<p>In the january administration of the SAT if you got 1 question wrong on the Math your score was a 770. Pretty brutal.</p>
<p>The SAT I Math tends to be the least forgiving of the sections on the SAT I, and it is also harder to score 800 on it, than on the SAT IIâs that I have seen. (This doesnât cover all of the SAT IIâs.) There might be fewer 800âs numerically on the SAT II Literature Exam, but I suspect that a student does not have to answer every question correctly to score 800 on it.</p>
<p>In 2013, there were more 800s on the math section of the SAT I than on either of the other two. By that metric, writing is the most difficult section of the three. </p>
<p><a href=âhttp://research.collegeboard.org/content/sat-data-tablesâ>http://research.collegeboard.org/content/sat-data-tables</a></p>
<p>There may be more 800 math SATâs because there are math clubs, math competitions , math circles, etc. Some kids doing lots of prep potentially in these kinds of situations that help with doing well on the math SAT. Maybe there are equivalent things that would lead to intense prep for critical reading or writing but I donât know.</p>
<p>It depends how you view difficulty. Usually, it is possible to miss 2 multiple choice questions on the writing section of the SAT I and still get an 800 on that section. Similarly, it is usually possible to miss 2 questions on the reading section and still get an 800. I personally find an exam easier if you can get the top score while missing a question or two. But of course that would vary from person to person.</p>
<p>Lots of people who score 800âs on the math section actually need no specific prep at all to do so. The math competitions and math circles mostly operate well beyond the 800-SAT-I-Math level. A student can be prepared to score 800 by having a reasonably good math class in school, reading the material that CB provides when the student registers for the test, and being careful (and awake) during the test itself.</p>
<p>Math is also non-subjective. Your answer is right or wrong, so if you practise and can do it all, 100% is highly feasible. Writing meanwhile is hard to judge. What one person thinks is good, another thinks is average. </p>
<p>I still am confused about the 700 , 780 + SAT math student, 800 SAT math student who has not participated in these math competitions in high school Some schools and parents really promote this emphasis on math from an early age, others do not. I still am confused about how many 1100 or 1200 + math students are out there if that metric existed. How many true math âgeniusesâ are out there in any particular cohort? And as long as your math skills are used for good, does it really matter if you had a 700 or 780 or 800 score as opposed to some off the charts score that doesnât even exist. I just really think the true math geniuses or geniuses in any field, really , are rare and will eventually reveal themselves. </p>
<p>@Sue22:</p>
<p>Teenagers often downplay their acheivements because they donât know what acheivements matter yet and just assume that what they see other kids value must be whatâs valued. I remember reading a results thread where some kid was ecstatic that he got in to a top CS program despite numbers that werenât out of the ordinary (for that program). Under ECs, he listed a bunch of pedestrian ECs like band member and debate member and what not. Then, as an aside, added that he also had a mobile phone app-making company.</p>
<p>@QuantMech:</p>
<p>So in the end, you donât actually have an example of a top-20 supergenius who in your eyes belongs at MIT/Harvard/Stanford, applied to all 3, got rejected by all 3, and would be impacted in a powerfully negative way if they went to Columbia instead. âCould easilyâ is a judgement call if not backed by actual evidence, and frankly, I donât trust your judgement of what Harvard (or other schools) look for. To use your term, this problem that you wring your hands over could easily be nonexistent.</p>
<p>And Henry Park seems to have turned out fine, so while it was forthright of you to provide the ending, he really doesnât strengthen your argument.</p>
<p>@collegealum314:</p>
<p>If your stellar students who are deep creative thinkers can express their deep creative thinking in their writing, they most definitely will be rewarded in the application process.</p>
<p>For some reason, this message keeps getting lost on CC: ESSAYS MATTER. ESSAYS MATTER A LOT.</p>
<p>An applicant with meh numbers and essays that are unforgettable has a far better chance of getting admitted in to a top school than an applicant with near-perfect or perfect numbers and crap essays. Just check results threads.</p>
<p>I thought people knew this back in the '90âs, but evidently not.</p>
<p>@sevmom - as QM and I (and others) have mentioned - thereâs really no connection between Math Team, competitions, etc. - and what someone snobbily but correctly 
called a âremedialâ exam, i.e. the SAT-I-Math section.</p>
