<p>
I know someone who made a mistake in Math and two in Verbal and still got 1600. But for our DD, one mistake in Math (forgetting a “-” sign) meant 780. It differs from test to test (and from section to section).</p>
<p>Honestly, I don’t think that the lost negative sign had anything to do with DD’s ability to learn.</p>
<p>
I wonder about this because look at the performance numbers marite posted here</p>
<p>*Math:
800: 8,057
790: 5,495
780: 4,383
770: 2,998</p>
<p>All these scores are in the 99% percentile.</p>
<p>Critical Reading:
800: 8,662
790: 1,594
780: 520
770: 4,064
760: 5,087</p>
<p>All these scores are in the 99%.
Note how few students scored 780!*</p>
<p>What interests me is the immediate trend at the high end of the numbers. The group degrades with a fair degree of smoothness, while for CR there is a large gap of about 7000 students between 800 and 790. The group then further degrades until 780, presumably increasing afterward for sometime. Either the students are just not as good at CR as they are at math, or they are taking a hit on the curve?</p>
<p>Perhaps we are seeing a greater focus by high scoring students on SAT math than on CR. That would make sense, since I think math is quite a bit easier to prep for. Once a student gets an SAT math concept, he does not have much of a problem applying it to a variety of similar problems. Reading is different. While SAT reading is easy, the student still has to read what is by comparison a large chunk of material, assimilate it, and then report several conclusions about it. This applies even to correcting sentences.</p>
<p>I am prone to look at the numbers like this:</p>
<p>For Math, 770-800 is one group, with silly errors accounting for the small differences.</p>
<p>For CR, 780 is the tail end of the 780-800 group.</p>
<p>Now there are decent gaps between 800 and 790 in both CR and math. I do not think extraordinary ability accounts for a difference in 800 and 790 scorers. A kid who has superior math ability could easily make a silly error. Indeed, because he is so good at math, he might answer the questions and never recheck them because he is so certain (my kids report that the SAT does not so much test academic ability but rather one’s ability to focus and be cynical enough to catch silly tricks). Rather, I think we have large gaps here because this 800 number includes a whole lot of ultra neurotic kids for whom anything less than 800 is anathema.</p>
<p>My kids score very high on this test. So I say the following not so much in view of them but because I believe it. I sure hope the schools never do with this test what we are doing here, making such a big deal of miniscule fluctuations in scores. I hope they never go so far as to reward our kids’ (and our) neuroses. I support testing, even the use of the SAT, because quantitative data is useful in comparing students. But it is clear to me the top schools are treating kids as more than their SAT scores, a thing for which I am very grateful. There are a lot of kids out there who, for a variety of reasons, won’t score at the upper end of the SAT scale, but who are as extraordinary as any 2400 scorer. I think the solid scoring kid who puts his human self in his application, will go much farther than those kids who depend mostly on all their academic bling bling. I think that is exactly as it should be.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s my impression that the admission officers at all of the most test-score-regarding colleges are well aware that there is an error band around any test score.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How does one forget a negative sign on the SAT? Actually, entering a negative sign anywhere on the SAT scoring sheet, except in the … essay section would be quite a feat for anyone since there are no codes for the (-) sign.</p>
<p>Hi, xiggi, I’m guessing that the negative sign occurred in the problem statement and not noticing it led to an answer that would have been correct, if only the problem had not made that expression negative. Students who take the AMC tests complain each year after the tests about the “dumb mistakes” they make, and last year was an especially bad year for dumb mistakes of that kind on the AIME test. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.unl.edu/amc/e-exams/e7-aime/aime.shtml[/url]”>http://www.unl.edu/amc/e-exams/e7-aime/aime.shtml</a> </p>
<p>Based on the numerous examples I know, I wouldn’t conclude that a person who makes a dumb mistake of that kind is not a good mathematician, although the readiness with which one can go wrong on an AIME by making dumb mistakes makes me admire all the more students who score high on that test.</p>
<p>
She did not forget to write it, she forgot to read it 
Strictly speaking, she probably did see it in the problem statement, but forgot about it at the end. I can’t be sure, of course… but she ended up in a wrong quadrant of the coordinate plane, as far as I remember.</p>
<p>I have said before, perfect scorers does not necessary have higher academic ability than near scorers. They get perfect scores because either they are lucky or they are careful not to make silly mistake.</p>
<p>My son make silly mistakes, and that me admire more for those who don’t.</p>
<p>Being careful and creative are not mutually exclusive. So there are creative and careful, creative and careless, not creative but careful, not creative and careless people.</p>
<p>Very often careless mistake are harmless, but not always.</p>
<p>I have been given wrong medication, fortunately that time it was harmless. Every year medical mistakes cause close to 100000 lives in the US, economic cost is estimated to be 20 billions. So next time when the medical personnel check and double check before a procedure, don’t call him/her neurotic.</p>
