<p>Dean William R. Fitzsimmons: "With the SAT, small differences of 50 or 100 points or more have no significant effect on admissions decisions."</p>
<p>So es-tee-eff-you already. There's no difference between a 2200 and a 2300.</p>
<p>Your conclusion, as well as the Dean’s comment, is belied by the acceptance percentages over various SAT scores.</p>
<p>Or perhaps there is simply a correlation between high SATs and exceptional extracurriculars, essays, and class schedules, things that Harvard cares much more about? A person with a 2300 is not going to have any real advantage over a person with a 2250.</p>
<p>I don’t know how much evidence you need besides the words coming right out of the Dean’s mouth. If they did put a lot of emphasis on SAT scores, and if they did care about a 2200 vs. a 2300, they would tell you.</p>
<p>Lol, what a coincidence - I took the SAT in soph year cold and got a 2200. </p>
<p>I’m definitely retaking though since I think I can do better.</p>
<p>Then Harvard and Princeton must have radically different admissions policies: [Princeton</a> University | Admission Statistics](<a href=“http://www.princeton.edu/admission/applyingforadmission/admission_statistics/]Princeton”>http://www.princeton.edu/admission/applyingforadmission/admission_statistics/) </p>
<p>Trusting a Dean’s word regarding admissions is like trusting Vince’s word regarding Shamwow. They’re both trying to get your money and are encouraging you to send that money by applying for Harvard/buying the Shamwow. Truth is, while many 2100-2200 SAT scorers get into Harvard, quite a few of these are: URMs, athletes, legacies, developmentals, or have extremely strong ECs/accolades. Without these applicants, the acceptance rate for scorers between 2100 and 2290 at Princeton would probably dwindle down to the mid single digits. Those 2300-2400 are getting at a 250% higher rate despite a much larger percentage of them being unhooked.</p>
<p>I think I’ll trust the facts over the salesman, thank you.</p>
<p>
50 point difference? No, you’re absolutely right; a 50 point difference is likely negligible. But you’re also forgetting that the importance of ECs really is overstated on these boards. Only a handful of high school students actually exhibit tremendous leadership skills like raising hundreds of thousands in a fundraiser; similarly, the only other people getting in on ECs are nationally highly-ranked at their skill, such as USAMO winners and national debate champions. Being president of Key Club is not what entails a strong EC. You cannot forget that a school cannot rely heavily on ECs because they are wildly inconsistent; that is why, far and away, the two most important factors for college admissions are grades and test scores. Oh yeah, the fact that the admissions percentages are at such great odds with each other suggests that even if ECs were as powerful as you stated, test scores themselves would still be part of the reason.</p>
<p>Other concepts, such as academic index, also indicate that no matter the score level, a 10 point difference is still a 10 point difference, and though negligible statistically, as the difference grows, the chances change more and more significantly. If colleges used a score range system rather than precise indexes, there would be, again, very inconsistent acceptance rates. Similarly, a holistic system cannot rely on its own premise with regard to scores because otherwise admissions would take longer than a month to complete.</p>
<p>“I don’t know how much evidence you need besides the words coming right out of the Dean’s mouth.”</p>
<p>A lot more.</p>
<p>I should add that perhaps the admissions officers at Harvard didn’t get the message. One at a recent information session responded to a question roughly similar to this matter by saying simply that the higher one’s scores, the better.</p>