<p>^</p>
<p>I meant that there could be a correlation. I have seen adcoms state that a strong applicant usually has a higher SAT score, and this reflects in the admission process.</p>
<p>BTW, where did you get the SAT overall data? As far as I know, Stanford only publishes acceptance rates with section-wise scores…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This doesn’t apply to Stanford, but they were taken from Princeton’s own admissions website, so I imagine the policies must be at least somewhat similar:</p>
<p>[Princeton</a> University | Admission Statistics](<a href=“http://www.princeton.edu/admission/applyingforadmission/admission_statistics/]Princeton”>http://www.princeton.edu/admission/applyingforadmission/admission_statistics/)</p>
<p>Nope, i wouldnt say that. STanford only shows stats for 30 - 36 ACT, something similar for SAT.</p>
<p>This might help a little: [Stanford</a> University: Common Data Set 2009-2010](<a href=“http://ucomm.stanford.edu/cds/cds_2009.html]Stanford”>http://ucomm.stanford.edu/cds/cds_2009.html)</p>
<p>Go down to near the bottom of the page and there is a breakdown of SAT/ACT scores. Though you guys probably have already seen it.</p>
<p>I’m with sarbaraj101 on this one. They warn you about skewed interpretation of the admission data. The higher acceptance rate just indicates a correlation between high SAT scores and strong applicants. If the acceptance was based just on scores, Stanford wouldn’t have rejected 65% of those who applied with 2400’s as they did last year… </p>
<p>Albeit higher scores will look better on your app they won’t significantly change your chances beyond a certain threshold…</p>
<p>Funny fact, The Cornell Admission Officer I spoke to told me that this ‘threshold’ is 600 in each section, so 1800 overall…</p>
<p>SO if you think you’ll improve by 190 point, by all means retake them… however if you are only going to raise it be 40 point, IMO there is no reason to!</p>
<p>^</p>
<p>For Cornell, it’d be 1200, since they do not consider the writing section of the commonapp.</p>
<p>Just out of curiosity, where did you find the data that 65% of 2400ers were rejected?</p>
<p>And, since it was a Cornell admissions officer who told you that, it should probably noted that Cornell is significantly less selective than Stanford, with an admit rate almost triple (21%) that of Stanford’s. Once could expect the threshold to be lower for Cornell because of that.</p>
<p>If I don’t get into Stanford, none of my other schools are going to accept me. Some of my grades for second quarter have been faltering…pretty badly. My teachers have literally been taking a dump on the seniors’ second quarter grades.</p>
<p>I need to get in for the sake of my grades not being shown to the rest of the higher education world.</p>
<p>That’s the worst reason for acceptance I’ve ever heard in my life, Michelle! Though I still hope you get in :)</p>
<p>It’s just another reason, ma’am. Don’t hate. </p>
<p>You just really want:
I hope I get in so I can meet Courtneyyy YESSSS</p>
<p>^
hahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahah</p>
<p>All things being equal, higher SAT implies higher acceptance rate. If we were (able) to do a regression analysis and “fix” the other confounding variables (strength of application essays, recommendations, ECs, etc.), we could easily infer a CAUSAL relationship between SAT score (the independent variable) and acceptance rate (the dependent variable).</p>
<p>That said, Stanford seems to weigh the SATs less heavily than its peer insitutions (HYP, MIT). But it’d still definitely be in the prospective student’s interest to score as highly on the SAT (I & II) as possible.</p>
<p>Michelle, I DO want to meet you! I want to meet all of you!</p>
<p>So would you lot say that the SAT is more, less, or equally important than/to ECs?</p>
<p>@ezbreezy</p>
<p>A partial derivative is as it goes. There is a problem with “fixing” other variables here: SAT correlates to other aspects of the application. So you can’t simply fox variables and call the result “causal”. To model this condition successfully, we’d have to use the calculus of variations.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>All we have to do is figure out the strength of correlation between SAT scores and the other confounding factors. The rest can be inferred to be causality.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s exactly the point that I was trying to make. Besides, colleges always want to boost their admissions statistics by making their 25-75 percentile SAT ranges as high as possible, so it would be to their advantage to choose the applicants who would allow such a high range, provided that those same applicants, when put together, also craft a talented, well-rounded, and diverse class.</p>
<p>I’d personally say we’re pretty talented, well-rounded, and diverse ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s hard to compare the two because one is easily quantifiable, the other is not. But I think that ECs count more (or SATs count less) for Stanford than its peers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You mean the converse.</p>
<p>No, she didn’t mean the converse; read her post again!</p>