Would you retake the SAT with a 2330?

Colleges and Universities A-Z Harvard University
81

<p>I am not saying my opinions are the case. I am trying to guess how the system works with what I know. You are doing likewise. I never claimed anything about personal opinions. It has always been about how the adcoms evaluate each application.</p>

<p>Whether you like it or not, you have not thoroughly shown "what the case is". All your doing is giving numbers and claiming they apply to the OP. I just mathematically shown how the 50% mark is about 2225. All you did was give your opinion on what the mark is without any mathematical explanation of your data. </p>

<p>I come from a competitive high school in a middle class/upper middle class area, and the data from my school shows otherwise. It depends on how much people apply to top-level schools from your demographic and not how wealthy your demographic really is. So you cant really apply your data on the OP, and stop saying you are not applying your personal experiences on the OP because you just did. I am doing likewise to counter your own personal claims. </p>

<p>Just because you retook the SAT and got in to Stanford, does not mean you got in because you retook your SAT; nor does it mean they dont look down upon multiple test takers with already high SAT scores. I am not saying they will reject you because you retook it (others have said they could turn down a 2400 for that reason); all I am saying is that it probably would not help your chances while at the same time possibly hurt your chances. Again, you just made a personal claim, which is fine with me; just dont say I am making much more personal claims.</p>

<p>I brought up the fact that I only applied to one Ivy to defend my own claim that I am not just applying for prestige (not as part of the argument as a whole).</p>

<p>About the Saturday morning issue. I NEVER said he should be doing something productive. Nor did I say he should play rugby lol. Nor did I say playing FOOTBALL (not rugby; I play football with rugby players lol) with your friends is productive. Actually, it kind of is because it helps prep us for the rugby season. But anyway, I just feel he can chill out, sleep in, do a puzzle, not waste money, etc., because the risk of not doing as well or better and the insignificance of a higher SAT test at that point is not even worth the retake. </p>

<p>Just answer this one question: If he isnt postive he will do better, should he still retake it? Can we at least agree on this one circumstance?</p>

82

<p>And look at Cicero's math. I previously brought up AI in a different post, but he explains it thoroughly. That is real math that applies to all applicants.</p>

83

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/413821-sat-score-frequencies-freshman-class-sizes.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/413821-sat-score-frequencies-freshman-class-sizes.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

84

<p>
[quote]
I am not saying my opinions are the case. I am trying to guess how the system works with what I know. You are doing likewise. I never claimed anything about personal opinions. It has always been about how the adcoms evaluate each application.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I was actually talking to pbr there. lol :)</p>

<p>
[quote]
Whether you like it or not, you have not thoroughly shown "what the case is". All your doing is giving numbers and claiming they apply to the OP. I just mathematically shown how the 50% mark is about 2225. All you did was give your opinion on what the mark is without any mathematical explanation of your data.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You have not shown anything. Mainly because the distribution among the scores is clearly not equal, and you have not presented any evidence that it is. In other words, you're making a blind and totally unjustified guess. I could just assert that Harvard has more scores concentrated toward the top, which would negate your evidence. See? It's just as baseless.</p>

<p>Again, look at Princeton's data. Do you expect Harvard's to be SO different as to even out the huge upward curve completely? I mean, look at these:
Princeton</a> University | Admission Statistics</p>

<p>Come on. It's so obvious that SAT scores make a huge difference. Do you expect the admit rate to be the same over each interval? No. It clearly increases with SAT score more smoothly than that. You could claim that those with higher SAT scores are in general better at stuff. Then why are the acceptance rates so vastly different? I mean, 18% is far too much to account for the differences there. </p>

<p>If you want a more isolated case analysis, look at my school. I give you my word that GPAs are all about the same over that entire group, or rather, students' GPAs have no correlation with their SAT score (we have 3.93 2320s and 3.85 2380s). I can see two explanations:
1) SAT score differences like that do matter to adcoms FROM MY SCHOOL
2) SAT score differences like that still reflect different caliber-applicants</p>

<p>Both of these seem contrary to what you're saying. Legacy is not a factor at all. No URMs in that group at all. No low-income. Do you have another solution?</p>

<p>
[quote]
I come from a competitive high school in a middle class/upper middle class area, and the data from my school shows otherwise.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Exactly. So how could you say that it does or does not matter to the OP?</p>

