Sometimes I come onto CC seeing people say stuff like 'why apply to cornell unless you have a 2200+ SAT score?"
Whats your opinion on a solid SAT score for a generally well rounded application? Exclude URM SAT scores case thats a different case.
I would think around 1900+, or am I being too lenient?
Can’t answer that, nor can anyone with much certainty. Your gpa and HS course rigor are a greater indicator of success in college.
This will give you a better idea. They only report CR + M, as you can see you are being too lenient:
http://irp.dpb.cornell.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Profile2014-Freshmen.pdf
So it really seems the ACT just doesn’t seem to hold as much weight? They did not report the ACT breakdown of applicants with the same detail as for the SAT.
@csdad yesssss my cr+m is better in comparison to my total so im happy
“So it really seems the ACT just doesn’t seem to hold as much weight? They did not report the ACT breakdown of applicants with the same detail as for the SAT”, …they will take the highest score (SAT or ACT), when reporting they are only required to report total ACT scores & not the area breakdown as on the SAT, but ACT is looked upon with equal weight as SAT (my D had a higher ACT than SAT score and was accepted).
There’s no minimum score, and if you can make a convincing case for yourself to the admissions committee based on other elements of your application you could very well be successful with a <2000 score. Expectations for standardized testing will also vary depending on the college/school to which you are applying. Obviously people don’t walk around telling everyone their SAT scores, but of the few friends who have shared this information, everyone was 2150+ with the average being closer to 2250. Then again, this is only a very limited example and might not apply to the undergraduate population in general.
No evidence whatsoever – and it goes against common sense. Many regions of the country, the SAT is unheard of. Why would Cornell spend big $ on marketing and recruiting only to disadvantage a wide swath of applicants for no better reason than test choice? ACT or SAT – colleges are sophisticated enough to use results from either. ACT reporting (due to the sub sections) is not as simple and usually is a composite avg. The SAT is easier to analyze and compile – that’s all.
Good to know! Daughter’s ACT was better than the SAT but she did very well on all the subject tests so we just sent everything in. Was just hoping they would not consider her lower SAT a mark against her.
They are not looking for reason NOT to accept a student, rather if they like everything else about the applicant they are are looking for ways that accepting them will not hurt their “stats”, thus taking & reporting the highest score.
I’d expect the ACTs to be treated the same way as the SAT (except some schools don’t superscore the ACTs). There are conversion charts to equate SAT and ACT scores. Changes in the SAT are attributable to the fact that the ACTs are now taken by more students and the rise includes students in the northeast. I don’t think use of the SATs or ACTs has anything to do with predicting how well students will do in college. An interesting oddity is that, for the ACTs, the Math and English sub-scores marginally correlate to grades while science adds so much error that the composite isn’t really related to 1st year grades. If admissions cared, they’d look only at the English and Math subscores and some schools do just that.
saismom, it isn’t a matter of how important they view the ACT but what aspect of the ACT they use. Some schools use only the composite (a mistake for the reasons I note in the post above this one).
Cornell uses highest “ACT Composite” only for admission decision, not the components, not the superscore.
Cornell does not take into account SAT Writing (see Engineering FAQ and Dyson AEM Stat). Only Math and CR scores are looked at.
They ignore SAT/ACT essay scores…
See this site for information and stat:
http://irp.dpb.cornell.edu/common-data-set
(2013 Dataset: Pages 7 and 8)
Just as an aside about the new SAT going forward:
The new test, which will be rolled out in 2016, will no longer require an essay, though it will still be optional; will eliminate the current penalty for wrong answers; will focus math on three key areas aligned with college readiness; and will replace obscure vocabulary words with ones students are more likely to use consistently.
In certain ways, the changes will bring the SAT more in line with the ACT, which recently overtook the SAT in popularity. The ACT also has an optional essay and no penalty for wrong answers.
It is interesting since we noted Georgia Tech ONLY looks at the ACT math and English and the combo English/writing score. They do this to have a direct comparison to the SAT. They do not consider the ACT composite or the ACT reading or science.
I find the notion of “excluding URM scores” to be very offensive. It implies that all URMs admitted are in someway less qualified than their fellow white or Asian applicants. And it implies that if they have gotten in, it is because of their race and not their academic credentials. Including that statement also excludes URMs from being able to comment on this thread because apparently, when they get in with a lower score, it’s automatically because they are a minority and if they get in with a high score, it’s because they are qualified. This is so common on CC and it frustrates me.
^^
That’s why a lot of people is against Affirmative Action for the reason that you have stated above.
Saismom, What Georgia Tech does suggests that their admissions officers know something about psychometric properties and tests (and what other schools do show that they don’t). There is now pretty strong evidence that, for the ACT’s, the only valid subtests are Math and English. The other two subtests, although particularly the Science one simply adds noise/error to the total score (composite). Why use invalid parts of the test when you have can easily focus on the valid subtests. Why would you want to use a score that is less valid when you can use scores that are much more valid?
It worked out for us because D got a 36 in Math ACT which was better than her SAT score. Oddly she did very well on the Math 2 subject test.