<p>In a sense you are right - who cares about what it would mean to get 1100 on an 800 point remedial test. Does it mean you really really pay attention to filling in the right circle and donât lose focus for four hours? But I donât think those who were using the 1100-point analogy meant it quite that way.</p>
<p>They didnât mean, 1100 on the kinds of questions the SAT-I-Math asks. They meant, a person who demonstrates knowledge several sigmas above the top that it is <em>possible</em> to demonstrate on the SAT-I-Math.</p>
<p>So, while getting a good score on the real-life SAT-I-Math certainly is not related to, or predicated on, being in Math Competitions, a person who is many sigmas above maxing out that test - might well be in the competitive group.</p>
<p>There seems to be some confusion about what kinds of math ECs exist. I would say that they broadly fall into two categories:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>ânormalâ math preparation, including being in good Honors courses, maybe having tutoring for standardized tests, maybe doing a lot of practice tests.</p></li>
<li><p>âgeniusâ math preparation, including Math Team and well beyond, getting into regional, national, and international competitions.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Some on this thread think that 1 and 2 have little correlation based on undiscovered geniuses. Iâm not really in that camp, because I think usually in the US, at least, this kind of genius first reveals itself, and does so pretty reliably, in category 1 and then the kid seeks out category 2 sometime in early middle school.</p>
<p>You are correct that there is a STEM emphasis that basically begs kids to at least try things like MathCounts or the AMC-8, or a âMath Circleâ - so that most math geniuses will be tempted into doing that kind of thing.</p>
<p>If the SAT I is a âremedialâ exam, how screwed are we that only about 13,000 kids out of 1.6 million test-takers in 2013 were able to achieve an 800? Alternatively, donât you think that may be juuuuuussssttt a bit melodramatic? </p>
<p>My sole actionable takeaway from this thread after 46 pages is that DC#2 was dead right to dismiss applying to MIT out of hand â even though heâd be a highly statistically competitive applicant there. </p>
<p>@SomeOldGuy - ok, maybe âremedialâ isnât 100% the right word, but whatâs the best way to explain that the SAT-I-math is just a whole different mathematical animal than the USAMO and other things âmathyâ types like to do?</p>
<p>And that furthermore - the SAT-I-math isnât even very high up in the âschool mathâ curriculum. Students only need what, a bit of algebra and a bit of geometry to do that exam, and we all [on CC] expect our HS curricula to go way beyond that. For a typical CC kid, who takes through Precalculus if not Calculus or more, let alone our mathy types, the SAT-I-math just isnât a worthy assessment.</p>
<p>Moreover, I donât think that national statistics of how SAT-takers do, would particularly influence me to think the test is too hard, considering that I donât love how our national performance is in mathematics or in school in general.</p>
<p>I think âmelodramaticâ would be if someone were lamenting that the rest of the kids didnât get 800. Maybe instead of âmelodramaticâ you mean snobby, which I acknowledged. :)</p>
<p>"My sole actionable takeaway from this thread after 46 pages is that DC#2 was dead right to dismiss applying to MIT out of hand â even though heâd be a highly statistically competitive applicant there. "</p>
<p>Regarding your DC#2, who knows; he might have gotten in, or might not; might have enjoyed it, or might not. We donât really have any data. Particularly if you have just one more âtakeawayâ [at least as âactionableâ as your child who already didnât apply, not applying ] which is that MIT seemingly is not only looking at âhighly statistically competitiveâ to determine admission.</p>
<p>*edited to fix pronoun mismatch</p>
<h1>678 - fretfulmom</h1>
<p>First I see a difference between an adult with the option to quit a job, and most students without the option to quit high school. Or to choose teachers or classes. This all changes when they get to college. Second, adults I consider smart have excellent people skills and donât get themselves into the situation you describe since it will work against their own self-interest. And I am fortunate to only know nice smart people and am not sure if Huntâs evil geniuses exist outside the comic book world.</p>
<p>There are many excellent teachers making a huge difference in society and positively impacting individual students. I am very grateful to all of you. On the other hand, at some schools there are English teachers who donât like to read, history teachers who donât like history and Latin teachers who donât teach AP because Virgil is boring and it would be more fun to spend senior year building projects for JCL. In that environment, it doesnât seem surprising to me some students, especially those from enriched backgrounds, will have more subject material knowledge than their teachers. Obviously they arenât âsmarterâ than their teachers in terms of life experience. What is the best way to deal with that situation? We will have different opinions, but I really donât like to waste studentsâ time in the classroom. If they want to waste it, itâs their time and Iâm okay with that.</p>