<p>It depends on how much people apply to top-level schools from your demographic and not how wealthy your demographic really is. So you cant really apply your data on the OP, and stop saying you are not applying your personal experiences on the OP because you just did. I am doing likewise to counter your own personal claims.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm not applying it to the OP. I was simply refuting your claim that somehow SAT scores above 2300 didn't matter precisely. Clearly, at my school that is not the case. Is it in the OP's? I have no idea. But I would not be so bold as to claim that there was no way that it is/is not.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I am not saying they will reject you because you retook it (others have said they could turn down a 2400 for that reason); all I am saying is that it probably would not help your chances while at the same time possibly hurt your chances.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Clearly, they did not reject me for that reason. Who, exactly, has said that they would turn down a 2400 for that reason? And I don't care if it helps. I'm not arguing that at all. I'm just saying that it can't hurt. I took one test again. The OP is a junior and has taken the SAT already. I don't see how taking it again could hurt.</p>

<p>This personal experience is exactly that, personal. But if they honestly cared that much they would have just rejected me. But they didn't. So what I have is at least anecdotal evidence that retaking high scores doesn't hurt. On the other hand, the opposing side has offered nothing quantitative nor qualitative.</p>

<p>
[quote]
But anyway, I just feel he can chill out, sleep in, do a puzzle, not waste money, etc., because the risk of not doing as well or better and the insignificance of a higher SAT test at that point is not even worth the retake.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>In other words, he should do nothing over retake the SAT? Thanks for justifying my point...</p>

<p>And the answer to your question is no. But a 2330 without studying can definitely be improved.</p>

<p>I got 235 on my PSAT, studied for SAT. It made the difference without a doubt.</p>

85

<p>No no no no no no no!!!</p>

86

<p>I am not saying SAT scores dont mater, they do! Once again you gave me data w/o explanation. The Princeton data does not show any difference in acceptance chances between a 2300 and a 2400. I am confused by that chart anyway. The percentages do not add up to 100%. So I assume its not saying that 28% of the class has 2300/2400, but that Princeton accepts 28% of scorers who had between a 2300-2400? In that case, the 50% mark will probably fall in the 2200-2300 range b/c 28% of all 23/24 scorers will be a relatively smaller number than 10% of all 22/23 scorers. Do the math with Tokens data above. Either way were comparing a 2300(or 2330 in this case) to a 2400. So that data is not relevant. Everyone knows a 2200 and a 2300 will have significantly different chances. Why you telling me that? And you did apply yourself to the OP b/c you said you and the OP come from similar backrounds therefore the data will be similar.</p>

87

<p>Waitn, that's what I was saying about the smooth curve.</p>

<p>Look at the data. What do they tell you? Ten percent of people between 2200 and 2300 are accepted (that's what it means). Over twenty-eight percent of people between 2300 and 2400 are accepted. The difference is HUGE.</p>

<p>Now, there are two possibilities if you break down the data further.</p>

<p>1) Admit rate for 2200 = rate for 2230 = rate for 2280 = 10%
Admit rate for 2300 = rate for 2330 = rate for 2360 = rate for 2400 = 28%</p>

<p>2) Admit rate for 2200 is less than 10%, Admit rate for 2280 is greater than 10%, Averages to 10%
Admit rate for 2330 is less than 28%, Admit rate for 2390 is greater than 28%, averages to 28%</p>

<p>The exact values here are totally arbitrarily picked. You get the idea. Which is it, do you think? Do you think that the entire 2300-2400 bracket has rate 28%? Or is 2200 maybe 5%, 2300 maybe 17%, and 2400 way higher, like 35-50%?</p>

<p>The curve is clearly smooth, i.e. acceptance rate goes up with the brackets as well. The 50% mark is probably closer to 2330 than 2200, or even 2250. The data are totally relevant. And they say that SAT scores matter.</p>

<p>I did compare my school to the OP's, you're right.</p>

88

<p>You are guessing the curve. The admit rate between 2330 and 2400 doesn't necessarily imply a major difference in chance. Unless the data clearly shows a comparison between those two values, it isnt safe to assume a significant increase in chance between the two SAT values. The fact they placed both scores in the same SAT range also suggests that both scores will not be significantly different. Either way, neither you nor I can make any conclusions. Only the man behind the desk in the adcom office has that data. Anyways, you didnt comment on the part of our argument concerning the 50% mark (which isnt really related to the OP's dilemma, but interesting nonetheless) </p>

<p>I am done arguing with you because I have wasted too much time on this topic and we arent getting anywhere; instead the argument has fragmented into several sub-arguments and none of these sub-arguments seem to end. We can agree on one conclusion: If he isnt positive he will do better, then he shouldnt retake it. Either way, you brought up alot of good points which have somewhat changed my opinion toward this dilemma (although I still think he shouldn't retake it). Whats your first choice for college? Congrats on getting into Stanford (especially with their crazy increase in applicants this year). That was my first choice but my parents would not allow me to apply there (due to distance) :(. At least I didnt have to worry about getting rejected :). Anyways good luck.</p>

