I just received my May SAT score, and I did not improve upon my original 1490 SAT Score. However, I am at the top of my class. This is within the middle 50% of many top ivy league/elite schools, but on the lower end. I don’t have major hooks and I’m an Indian american applicant, from a middle to upper middle class suburb. I do have strong extracurriculars including leadership positions on political campaigns and President of several social studies academic clubs, but I haven’t won any national competitions or anything to offset my lower range SAT score. I’m currently ending my junior year, so it is worth it to retake the SAT the beginning of senior year?
Only if there is some sort of test prep that you haven’t already done, that you could do. Have you considered the ACT? There are many who have found the ACT to be a better match for their preparation and abilities. A very high ACT score could also be a way into a top school.
If you don’t get in, your 1490 won’t be the reason why. Stated otherwise, if you have what they are looking for, and can show it in your application, a 1490 is good enough. If you don’t have what they are looking for, or can’t show it in your application, it wouldn’t matter if you scored a 1600.
It’s a moving target. A lot of schools have a range so that, say a 1600 and a 1560 or 1500 or whatever is the same. But those cut offs are not public info and they can change even within the same application season.
Most schools say they have no such range, or minimum. Not always true. One year after the question was asked and answered as No min situation, one of my kids, the recruited athlete, and I went to visit the athletic facilities. Coach was blunt in that he already had his first choices committed, but, he said, if my son could get his SAT score up 20 points, he’d be over the minimum that Admissions required, and he could get in that way as an athletic tip rather than tag.
The reality is that if you made a 1600 on the SAT your odds of getting into a highly selective school are still extremely low so don’t focus on those schools but finding a wide range of schools that you’d be happy and can afford to attend. If your family has the financial means then take advantage of ED to increase your odds.
Athletes are an exception in the Ivy League (at least they were, and I think they still are). There is an agreement in place to only take certain number of athletes with scores in certain ranges, to avoid complete dilution.
Overall, there is no hard ‘minimum’. But probabilities certainly change. MIT Math SAT 750-800 vs 700-740 has overall 9% vs. 2% accept, iirc.
It also depends on which “Elite School”. HPYSM only? Top 20? Lower end of the 25-75% range requires very strong other attributes. (All within the context of a 5-10% chance to start with).
Taking it again at the beginning of next year won’t hurt, but are you confident you can raise it?
Fwiw, see this for Ivy Academic Index and athletes - http://www.abrome.com/blog/academic-index
Yes, you should take it again, but make sure you improve (you should have a very good idea of whether you will improve ahead of time).
If you want tips on how to improve an already very high score, let me know. I work with a lot of students in your position.
So, I will probably retake. Breakdown of my score was 780 English, 710 math. Errors on the math section were mostly careless mistakes rather than conceptual. I usually score 760+ on practice tests so I think it’s just test day nerves. However, if I’m not able to improve from the 1490, will it be a waste of time to apply to HYPSM caliber schools?
Apply but remember your odds are incredibly low in any case.
The major you apply for (Humanities v. Stem) will matter.
Your job right now isn’t to prep manically in the hopes of getting 740 on the math section.
Your job right now is to talk with your parents wrt budget, run the NPCs with them on your state Flagship as well as one of HYPSM. Then, identify two affordable safeties you’d enjoy attending. This is hard, because it means stripping your dream schools of prestige and identifying what exactly attracts you to them. These criteria in turn should be how you identify “fit” colleges. These would have a 30-45% acceptable rate, be affordable, and match your preferences wrt fit. Anything with an acceptance rate below 30% is a reach and should be looked into only after you’ve found safeties and fit schools.
Finding the ‘fit’ criteria and the affordable safeties takes a long time but is essential since many students aiming for highly selective colleges end up going to their safeties and, sometimes if lucky, their fit schools. These schools should be the ones where you show interest and visit because no one likes to be a second or third choice, so they need to make sure you’ll come.
@Data10 may have an answer to this. That poster has done the deepest dive into the Harvard statistics.
The OP question as stated isn’t statistical. See this Harvard admissions blog post: https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/apply/what-we-look/valuing-creative-reflective
David Hogg was accepted to Harvard with a 1270 SAT score. This is probably close to “lowest score possible”.
But David Hogg had a mighty hook: after surviving a horrific ordeal that would have made most people collapse (and did, alas 
), he was among the founders of a national-level advocacy group that got more results in 3 months than most professionals in years.
@cram545 : look for a thread about “average excellent” students (ie., top students in their school who haven’t achieved “wow, can’t believe it” activity/award) as well as “safeties that ‘average excellent’ students would love”.
Focus on finding safeties you like and can afford, as well as several matches you like and can afford.
Perhaps someone knows what the lowest scores of an unhooked Harvard admittance in last 5 years. That means non athlete, development,legacy, celebrity, national or world class in something, extreme povery, trauma, URM. That still doesn’t cover all the hidden hooks.
Though I suspect that test score number is pretty danged high, I think it’s possible to find some outliers as you work through the list of other selective schools. Vanderbilt, for example, is often on top 20 lists. I think there may be accepted students who fall into their lowest 25% range in test scores. But you never really know if those accepted student didn’t have some other thing going that is not likely to be discovered without intense examination.
I mention Vanderbilt deliberately because I do know of such cases where relationships were the hidden hooks for a lower test score kid getting accepted.
Normally, I would say don’t take it again. But in this case, I’d suggest that you might want to for the sole purpose of maximizing your eligibility for merit aid at less elite schools where you could get a great bargain. If you could even get it up to 1530, you’d be able to write your own ticket to a lot of less selective schools. Excel there, then you’ll be able to go to any grad school you’d like. 
edited to add: I read more comments. I think you can definitely get that math score up with practice. My son had a similar issue - he was making silly mistakes. His test prep focused on review of math areas where he was out of practice and just doing problem drills to rid himself of his careless errors. He ended up with an 800 on the math section. You can do it! (Is there any way your parents could invest in an SAT tutor?)
@MYOS1634
EC, not a hook. The top UC schools he applied to originally all turned him down. But your larger point is correct; be someone famous, or show strong evidence that you will someday become famous, and your odds of admission to elite schools are greatly increased.
From the Harvard admissions blog post I linked above.
^ Ok, national-level achievement in one EC. It’s similar to being an Olympian.
The UCs turned him down because he didn’t have that achievement when he applied (ie., it was 4 months before he became a survivor, 5 months before he became the leader of a national movement).
Those are the ones that matter.
@damon30: Simply an excellent quote above. So moving, so poignant, so inspiring:
"From the Harvard admissions blog post I linked above.
‘We are eager to harbor the next Homer, the next Kant, or the next Dickinson. There is no reason why we shouldn’t expect such a student to spend his or her university years with us. Emerson did; Wallace Stevens did; Robert Frost did; Frank O’Hara and John Ashbery and Fairfield Porter and Adrienne Rich did … It remains for us to identify them when they apply—to make sure they can do well enough to gain a degree, yes, but not to expect them to be well-rounded …’ "
I liked that blog post. Any creative student who aspires to attend a top school should read it.
So many “chance my for the Ivies” posts are predicated on high GPA and test scores, and sometimes a list of ECs. They get their first B and ask, are my chances ruined? My reaction is, well. are you the next Homer, Kant, or Dickinson? Is one of your ECs a David Hogg-level EC? If yes, then your odds are good. If not, then your chances are probably the same as most other applicants.