<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, this is not so simple. I think there would be no meaningful difference between 790 and 780 but there could be a huge difference between 800 and 790. The 800 MIGHT be way off the scale at the top, but the 790 has already shown they can make mistakes on a test at that level. So yes, all else being equal, and you only can take one, it would be dumb to select the straight 790. There is also no point doing it randomly because the data does present SOME information.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You seriously think that a 790 connotes “I make mistakes”? Man, do YOU take the SAT waaaaaaaay too seriously.</p>
<p><a href=“Really,%20the%20problems%20he%20missed%20on%20each%20test%20could%20have%20been%20done%20by%20a%204th%20grader.”>quote</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That must be one smart fourth grader.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not necessarily. The 2400 student might have taken the SAT 3 or 4 times, where as the 2100 or 2200 did the “one and done.” In a case like this, the 2nd student clearly had better things to do than prep multiple times for a Saturday morning test. Before score choice, adcoms could see these things, and I can’t imagine they thought a kid who took it 4 times to reach the holy grail of 2400 was MORE QUALIFIED than the one who took it once for a lesser score.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, no. An 800 doesn’t mean “perfect.” It is entirely possible to get an 800 by making one or more lucky guesses on some questions, while the gal at the next desk with the 790 actually knew more but made one or more unlucky guess or careless mistake (even carelessly filling in the wrong bubble while knowing the right answer, for example). It’s also entirely possible to get the right answer for the wrong reason. It’s also possible, on some questions, that what’s counted as a “mistake” leading to the 790 is actually based on discernment of a non-obvious ambiguity in a poorly drafted question; the test itself is not perfect, far from it. </p>
<p>I think the kid with the 790 is about equally likely to be “way off the scale at the top” as the kid with the 800. Now if they took the test 10 times under identical conditions with equal prep and one kid got 800 every time while the other kid averaged 790, then there might be reason to infer a slight difference—but only ever so slight. Absent that, though (i.e., in the real world, as well never see those conditions apply), I think any college adcom is going to say the 800 and the 790 are, as far as they’re concerned, virtually identical scores, and that 10 point difference is not going to be the deciding factor in which of the two gets admitted.</p>
<p>"
Let’s try again. Two URM oboeists from Idaho apply, equally talented and in all regards but one essentially equal. Harvard has a spot for exactly one oboeist. I think they will take the 2400 oboeist over the 2100 oboeist. You think they will toss a coin. Fine."</p>
<p>But in reality, Harvard would have spots for more than one oboist. URMs are hard to recruit even for Harvard. It’s also hard for Harvard to recruit students from Idaho.</p>
<p>Harvard probably would eagerly take both oboists, and hope at least one accepted admittance. If it had to turn down someone to make room for both oboists, it would be to turn down a student from an overrepresented state like New York. It’s possible that the student turned down or courtesy waitlisted would be a URM.</p>
<p>
And we all know that students who get 2400 on their SATs never make any mistakes in ANYTHING. What about the ones with super-scored 2400’s?</p>
<p>I know the NBA is often brought up in the affirmative action arguments, and I often think of basketball too. I often think that at some point, additional height does not really add much to the game. Is it at 6 feet 7 inches? 7 feet? 7 feet 1 inch? I guess it depends.</p>
<p>Also bear in mind that 5 SAT scores are used, not just the SAT1 numbers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What you’re not getting is that they could have gotten to the first oboeist from Idaho on Monday, said “he looks good,” and then by the time the second oboeist from Idaho is seen on Tuesday, they figure, “eh, I’ve got enough oboeists from Idaho.” And that could work regardless of whether the 2100 URM was first up or second up in this mix. I can’t believe that you don’t get that some of this is serendipitous – where your name / file shows up, whether the adcom is someone who has a soft spot for oboeists or people who write essays about fireflies or people named Timmy or is tired of yet-another-math geek.</p>
<p>Look, these schools have gone on record to say that if some terrible accident befell every member of the first class they chose, they could choose an equally talented class from the “rejects.” Don’t you get that they are not assembling THE ONE BEST CLASS, but one of many “BEST CLASSES” they could have filled their beds with, given the strength of their applicant pool?</p>
<p>It’s was a fourth grade level question. Really. At least it was something my son was more than capable of having done in fourth grade. It involved counting the number of tiles that would cover the floor. All it required was multiplication and addition. My kid stupidly left out a step. Another time he just bubbled the wrong answer. He didn’t check his work because they were the easy problems and he knew he got them right. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>The idea that there is some HUGE difference between a 790 and an 800 is ludicrous. Even the college board says that the scores are only accurate +/- 30 or so points.</p>
<p>"What you’re not getting is that they could have gotten to the first oboeist from Idaho on Monday, said “he looks good,” and then by the time the second oboeist from Idaho is seen on Tuesday, they figure, “eh, I’ve got enough oboeists from Idaho.” "</p>
<p>I get this perfectly. However, my point is that oboists and URMs and Idahoans are so unusual and hard to recruit that I think that a college like Harvard would probably take both of them and hope that at least one accepted admission.</p>
<p>After all, Harvard doesn’t offer ED. The hypothetical oboist might prefer to go to Yale, Oberlin, University of Idaho, Stanford, Julliard or even Howard University.</p>
<p>An Ivy League school isn’t likely to have a surplus of Idaho residents. In addition, about 20% of students offered Harvard admission turn it down. That probably is more likely with the most desirable applicants.</p>