<p>We knew one boy who applied to a private high school. He didn’t get in. He was the 8th grade validictorian but he had nothing else to offer the high school. As JFQ said “I suggest that you ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” Colleges may be asking - what can you do for our college? There has to be more to an applicant than perfect scores.</p>
<p>^ Partially true, however Colleges take a more real-world approach to this. There will almost surely be a difference in the level of success that a 2400 4.0 Valdictorian admit to Harvard than a whatever GPA/SAT/Rank admit but one whos national president of a group. The fact is that most private colleges want people who they can hopefully later on add to their list of impressive alumni on wikipedia and their websites, and EC’s are the BEST demonstration of future possible societal success, while grades/rank/sat etc. only shows that you aren’t an idiot. Personally if I was an adcom I’d put even more emphasis on EC’s than they do now. A Governor of Boy’s State prob. has some special charisma or skill in him, and its almost a 0% chance he will be some unknown manager somewhere for the rest of his life.</p>
<p>
The analogy is specious because there is an obvious difference between a medical professional’s total collapse in performance of a medical procedure and a kid’s getting only a few problems wrong on a three to four hours long test. The former has import to the life of a human being, while the latter has virtually no import to anything since the difference between getting one or two problems wrong on the SAT and getting none wrong is hardly worth mentioning.</p>
<p>I think it is important to try to get 100% correct on the SAT. My own kid did it. But when I look at the trend for top math scorers, and also the large gap between the 800 scorers and those scoring 790, I suspect we are dealing with not a few kids who are putting the same unreasonable emphasis on the test that their parents put on it-- an emphasis that I hope will never enter the schools.</p>
<p>I could be very wrong on this, but I think high numbers essentially get students an audience with the admissions committees. The higher the numbers are, the better it is for the student because high numbers add luster to the student’s overall image. I do not think, however, that the numbers are treated as if they are in a point-for-point horse race, where the 2400 student outraces the 2390 student simply because he has ten extra points. Indeed, I do not think a 2400 student necessarily has an edge on a 2300 or even a 2250 student, though he has 400 to 500 extra points. Once a student has acquired the stats to gain an audience, his application must declare his passion, uniqueness, and eagerness to engage the school’s educational philosophy, else the entire game is lost despite a student’s having a 2400. </p>
<p>It is a wonderful system, really – the very best in the world. It allows all sorts of people a chance to make their respective cases for college admission. The highly gifted artist who has a killer portfolio, but only decent competence in mathematics, has a real shot at the best resources available. The [inner</a> city kid](<a href=“http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/americasbest/science.medicine/pro.bcarson.html]inner”>http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/americasbest/science.medicine/pro.bcarson.html), who has immense gifts hiding within the dysfunction of his upbringing, gets the chance to make his case also. Flawless scoring kids also have the same chance to make their cases—and more of them are accepted than anyone else, likely because more high scorers are genuinely top-notch candidates.</p>
<p>I agree with Drosselmeier on the importance of getting the audience, which is why I do not understand the concern over an early high score & the wish to have that as a stand-alone qualifier.</p>
<p>Being careful and try to do everything right is an attitude. You do it regardless of the importance of the task. You check it just carefully when you are giving out a vitamin or a chemotherapy drug.</p>
<p>And the difference between 2400 and 2250 is not 400 to 500.</p>
<p>I still think Dross puts too much emphasis on the perfect score on SAT math. The SAT2, AIME, etc. show more math skills. I honestly believe MIT/Caltech/ CMU’s CS cares more about the history of interest in tech/math/science than on the test scores. No one goes to an interview and discusses scores: they discuss research, projects, etc.</p>
<p>I agree with the concept of an excellent score as a means to getting an audience with the admissions committee. But my feeling is that it only get one an audience – not an admission.</p>
<p>What I define as an excellent score varies – what I would consider an excellent score for one of my kids is different than what I would consider for my other kid. Not because one is less intelligent than the other; it’s that the other brings a wide and unusual variety of skills and talents to the table, and I think an extremely high score is less critical to his admissions chances than it is for my other kiddo.</p>
<p>A couple of comments. The SAT scores I posted are all equivalent to 99%. So for SAT Math, it should not matter if a student has a math score of 770 or 800, and indeed such scores are within the CB range of variation. For the SAT-Verbal, a score of 760 is in the 99%. Normally, the range of variation would be 40 points, according to the CB. </p>
<p>As for carelessness: I agree it is better to be careful than careless. But what do carefulness or carelessness indicate? Not knowledge of subject matter or of procedure. It indicates a certain attitude, mindfulness or lack thereof. Being mindful while performing surgery is not only desirable, it is critical to the patient. Giving it out the correct dosage is similarly essential. Test-taking, however, is not a matter of life and death and colleges are not necessarily looking for mindfulness. As bookworm notes, they are more about a history of real interest in a subject matter. That interest can be demonstrated by means other than perfect scores.
