<p>In case you're interested, collegeboard.com has posted the middle 50% for writing on some schools now (but not all). Interestingly, Columbia's middle 50 was 660-700.... I thought this was shockingly low. Maybe it shows that they are disregarding it in their admissions, so they might be low. What do you think?</p>
<p>Where is this data from? I find it shocking that 75% of Columbia's applicants got at or below 700 on the Writing -- regardless of whether writing counts or is disregarded. You need to be a good test-taker to get into Columbia as a general matter, so it's unlikely that the type of people who are getting into Columbia just happen to have sub-700 writing scores.</p>
<p>I agree. The writing scores seem to correlate strongly with critical reading - in my case, 780/770, and I've seen similar results for many others that have taken the new SAT. I find it hard to believe that Columbia students are sucking so bad.</p>
<p>That statistic seems COMPLETELY false...I have to agree with the above posters.</p>
<p>Where are you getting these numbers from? Can you post a link?</p>
<p>I am pretty sure that when a Columbia admissions rep came to my school, she said that Columbia either does not consider the writing section or was undecided at that point.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I am pretty sure that when a Columbia admissions rep came to my school, she said that Columbia either does not consider the writing section or was undecided at that point.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's considering it sort of like the old SAT2 but isn't sure how much to weigh it.</p>
<p>It's on the collegeboard website, under the college profiles when you search for colleges. Just visit that link krikey posted.</p>
<p>Well there's not always a correlation...I have 800V 650W which means I'm even below that 25% percentile. It's a new section, you know they said that Shakespeare would faile the new writing section. People aren't sure how to do this section yet, and collegeboard's marking probably isn't firmed up yet either. If you're lucky enough to have a writing style that correlates with their current marking scheme, great for you, but for a lot of us the writing paper doesn't truly show someones writing skills, especially when people can't prepare for it, or even know what they are looking for.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Shakespeare would faile
[/quote]
brilliant and subtle joke, or convenient typo?</p>
<p>
[quote]
brilliant and subtle joke, or convenient typo?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Lmao. </p>
<p>
[quote]
If you're lucky enough to have a writing style that correlates with their current marking scheme, great for you, but for a lot of us the writing paper doesn't truly show someones writing skills, especially when people can't prepare for it, or even know what they are looking for.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The writing test is primarily based on one's mastery of the english language and mechanisms. The essay does not largely impact your overall score, so people that can spot basic mistakes should be able to do fairly well.</p>
<p>Ok...point conceded =P I'm not good at spotting errors...whether typos or in SAT writing =P Mehhh, microsoft has spell check for that.</p>
<p>I suspect that the upper number is a typo. The range is too narrow.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Ok...point conceded =P I'm not good at spotting errors...whether typos or in SAT writing =P Mehhh, microsoft has spell check for that.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>I agree. I always spell "receive" incorrectly on anything written, thanks to Microsoft's auto-correct spell-check feature. =P</p>
<p>I'm not sure that it's all about spotting errors, unless it's very different from the old SAT 2. both my kids got 800 on the MC part, but one got a 6 on the essay (I saw it--it was error-free and elegantly written, at least says this college writing professor) and one got an 8. So there' got to be more to it.</p>
<p>There is a pretty general formula for scoring a 9+ on the essay: right roughly two pages, have two or three well formed support paragraphs, and be sure to take a stance (no cherrypickers). Of course, if you are not a decent writer, nothing will work.</p>
<p>I recommend the College Board Blue Book if you want a better idea on what they are looking for.</p>
<p>I agree with buttery</p>
<p>Both the M and CR are 660-760, so maybe Columbia meant to write 660-760 for Writing too?</p>
<p>Most of the top colleges get the same applicants.. and Penn has 650-740, Stanford has 660-760, Princeton has 680-770, and JHU has 630-720.. so an upper number of 700 really seems low for Columbia</p>
<p>well im banking on it being 700 =D makes my score look slightly better.Though actually checking back on my score report, I've a 10 essay, which is ok and it was actually MC which brought me down more.</p>
<p>I've found in a few cases that the College Board numbers were not always what they should have been (not with Columbia so much as with other schools) but often the percentages and scores don't match up with what the college lists on their website, who knows why.. but that's what I've found.</p>
<p>As for the writing scores, I still don't know to think about that yet either. Someone brought up the point that yes, you must be an overall good test taker to get into Columbia.. but I've also found there has been a rather large score spread among my friends. One girl, a state recognized student poet and writer scored a 600V and a 400W (she's not a good test taker, but a 400?!? She's an amazing writer.) On the other hand I got a 690V and a 770 W, almost a 100 point difference... so I feel like there is still a lot of variation.</p>