<p>Consequently, in this hypothetical example, Harvard probably would take the 2 Idaho students and one less student from a state that is overrepresented in the applicant pool.</p>
<p>To my point above, though - if H takes 2 white Idaho students with 2100 scores over our hypothetical suburban white Boston kid with the 2400, our Boston kid doesn’t complain that he didn’t get into H because his spot was unfairly stolen by Idahoans. But yet kids / parents will complain that he didn’t get into H because his spot was unfairly stolen by a black kid with a 2100. My question is - how do you “know” your suburban Boston kid was turned down for the 2100 white Idahoan or the 2100 black kid? You don’t.</p>
<p>
sylvan begins to fantasize about a bunch of 2400 SAT geeks at the local pool…hmmm, shouldn’t we add in a hunk or two? :)</p>
<p>Actually it’s quite possible your spot will have been “stolen” by a Boston kid since they overaccept from Boston. :)</p>
<p>I agree with mathmom. The important question is “What’s the point?” As rousing as your argument is, arguing over 20 SAT points is missing the point.</p>
<p>As I wrote earlier, admissions policies follow from institutional strategy and having all the 2400 pointers in town is not consistent with institutional strategy. What drives institutional strategy is the social/political/economic context in which the institutions live. Today, social engineering with respect to people of color is one of the tips that gets lots of play but it is only one of the tips and NSM is right to be offended by the focus of the antagonist in her story on racial tips and not legacy, development, athlete, leadership potential, etc. While bright, maybe the kid was just not appealing enough on the day he came through the sausage grinder or maybe the adcom officer had a bad breakfast just before reviewing his case.</p>
<p>I once had as a student in a class at a top-ranked business school a very nice kid who was not the sharpest tool in the shed in pure academic terms. When I talked to him, he had just left the army or marines and in his last assignment had been in charge of getting all US nuclear weapons out of Korea. My sense after talking with him and hearing him describe his work was that I would entrust him to lead large organizational efforts. I’m sure he didn’t get a perfect GMAT score but he did get in. This is the kind of kid (at an earlier age, of course) that Harvard might accept over a kid with higher stats because he/she would prove to be the kind of person that would get featured 30 years later in the alumni magazine. </p>
<p>Holistic admissions policies can be used for evil (anti-Semitism) or likely good (social engineering to replace affirmative action) and but must be inherently opaque (you can’t explain the real agenda and implied quotas or the Supremes will slap you down). But, they are necessary if you are looking for future leaders and not just kids who will have great GPAs.</p>
<p>Incidentally, NSM, I recall that 13% of the Harvard class is comprised of legacies while 8% of the Harvard class is African American. So, I guess it is more likely to have been the legacy who took the son’s spot.</p>
<p>All this talk about Idaho and oboes is a bit removed from the NYT editorial, which is about the chances of the poor white kid with the 2100. Apparently, the elite privates are diverse with respect to any single category (race, gender, wealth, and probably states and musical instruments, too), but miss on a combination that will undoubtedly get the talk shows riled up. An apparent bias against certain rural ECs isn’t very helpful either.</p>
<p>While this doesn’t mean that in a particular case they accepted a particular URM over a particular white or Asian (especially middle-class), it gives weight to the “they have it in for us” attitude.</p>
<p>"Holistic admissions policies can be used for evil (anti-Semitism) or likely good (social engineering to replace affirmative action) and but must be inherently opaque (you can’t explain the real agenda and implied quotas or the Supremes will slap you down). But, they are necessary if you are looking for future leaders and not just kids who will have great GPAs. "</p>
<p>Even the ones that would pass SCOTUS’s sniff test might not be good PR. Not “we have too many Jews from Long Island” but “We have too many high academic types who will end up as profs at third tier colleges, or federal bureaucrats, and wont give nearly as much $$$ to Mother Harvard as someone with lower numbers, better leadership potential, who could be a CEO at (fill in company that manipulates public policy with $$)”</p>
<p>Especially at a time when the latter are held in lower public esteem than usual. </p>
<p>Sometimes exit beats voice as a strategy [Amazon.com:</a> Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States (9780674276604): Albert O. Hirschman: Books](<a href=“http://www.amazon.com/Exit-Voice-Loyalty-Responses-Organizations/dp/0674276604]Amazon.com:”>http://www.amazon.com/Exit-Voice-Loyalty-Responses-Organizations/dp/0674276604) In the 1940’s the Jews founded Brandeis as an alternative. My nerdy kid is heading to RPI, which, like a lot of New Ivy level schools is still pretty exited about academic numbers. IOW, if you don’t want to get into the Ivy admissions neurosis, you need to find alternatives to the Ivies.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This brings up an interesting point, though. What is the diversity upon which the college’s efforts should be measured, though? The diversity of the country as a whole? The state / immediate metro area where the college is located? The entire college-freshman applicant pool in the country? The college-freshman applicant pool who can be deemed to be reasonably qualified for the college in question, regardless of whether or not any given student applies? The college-freshman applicant pool who actually applies?</p>
<p>You know, if only a handful of Future Farmers of America members apply to Harvard, should Harvard ensure that the % of their freshman class who were FFA is equivalent to the % of students in the country who are FFA members? What if those students simply don’t want to apply to Harvard because they’d rather major in ag science at their state flagship or maybe Cornell?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Seems like Caltech is pretty numbers-based. Why not go there?</p>