<p>I agree with you students shouldnât be let off the hook for homework, but not because they need to learn to jump hoops. If a mathematician or scientist canât âshow their workâ no one else can duplicate it and it becomes useless. I am okay if there are reasons behind hoops.</p>
<p>Basically I come at all this from a homeschooling/ tending towards unschooling perspective. </p>
<p>Iâm sorry to be so late responding so that it is now off-topic.</p>
<p>PurpleTitan, you originally asked about a top-20 super-genius who applied to Caltech, MIT, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Stanford and was turned down by all of them. In response, I posted that I do not know anyone who applied to all of those schools. Actually, I donât think I know anyone at all who applied to all of those schools, super-genius or not.</p>
<p>I donât want to intrude too far on the privacy of people I know. I have already intruded pretty far on it. I think there is one super-genius of my acquaintance, a Davidson Fellow who went to Harvard. I know another, probably best designated as a ânear super-genius,â who went to Harvard (legacy, too, probably did not need that factor) and had a post-doc with Stephen Hawking. Anything I could potentially say about the third person, fairly comparable to #2, and whose outcomes have had my dander up for such a long time whenever lf or PG posts ( 
), would be too much to say. </p>
<p>@alh - I donât think we disagree, fundamentally. My point was only that all the way up to adulthood, one of the ways people demonstrate âsmartnessâ or competence, is by cooperating with the normal ways of showing what they know. I actually think the teacher who doesnât do Virgil but instead does JCL projects ahead of the AP, is an example of not cooperating, and a bad example by my lights as well as yours.</p>
<p>I think some kids are indeed smarter than some teachers, if not in material knowledge, then in ability to grasp things quickly. I just donât think that necessarily voids the methods of teachers who want kids to learn what might seem âboringâ to an adolescent.</p>
<p>I was displeased when I heard a teacher-from-a-department-that-shall-not-be-named tell an English teacher that based on student feedback, they might as well assign âHunger Gamesâ as âOdysseyâ because an epic novel is an epic novel.</p>
<p>I canât tell whether Henry Park was a super-genius or not without reading the paper on Mapping the Hypercube. I have not been able to locate that paper, though I havenât searched super-hard. In fact, I couldnât tell at all, because there is no way to determine what his classmate and co-author John Roberts contributed vs. what Park contributed, and I donât know what the influence of the teacher was. </p>
<p>There is also the fact that Park left mathematics, or never entered it. He is becoming a radiation oncologist.</p>
<p>If a student is in Berkeley or some other spots, then there are Math Circles that are really good. Here, the students do not participate in MathCounts (it isnât offered) nor the AMC-8 (ditto, not offered). There have been math groups on and off, but not with the strength or continuity of the Bay area or Boston area Math Circles, unless that has happened very recently. </p>
<p>@QM - a bit far afield for this thread, but if you want to offer your kids MathCounts or AMC-8 or similar, you might be able to get a group together; I think they put the bar fairly low for advisors to gather kids for those. But what Iâm sure you could get is entrance to either Purple Comet or Math Kangaroo, both of which are easy to gather kids and enter at not a huge amount of $$.</p>
<p>Thereâs something that I have not seen discussed yet even in 47 pages and that is that a person might have insight and ability, even at shall we say, the âgeniusâ level, but not like to do competitions.</p>
<p>Indeed, I have known lots of people who were incredibly skilled, and cooperative and kind, and not in the least interested in proving superiority over other people. I think thatâs actually a character positive, but it does make it harder to show that youâre âbetterâ or âthe bestâ in the context of the applications which are, after all, competitive between applicants. If youâre a swimmer, you could claim a great time even if you never raced, and maybe you could prove that a coach somewhere timed you, but it would be hard to be taken seriously unless you âwonâ things as well.</p>
<p>If 13,000 students get 800 on the SAT, and 10,000 qualify for AIME, doesnât that suggest that there probably arenât very many 800-scorers who arenât pretty strong in math?</p>