I have heard and read a lot of people who claim that your SAT score doesn’t matter after a certain point, usually people say 1500+ for state schools and 1550+ for elite private schools, but I have also seen some people disagree and I would also intuitively disagree because bigger number = better. Because in my mind, SAT is currently the closest thing we have to an accurate numerical classifier between 2 applicants as GPA is heavily dependent on the grade inflation at your specific school and the amount of APs offered, etc. So naturally a higher SAT score should always be favored.
My single best score currently is a 1560 (770RW 790M) and I was considering retaking August just to “not leave any stones unturned”. I won’t be mad if I don’t do better as I likely won’t but If I do end up doing better (or at least equal in RW and 800M) I feel like a few hours is worth it. But at the same time, the only colleges I’m applying to that don’t accept super score are UCs and UT Austin meaning for everywhere else I would have to get 780+ in RW to improve on my score (I have a previous attempt with 800M).
Which is why I want to know how much SAT score really matters. I guess more specifically, how much does 800 Math matter to the schools that don’t accept super score?
I’d focus on other aspects of your application.
What are your passions? I’d lean into them and make sure they stand out in your packet. I assume you have good grades, so you check the “Academically Capable” box. Now you have to make the case for why you’d be accretive to the places you’re applying to.
For public universities, a high score (1550+) can also be helpful for some honors programs and other special programs such as named scholarships and full ride opportunities. Such programs are designed to attract students who are competitive for elite private universities, so they are looking for students with that sort of profile.
However, 1560 should be good enough for most schools, and I would agree that focusing on other aspects of your application is probably best at this point.
If you get rejected with a 1570, you would have been rejected with a 1600. You’re better served focusing on other elements
@tamagotchi @IndySceptic @skieurope
I am applying this fall so I don’t really have much time left to build other parts of my application. I am already working with a professor for the summer so I have that aspect covered and I plan to submit my first applications as early as the end of August or early September. Between my work with the professor and writing essays, I don’t have much time. What are the “other elements” I should be focusing on apart from extracurriculars and essays?
I was thinking that because I am already spending time on these things, I can use the little time I have left to take one more attempt at the SAT just to see if get lucky I guess.
Those are pretty much the “other elements.” Apart from essays, don’t forget to pay attention to the EC descriptions and other parts of the app. Make the most of every bit of word count that you get. If you are applying to UCs, make sure to allow enough time in your schedule to write great PIQs and great EC descriptions (you get more word count for these in the UC app). Also, give your recommenders a proper brag sheet with everything they need to know to write a strong letter.
P.S. Make time to enjoy your senior year, too 
Those are the other elements. You may be underestimating the time requirements for quality essays.
I think using generic score levels is overly simplistic, but there is some sort of complex version of this which might have some truth to it.
Generally, if you look at what AOs for holistic review colleges tend to say, the Harvard litigation data, other available data, and so on, it appears to support the idea that many competitive candidates end up in a category which we might call “good enough” academically. And sometimes that means you might have a very high chance of admissions at that point, barring something notably negative.
At other colleges, they are still planning to reject a significant percentage, perhaps a majority, perhaps a large majority, of the applicants who were deemed good enough academically. But then most of what they are looking at is not academic, they are looking at valued non-academic activities, valued personal characteristics, other things loosely called fit, probably yield models, and so on. And they trying to put together an overall mix of actual enrolled students (hence the need for yield models) that meets various competing institutional goals, AKA priorities.
Of course sometimes particularly outstanding academics may be a part of that conversation, but more rarely than I think some people realize. And even if it is, it probably isn’t going to be a matter of higher test scores. More likely they will be digging into the “story” told by your transcript, and maybe considering other academic qualifications. But again, most of the people actually admitted will just be considered good enough academically, and it will be other non-academic things that make a difference for them.
OK, so how do they determine whether you are good enough academically? Well, sometimes they have some sort of specific policy based on some formula. But barring that, they will tend to look at your whole transcript in context, considering your school report, counselor and teacher recommendations, other aspects of your application, other third-party information sources, possibly regional reader experience, possibly internal historic data–all sorts of stuff.
And then test scores are also evaluted in context, and in fact one way to think about them is they ARE additional context for your transcript, but with interactions with other contextual factors.
OK, so in any given case, what sort of test score would get this individual at this college to good enough academically to be competitive? Well, it could actually be impossible, meaning even a 1600 wouldn’t work. Or in some contexts it could take something relatively modest by their normal standards–like a test score below their reported 25th can be quite helpful to some applicants. And anything in between.
So in theory, sure, good enough for you could only happen if you were somewhere above a 1560. But in practice, that is a vanishingly small possibility. Like the data even for the most advantaged students applying to the most selective colleges seems to support the idea that it is very unlikely that a 1560 won’t be good enough as long as their grades and rigor and recommendations and such are good enough to begin with. Whereas even a 1600 wouldn’t change the results if all that wasn’t good enough to begin with.
And then for less advantaged applicants–well, very few get any such score, and so the ones that do are already going to be huge standouts at that level.
Finally, as others noted, there are cases where admissions might have one standard, and then merit might have another, and indeed might even be more formulaic. But unless they publish such a formula, data is sparse, so it is hard to say anything meaningful.
