I got over 2200, but I am going to retake (since I did not get higher than 700 on reading), so its not that big of a deal because I know I can do better...however, if i had gotten a 2330 like the OP, I would be very satisfied...</p>
<p>And yea, I cant believe that people are saying that getting 2400 is bad...the reason that you hear about so many people that get rejected with 2400 is because they have a reason to whine about it...after all they got perfect but still got rejected...the people that get like 2390 dont have a legit reason to whine (even though their rejection percentages are very similar)....besides the 2400ers that got rejected was not because they got 2400, its because they didnt have many awards, ECs...</p>
<p>But with that all being said, there is no difference betwene 2400 and 2350+ (or even 2330)...its just a few careless mistakes...the acceptance percentage for those SAT scores are about identical across colleges.</p>
<p>Some of these "attempts" at sarcasm are just too juvenile they make me laugh.</p>
<p>Some people are extremely happy with a 2300, some cry when they fall 50 points short of a perfect score. It's a matter of expectations and ability, really.</p>
<p>WOW. Okay. First post was sarcastic, but let's be straight up about this.</p>
<p>There is a HUGE difference between retaking from a 2200 and retaking from a 2330. Getting a 2330 means you have missed around 3 questions on the test. Getting a higher score WILL NOT COME FROM STUDYING HARDER! At this level of a score, it is COMPLETE LUCK. And anyone who honestly thinks someone who has a 2370 has a 10% greater chance of acceptance than a 2330 needs to:</p>
<p>1) Learn about the admissions process (go talk to some admissions officers)
2) Learn what lurking variables are</p>
<p>For reference, I am competing with you to get into college. Take the advice with a grain of salt and make your own decision.</p>
<p>Retake it. You know you want to.</p>
<p>Ok, I said it "might" look worse than say a 2370. I agree that was a dumb imaginative comment on my part, but anything is possible in Ivy admissions; and yea I am trying to discourage you from taking it again because I am a competitor lmao. Watch out! Stop reading now! I might steal your spot! Cmon people, ease up a bit, I am just giving my own opinion if it was my case. They see all the SATs you take, and if you retake it with a 2330, they might think your a score freak because that is an above average (average at about 2200) score to began with. If you want to "prove to yourself that you know you can do better", or get an "I got a 2400 Certificate", go ahead, but that wont necessarily increase your chances. I will admit I exaggerated when I said there is no point in retaking a 2200-2300 score, but most of you are over exaggerating the importance in my opinion. Yes, 10% is a significant improvement in chance, but people with higher SATs tend to have higher stats as well; so it is not just the SAT difference that changed chance by 10%. Confused Vnese speak for yourself: "It's people who don't matter in the admission process that say otherwise." I hope karma strikes you back come March 31. You are the one who is speculating (my rejection) and misinterpreting data.</p>
<p>^ I'm speculating your rejection? haha this is reading comprehension at its most grotesque.</p>
<p>Anyway, this thread is about the OP's possible retake of a 2330 and based on his/her first post it's clear that he has the other stats. And further considering that it was only his first time, I see no harm in retaking. Please don't make this about you, because it isn't. I was just pointing out your misleading statements, which there are plenty.</p>
<p>Only on this forum...</p>
<p>"It's people who don't matter in the admission process that say otherwise." I did say otherwise; therefore, you indirectly said I would get rejected, don't forget your the one shooting down possible suggestions others are making with your data interpretation skills and "lavish" word choice. If its about the OP then why are you complaining about my suggestions; just say your own thoughts and il say mine, simple as that. You cant disprove my opinions; you tried. Its about the OP, eh? Then don't try (keyword = try) to make fun of my reading comprehension, since it has little to do with his thread. Just admit it, the whole purpose of your last post was because you felt insulted by my previous post, not because you want to help the OP. Sorry I charged at you previous post (and in this one), you just seemed like the typical arrogant student one finds at top universities because of that one comment you made. Good luck w/ your pending admission decisions.</p>
<p>Do your opinions matter in the admission process, which are, let me be absolutely clear, decided by and only by admission officers? Since you obviously still can't understand my comment, let me spell it out for you. What i was trying to rebuff is your comment that there's no difference between a 2200 - which you considered the "threshold score" - and higher scores. I said there is definitely a difference between 2200 and, say, 2350-2400, citing statistics posted in the Princeton forum (which was in turn taken directly from the Princeton website). I advised the OP not to believe your misleading statements, further commenting that the people who give out this kind of statements are almost always those who are not directly making admission decisions, i.e. admission officers.</p>
<p>What I said was that your comment is unqualified and misleading, coming from someone whose opinion doesn't matter in the admission process. And you interpret it as i'm forecasting your rejection. Please reread your first two sentences and tell me again if it's reading comprehension gone insane. Of course there's bound to be bias here since I disagree with you, but your accusation that i somehow insinuated that you'll be rejected is unwarranted. </p>
<p>If you continue to attack my posts (and me, for that matter, since you've very explicitly stated that you consider me "the typical arrogant student"), I feel obligated to reply and clarify my points. Otherwise, I have made my opinion very clear and won't be participating in this discussion any more. OP, please bear in mind that none of us here is an admission officer so whatever we posted, supported by official statistics or otherwise, remain our opinions. Take everything with a grain of salt and make your own informed decision.</p>
<p>Sheesh, I have too much free time.</p>
