<p>All right then, say a student took it three times, had great scores each time, but only got an 800 once on each test - on each section. By sending all of the scores to be superscored, especially if each of the composite scores was in the 2200s - 2300s to begin with, doesn’t that show a certain degree of perfectionism and overachievement? It seems from reading this thread that a lot of people put too much stock in the SAT scores. There really isn’t that much difference between a 2370 and a 2400, especially if it means you’re going to be retaking the test several times. It’s just too much testing! Why not focus on grades, extracurriculars, and classes, and be content with a very good but not QUITE perfect test score? I don’t know…that might just be my opinion, but I think this need to get the 2400 is a bit excessive. Congrats to all who got it anyways, it’s very impressive, but I don’t think it deserves such excessive praise. Someone with a 2370 might be an equally good - or better - tester, who made one or two careless errors on math or accidentally omitted a question.</p>
<p>lol “accidentally omitted a question”</p>
<p>how can they possibly be smart?</p>
<p>Intended to come back to it later…simply didn’t see it…it can happen to those invincible 2400’ers as easily as it can happen to people with lower scores.
I think it’s great if you can get a 2400 after one or two attempts…it just doesn’t seem worth all of the testing to keep going at it - three, four, five times - until you get that perfect score. It’s too much focus on testing and not enough focus on the other important components of a transcript. But maybe that’s just my weird, underachieving opinion.</p>
<p>Well maybe well rounded would be a better term…congrats to all the great scores. Just don’t forget, you can study for the test, but you still need to be able to apply that knowledge. It isn’t all about the test. That is why the writing was added. To allow you to show application, not just skill learned from a prep course.</p>
<p>driftwood, I think you’re right. I got a 2400 the first time around, so obviously I’m not testing anymore. And if I had gotten a 2370 this first time, I wouldn’t have tested anymore either. I would have just let it be.</p>
<p>However, in regards to “Someone with a 2370 might be an equally good - or better - tester, who made one or two careless errors on math or accidentally omitted a question”: there’s a difference between knowing you’re going to get the 2400 and thinking maybe you’ll get the 2400. After my 240 PSAT and scoring consistent 2380’s, 90’s, and 2400’s on the practice SATs I took at home, I knew I was ready for the real 2400. After I came out of the room, I was about 90% sure I had gotten a 2400. I really think there’s a difference in preparedness between the average 2370-scorer and the average 2400-scorer.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree. There really is not nearly as much luck involved as many people seem to think. There are people who consistently get 2400’s. </p>
<p>driftwood, I refer you to mifune’s post: <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/sat-preparation/865226-addressing-few-concerns.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/sat-preparation/865226-addressing-few-concerns.html</a>.</p>
<p>But then again, you could be getting consistent 2400s on practices and come out with a 2350 on the real test because one problem just really tripped you…you can’t ever really know for sure, can you? I’m not one to talk, though - I was getting 750-800 on CR and W practices, and 650-700 on M practices, but came out with a surprising 790 CR, 800 W and 770 M.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Getting a perfect on everything but missing one question will never yield 2350.</p>
<p>Obviously, though, there is no way to guarantee a perfect score; but perfect scorers, on average, certainly are the best SAT test-takers. If we called in all the world’s 2400ers and all the world’s 2350ers and administered five SAT’s to them, the former group will have the higher average on the tests. </p>
<p>I’ll analogize: Let’s say two runners race each other. One finishes the race in 52.58 seconds, and the other in 53.12. It is definitely possible that the runner who finished second is normally faster and that he or she just had a bad race, but this scenario is unlikely: we have to assume that the first-place runner is faster. </p>
<p>Likewise, college admissions officers should (and hopefully do) assume that 2400ers, for instance, are better at the SAT than are 2350ers. Admissions officers could assume that the lower scorers just had bad days and made “stupid” mistakes; but if the benefit of the doubt is given, why do colleges even ask for scores in the first place?</p>
<p>is it necessary for me to retake…i got a 2250 (770,710,770) with no preparation at all</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“necessary” is really a meaningless word in the world of standardized testing for college admissions. If, however, you think that you can do better, then retake it.</p>
<p>
I’ve got to say, that’s impressive.</p>
<p>**TEN 2400-SCORERS<a href=“w/%20Writing%20subdivisions”>/b</a>:</p>
<p>silverturtle -> 80MC/10E
Alt_F4 -> 80MC/10E
awesomemath -> ??MC/11E
ztianchang -> 78MC/11E
2015princeton -> 78MC/11E
Kean -> 80MC/11E
LouieC -> 75MC/12E
njdadof5’s son -> 80MC/10E
NJchick -> 80MC/10E
l93ryuzaki -> 80MC/11E</p>
<p>Would everybody in here agree that practice makes perfect for the SAT?</p>
<p>Absolutely.</p>
<p>yes thank u cc for teaching me that</p>
<p>Haha, the whole “2370 guy versus the 2400 guy” amuses me. Obviously both students are of similar caliber, I agree with Driftwood. I got a 2370, but if I took it again, I am almost positive I would get a 2400, but what is the point? This site is the brightest students, that is why i feel like crap with my 2370, but it isn’t that big of a deal. Congrats to you great 2400s. However, I can gloat one thing. I got a 12 on my essay and a 80 out of 80 on MC for writing, it seems that I am the only one who did that. :)</p>
<p>Cr: 800
m: 740
w: 770 (80 mc/8 e)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>2310, and you might have only missed two questions on the whole test!</p>
<p>^ That’s a good point silverturtle…on the December test I missed 6 questions (5 in CR, 1 in W) and got a 2340…so basically it’s more advantageous to have CR as one’s weakest section since it has the most gradual scale.</p>
<p>There are certainly people who almost cannot help but score 2400. I knew someone who received that score who, prior to the test, scored a perfect on his PSAT, and consistently received high scores on practice tests. Not a 2400 every time, or even most of the time- but around 2380.</p>
<p>Sadly I wasn’t one of those scorers, my scores did tend to fluctuate, but this would really depend on what book I was using and the section. My Writing, for example, was consistently high, but I’d usually make mistakes in Math and this would drag my score down to the 200s and if I had trouble with the CR, even the 100s. What was funny was that my scores actually became lower the last week before the exam, almost proportionately so. 
I think my scores were closest to 2400 during the few weeks before that.</p>
<p>Up to a certain point, say 2300+ or maybe 2350+, skill and preparedness are much greater influences. I do think that “luck” plays a factor, but I think it’s poorly named. It’s not “luck” in the sense that the gods had rolled the die right or anything. It’s luck in the sense that they didn’t happen to ask that one vocab word that you didn’t memorize (funny how that happens, even Barrons 3000 will not completely prepare you, although it will do a good job), or that you were able to catch that one minor addition mistake, or that you received an essay with a familiar topic. I say luck in this case is not exactly luck because for the most part these situations are doable.</p>
<p>Few people can be absolutely sure they can get a 2400 (and this is a self-assessment, nobody is guaranteed a 2400). After I took the test and checked the consolidated answers, I realized that 2400 was certainly possible, but I didn’t let myself think it was very likely because I couldn’t remember all of my math answers-I tend to very often and very consistently make minor mistakes-and the essay is not my strong point, which would certainly effect my writing score.</p>
<p>I don’t doubt that a 2370 is of similar and maybe equal to the SAT testing (and remember- this is a standardized test whose format you need to cater to) abilities of a 2400-er. But the point made earlier was that even if one question sets the two apart- the former made that error, and the latter did not. That’s the ultimate difference. It’s not something great enough so that a person with a high score should retake it more than three times to score that 2400. That’s why so many other considerations are made in admissions.</p>