89

<p>no </p>

<p>10char</p>

90

<p>waitn, of course it's safe to assume an increase. Again, look at the other data. It's not a step function. And even though they are in the same bracket, they could be vastly different. That was just a silly statement you made. LOOK AT THE NUMBERS. A 2200 is in the same bracket as a 2290, and there is NO WAY that they are the same. Again, look at the numbers. </p>

<p>Hey, do you want me to pull out Stanford's class profile, which has two categories: 700-790 and 800? Guess what. The percentages are stark again. Do you want me to post it? If not, then I can only assume you agree with what I said earlier.</p>

<p>About the 50% mark: Make a convincing case that the scores are evenly distributed over the entire interval and I'll believe you.</p>

91

<p>You are all wrong because Princeton's data on their site is 2100-2290, not 2200-2290...</p>

92

<p>Baelor, I just checked the SCEA results for Yale, and there was an insignificant difference between 2300-2350 and 2350-2400. The later was a little higher (I forget, about 1%, 2% ?), but the rejection rate for 2350+ was also higher (by about 1%,2%) So , pull out Stanfords data if you want; but Yale's data proves otherwise. Sorry, I cant find the exact thread. But, if you look around, you might find it. Anyways I admit defeat in the argument b/c of one new thing I learned yesterday: The collegeboard is going to let test takers pick the scores they want to send next year (I think next year). So, even if they OP bombs the test with a 1700, colleges will never know, assuming they implement that new rule next year.</p>

93

<p>
[quote]
I just checked the SCEA results for Yale

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Link, please? Is that an official link, or student self-reports here on CC? </p>

<p>P.S. Everyone else who is referring to figures from one or another college, could you kindly post your links to your sources?</p>

94

<p>Check out the Minneapolis StarTribune article about the kid who scored a 2400 on his SAT. He started studying for the exam in 7th grade...</p>

<p>Let's get him to join us in our Saturday morning hoopsfest, as he can now officially take Saturdays off from test-taking!</p>

95

<p>^ Amen token. waitn, Yale's "data?" Have they even published data, or are you going off the CC results thread? That thread is unreliable as a general indication. The sample size is far too small to be of any real use, and there's no way to know how many top students in each SAT category actually applied. To say that CC has most of them is ridiculous; for example, I am the only student from my school on CC, and we got over 16+ people into HYPS last year. </p>

<p>On the other hand, here is Stanford's data.</p>

<p><a href="http://admission.stanford.edu/pdf/stanford_preview.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://admission.stanford.edu/pdf/stanford_preview.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>First number is percent of applicants, second is admission rate.</p>

<p>SAT Math: 800 - 14%, 15%
700-799 - 46%, 10%</p>

<p>SAT CR: 800 - 8%, 18%
700-799 - 35%, 13%</p>

<p>SAT W: 800 - 7%, 21%
700-799 - 39%, 13%</p>

<p>Those differences are even larger than I thought. And I highly doubt that the acceptance rates, with such different numbers (~5% for CR, M and ~8% for W). Now, it's worth noting that 700(3) = 2100, so you have to compile the data yourself, so to speak. The ACT similarly has a broad range (30-36). Still, someone with 800 in each category seems to be better off than someone with a 2330.</p>

96

<p>Sorry about that :( ; I know, very clumsy of me to make an argument w/ data w/o showing the data. It is in a CC thread (in the Yale section I believe). Anyways, I wil find it later for you. Token, I am pretty sure it had results from CC and official results (it showed that CCers did better acceptence-wise than the official results). I will find it later.</p>

<p>Anwyays, it turns our main argument about retaking the SAT was pointless since the collegeboard will implement that new rule next year. Anyways, I am not trolling, I will find that data later for you.</p>

97

<p>No problem, waitn. We love you. ;)</p>

<p>No need for data, I read the thread (Dartmouth, Yale, Columbia, Stanford...all of them). It just didn't show national statistics for score breakdown (schools don't publish results for early-only as far as I know). </p>

<p>Anyway, I think we agree. However, waitn, you are wrong in "admitting defeat." Harvard will still require all scores to be reported on the CommonApp, or so I've heard. The new rule won't be worth much.</p>

98

<p>Oh, but how will they know you didn't send some, if you just send the scores for one date? Will they get a record of the dates you have taken the test regardless of sending the scores for one date?</p>

99

<p>I can't answer, since I haven't done enough research. I assume the official score reports will NOT include every test score. Perhaps the school sends all of them, which would tell them. Also, the CommonApp. Of course, it involves some trust.</p>

100

<p>Wow, how did this become seven pages??? Haha.</p>

<p>Also, I also went to CTY (hehe) and I took SATs in October of junior year and got 2320 and... I also did think of retaking it and shoot for 2400, but I decided not to. From what I've heard and seen and read, I feel pretty fine with my decision... but come April, I might think otherwise. Let's see then. :)</p>