<p>waitn184: Let me make the first move and unilaterally end this "fight". I disagreed with you and continue to, but I did not, and do not, in any way hurl ill wishes at you or your college application.</p>
<ul>
<li>Peace out -</li>
</ul>
<p>I realized that the OP has disappeared? It's been us arguing among ourselves...</p>
<p>if you know you can get higher than a 2330, then take it; if you don't know, then i'd be skeptical about taking it</p>
<p>Retake it if you truly think you can get higher</p>
<p>2200 =/= 2400</p>
<p>2400 =/= score freak auto-rejection</p>
<p>/end thread</p>
<p>There is a big difference between 2200 and 2330, but there is not a big difference between a 2330 and a 2400. If you believe in AI, which colleges do use initially (my teacher worked with people on the admissions committee at the university he went to, and said that the first thing they do is calculate out the AI and only after that do they start to look at ECs and awards and such; it does help to have a higher AI, but when you are within a certain range, raising your score probably does not matter much), then if you calculated out the SAT I portion of the AI (out of a total possible 80), a 2330 rounds out to a 78, 2400 is obviously an 80, and a 2200 is a 73. From what I know, using the generic AI formula that will pretty much predict an accurate AI range for the ivies, the cutoff for a 9/9 AI is a 229 combined. Assuming that this kid is a val in a class of 300+ students and has perfect SAT II scores, his AI for a 2400 would be 240, AI for 2330 would be 238, and AI for 2200 would be 233. Now (s)he might not be Val of a class of 300ish+ students nor a perfect SAT II scorer, but in the end, even a 2200 gives him an AI of 9. Only 2 AI points would be taken off for his current score, which would in the end look the same as a 2400 in the admissions committees' eyes. The only way it would make a difference would be if he had a relatively low class rank or bad SAT II scores.</p>
<p>Crap, I was almost done with this post when I closed out of my browser. Anyways, your attack on my reading comprehension is still unwarranted because when you say someone who says otherwise does not matter in the application process, the reader can easily interpret that as meaning "someone who has a different opinion does not have a chance in the application process". Application process as an entity can describe the students who go through the application process or the adcoms who are in charge of the process. Therefore, your quote was never clear enough to be understood, thats why I interpreted it as a personal attack. Now that I understand what it means, you are speculating the beliefs of adcoms. With that statement, you are saying that the adcoms believe what your opinions but not mine. I corrected myself about my exaggerated statement concerning the 2220-2300/400 score significance. Why would you bring up the same exact point that you had already made when the argument has moved on. Im just going to say what I had already said: 10% difference is a significant change in chance. HOWEVER, the data does not hold other stats (gpa, ex-cs, etc) constant with varying SAT scores, therefore, 10% is an invalid conclusion. Concerning the OP, he is already in the 2300/2400 score range, so that 10% chance increase does not apply to him (I know you did not say it applies to him, but I just said that in case he is reading, not as a part of my argument lol). My basic belief is that once someone has a good enough SAT score (which he does) they should work to fill out other gaps in their application because doing so would THAN significantly change your chances for admission. In conclusion, I agree with your final advice to the OP, please bear in mind that none of us here is an admission officer so whatever we posted, supported by official statistics or otherwise, remain our opinions. Take everything with a grain of salt and make your own informed decision." Good luck everyone everyone! I will surely need it.</p>
<p>Cicero brings out the best point thus far. There is not a significant difference between a 2330 and 2400. That was my original point and no one believed me. Look at the math ^^</p>
<p>Oh cicero, what do you think is the average AI at Harvad? And what do you think is the cut off for non-URM legacy athlete etc.? My AI is 7/9, does that put me in the range?</p>
<p>I don't really have enough information to speculate as to what the average AI is of the accepted at Harvard. Raw score wise, I think that the average for most top colleges for the applicant pool is around 205 while the average for the accepted pool is more like 215 (again, not exactly sure but I'm trying to pull this from my rusty memory). AI wise, I think in Harvard's case if you are a 9, you have a much better shot than an 8 or a 7 (I don't mean like 10% better, I mean substantially better). The average for Harvard is probably higher than the average for many other top schools, so a 7 would probably be around the average mark. You should be fine as long as you have decent ECs. I really don't like how people around here think you need to go crazy EC wise. Really, in my opinion, there are three categories for determining EC strength per se:</p>
<p>1) Prestigious National/International Competition/Recognition
2) Excellent activities (Research (not as good anymore), Stand-out Community Service, Competitions, etc...)
3) Near nothing (ie maybe a sport, no leadership positions, or just the regular band or whatnot....boring)</p>
<p>Most people fall into the number 2 category. After working on certain activities for a while or achieving a certain award or whatnot, you really can't compile extracurriculars that will match up to Intel STS. As long as you have devoted time to activities and have done some things outside of high school offered ECs, you really cannot improve that aspect too much unless you bulk up for Intel or the National Curling Team. And really, how many people succeed at obtaining seminfinalist at Intel STS each year...not many. Other than those few that have the desire and the ability to do these competitions or such, the rest of the pool just has to focus on things that they like.</p>
<p>Anyways, 7 should be alright, but don't rely purely on academics to push you through with AI 7/9. Make sure that you fall into my number 2 category (or preferably 1) in order to look competitive.</p>
<p>Alright, thanks a lot. I was just worried about the academic side of the equation. Now, I have hope again.</p>