<p>Sorry, a little late to the discussion here, but I cringe whenever these threads appear about the rarity of perfect scores on any number of tests and how they translate into admissions results. [post=3209061]Here was one[/post] earlier this season, and no matter what any admissions officer says, students continue to argue that their 800s are more golden than the 750s. Here is [thread=273724]another on the MIT forum.[/thread] </p>
<p>Though they may be rare, my understanding is that admissions officers do not view scores with the same narrow lens as many on CC. Ben Jones and Matt McGann of MIT are on record that a perfect score in a single sitting is not weighted more significantly than other excellent scores (750+). </p>
<p>So to gage the competition, it is prudent to consider the broader range of those who scored in the same 99+ percentile (scores of 2290 & up for Males, 2270 & up for Females). In 2006, a perfect score would be competing with 6675 students all within the same 99+ percentile (3100 males & 3575 females). Add those who scored 2250 & up, and the total is 10,383 students in range (3,628 males, 3,104 females). Those are big numbers for a small number of slots. Granted, not all students are gunning for the same slots, but you get the idea.</p>
<p>No doubt a high scoring student who has subjective measures that are correspondingly excellent will have better results. I just want to caution against focusing too narrowly on the objective data when there is a broader range of competitive students.</p>