I’ll just chime in on this point, as I disagree - SAT scores are strongly correlated with family wealth/income. Not as much of a controlled variable as you may think. Hence the decision by many colleges to look at applications holistically.
And I agree with everyone else that 1600 vs 1560 won’t move the needle. Do your best and accept that much of this is out of your hands, and believe in yourself that you will make the most of whatever opportunity comes your way. It’s not the school you get into, but what you do when you get there.
And yes, enjoy your senior year!!
And regardless of our respective personal feelings on the subject, what is very clear is that most of the highly selective colleges believe the SAT/ACT only have value when taken in context. Indeed, the highly selective colleges that have recently gone back to test required have generally tried to make it very clear they do not intend to use it simplistically, they are fully aware of the sorts of issues you raised, but have plans to use contextual information so that tests will actually help, not hurt, disadvantaged students in their process.
And some people are skeptical about that, but the bottom line is no one should assume these colleges will simply prefer A to B because A had a higher test score. Instead, they are going to treat test scores contextually, such that B’s lower test score could actually be more valuable to B than A’s higher test score is to A, depending on context. And then all of that will be folded into a much more comprehensive academic evaluation, where even more use of context will be involved.
This 100%. Some who are strong test supporters might be surprised that test scores are relatively unimportant for many students in holistic review, even at some schools that require tests.
Agree with your points too.
Adding though that a test required policy does serve to limit applications from disadvantaged students who don’t understand how holistic review and contextual factors work (nor do many of their counselors)…so it’s not a stretch to say that some students who might have been competitive for admission could in fact be ‘hurt’ simply because they didn’t apply, and hence could not be admitted to a school that might be a good fit, have given them enough fin aid to attend, etc.
I do wonder to what extent it is high school and college-dependent. For instance, looking at my son’s Naviance scattergrams, in the last three years, Harvard did not accept anyone with 1600, only a couple of people with 1590 and a whole bunch with 1560-1570 (with a comparable GPA), while UMichigan, has not rejected anyone with 1590-1600. So, for his school, it seems like it makes no difference for Harvard, but may for Michigan.
I hadn’t even thought of checking the scattergrams. I will go do that now!
Nevermind the data is pretty random from my school. I see people with 1580+ and a slightly higher gpa than mine getting rejected at basically ever school. But I also see people with 1520-1550 and a slightly lower gpa than me getting accepted to top schools. I guess it depends heavily on major, especially for public schools like UMich or Georgia Tech
Majors would only be a factor if the school admits by major or special school. More likely the reasons the lower scores are successful lie in holistic admissions, and factors like essays, EC’s and LoR’s. It goes back to the original point that if you get accepted or rejected with a 1560, the decision would have been the same with a 1600.
The answer to the title question is “it depends on the college”.
For example, an applicant to the University of Alabama with a 3.5+ GPA will find that a 1600 SAT gives a larger scholarship than a 1590 SAT ( https://afford.ua.edu/scholarships/out-of-state-freshman/ ). But some other state universities are test-blind (e.g. California public universities), test-does-not-matter once a certain GPA or rank threshold is met (e.g. Arizona State University, most Texas public universities for top 10% rank applicants), or test only matters above a test score threshold (e.g. Arizona State University again, most Texas public universities).
Our school district uses SCOIR, and there are similar pattern. Ivy and Ivish schools admissions are much more random compared to schools like GTown, Vandy, WashU, Emory, BC, Amherst, Williams, etc. My guess is the so called holistic review from Ivy+ schools are more broad, and others schools put more weight on GPA/SAT/ACT combo.
Back to OP, I would think 1560 is good enough for any super selective schools. You just need other parts of your application to be within the range too.
100%.
In fact, part of why I am still hanging out here during the long gap between my S24 and D30 (in addition to enjoying the company) is it didn’t take me too long in my process with S24 to realize how deeply unfair it was for some kids to have parents, counselors, and so on with the experience necessary to give them reasonably well-informed advice, and other kids–really through no fault of anyone involved–to not have that.
So to the extent we can help a few more such kids and parents get better informed about their options and various procedural issues, I think that is great. Also a drop in the bucket, but you do what you can.
So yes, it is super complicated how colleges might actually use SAT/ACT scores, or not, and that itself is a barrier to entry into this world. But hopefully the OP has benefited from this discussion–and maybe will even participate in passing it on.
I note to the extent I got much out of carefully studying SCOIR data for our HS, I think a lot of it took the form of seeing what colleges appeared to have tighter clouds, and which fuzzier.
All had outliers, which I assumed were often hooked students (and in fact I got some confirmation when they added S24’s class, since I knew who a lot of those data points actually were in real life, which is kinda creepy but it wasn’t like I could unknow it).
But some looked notably better defined than others. And I interpreted that as the tighter colleges being more numbers-driven for our kids (in relative terms), and the fuzzier colleges being more non-numbers-driven (again in relative terms).
Anyway, complicated, but I think worth keeping in mind as one possible interpretation. What I would definitely NOT do is assume our HS was necessarily representative of other high schools. Meaning I could see College being tight on the numbers for us, fuzzy for a different high school, which in fact they more or less say they do.
CC and all of us are fortunate that you are sticking around!