The example Marmat103 gave about her D is another case of carelessness signifying nothing more than… carelessness.</p>
<p>
I don’t deny this, and certainly think it is important. The point is that I think too many of us erroneously equate getting a few points wrong on the SAT with botching a prescription for a suffering patient. They are radically different things. The kid who misses the one or two points is not necessarily inferior, even in attitude, to the kid who gets the 800. A little thing, such as nausea, hunger, a sick pet, an upcoming game, or an approaching flu can make all the difference.</p>
<p>
Great. But I do hope the error here didn’t hinder your access to the point.</p>
<p>My son scored 800 on SAT1 math, 800 on SAT2 math2, and 5 on AP Calculus. My daughter scored 36 on the ACT math section. Perfect perfect, perfect, perfect, right? But, my son took the SAT 1 again and only scored 770 on the math portion - one wrong answer was all it took on that one, and yes, the scoring changes from test to test. I don’t think that anyone would think that my son failed to master any of the math that’s on the SAT1; nor is he particularly careless about test taking. But if you look at my son’s 770, and my daughter’s 36, she’s better at math, right? Only, she isn’t, he is. I know that, they know that. That’s why I’m inclined to agree with Drosselmeier and Marite that minor variances in scores are truly insignificant. Repeat the process throughout the two or three other sub-scores on each test and you’re going to find equally talented students with score variation at least in the 100 SAT point range; possibly even more than that. And I think that the college Adcoms, with years of experience at this stuff, have reached the same conclusion. </p>
<p>As it happens, neither my son nor daughter are pursuing a math-oriented major in college. And though my daughter’s combined ACT score was a “high” 34 I honestly think that trying to raise her score any further is not worth four hours of one of her Saturday mornings.</p>
<p>
Well, you see, the SAT just happens to be the hoop that the schools are making the students jump through. I don’t at all put an emphasis on a perfect score, and I don’t emphasize the SAT I over the SAT II. My kid got an 800 on Math II also.</p>
<p>I put the emphasis on trying to get as many right as is humanly possible (it is a test, after all), without taking the score as a measure of worth. I think bomgeedad is right about attitude. It is a good thing when kids try to get everything right. But I think too many kids are weird, like their parents, when it comes to the SAT. They think they must get everything right lest it reflect poor attitude or some other negative trait about themselves. For them, the test score is a measure of general worth. Imagine how a kid pulling down a 700 feels in this sort of environment. Yet there are plenty such kids, quite gifted in some area, but because of the weird and I think false idea of “merit” trying to take root here, are made to feel deficient because they didn’t get the highest SAT scores. Should those kids get selected over kids with an 800/section SAT, we often make them feel their selection was undeserved, that the 800/section kid somehow got shafted.</p>
<p>Is it just me, or do you folks sense that we honor giftedness in math and science more than we honor it in historical analysis, sociology, literature, ethnic studies, art, etc., etc.?</p>
<p>“Is it just me, or do you folks sense that we honor giftedness in math and science more than we honor it in historical analysis, sociology, literature, ethnic studies, art, etc., etc.?”</p>
<p>Definitely “not just you.” It does not represent my hierarchy (I don’t have such a subject-hierarchy at all, actually), but I agree with the perceived popular bias that you’re suggesting.</p>
<p>Of course – and germane to threads like this – it’s a lot easier to measure giftedness in math and science vs. the humanities. People’s tongues loll out of their mouths as they describe the meaning of 800s in math, and Intel, AIME, etc. Well, no one would suggest that an 800 verbal or writing score defines giftedness in language arts or history, and there isn’t a vast network of competitions and subcompetitions to sort out who has the goods and who doesn’t.</p>