<p>Amazon, I think it’s safe to say that everyone “within the college community” recognizes that, and it gets mentioned all the time (like, several times on this thread). The problem is, that everyone also recognizes that one or two answers might be the difference between an 800 and a 760, and that even a genius could miss some (boring) questions. 30-50 SAT points just isn’t a reliable basis for making sharp distinctions.</p>
<p>Nope. No difference between 790 and 800. The CB claims that a student’s score could vary by 40 points on the same test depending on circumstances. </p>
<p>The college community–meaning adcoms, CB and ETS-- have been studying this issue for as long as there have been SATS. They’ve concluded that there is no real difference between 750 and 800, which is why they consider SAT scores in tranches of 50 as opposed to differentiating between scores with only 10 point differences.</p>
<p>^^Even in the SAT score report, it mentions a range.</p>
<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>
<p>Amazon’s point is correct (and obvious), and not inconsistent with what any of the rest of you are saying. It is perfectly clear that the SAT does not test the limits of many students’ abilities. A harder test would discriminate among the 800-scorers (and some of the 790, 780, etc., scorers, too), and stretch out their scores over a wider range of high scores. Instead, all the top scores cluster at 800 – the long right tail of the bell curve is aggregated there.</p>
<p>Somewhere in those 800 scores, there’s a kid who could have gotten a 10,000. But some of the 800 scorers would have maxed out at 800, and some of the 790 scorers might have gotten 950. There’s no way to tell who is who from the SAT score alone, because the test doesn’t test for it, and it’s not reliable except within bands.</p>
<p>And, for the 800th or 2400th time, 2400, or 4800, worth of SAT scores, even if they denote really superior intelligence, is just not very impressive if it is unaccompanied by some evidence of actual superior achievement and engagement in the world. Admissions committees at hyper-selective colleges, and scholarship committees, don’t oooh and aaah over perfect SAT scores because they have tons of additional information which is considerably more nuanced and responsive to their needs. They use the SAT scores as part of a rough cut, and to confirm what other information may suggest. That’s a perfectly good use for them.</p>
<p>Look: I can sympathize with those parents who wish great SAT scores meant more. If they did, my son would have had a different set of choices in April than he had, one that I would have enjoyed more. But that just isn’t the way the world works, and I don’t think it should work that way, either.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>True, but students in the 99+ range would also find that the test did not measure the limits of their abilities.</p>
<p>I agree with the rest of the post.</p>
<p>
I’m not sure I agree with the idea that these are big numbers. 10,000 out of 2.5 to 3 million HS graduates is not a high percentage – obviously, since these scores fall into the 99th percentile.</p>
<p>Not all of these kids are heading for the most elite schools, although clearly many are. I recall reading somewhere that the Ivy’s plus MIT and Stanford have around 20,000 slots for entering freshman. I think they really are pretty special, whether they are scoring 750 or 800 on any particular test. When you start trying to differentiate between a 770 and a 790, I think you are running into restriction of range issues – the differences are just not that meaningful.</p>
<p>As others have said, the rest of the applicant’s profile comes into play once a threshold has been reached.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. I was privileged to hear a talk on college admission issues by Jon Reider, former admission officer at Stanford and now a private high school college counselor, and he endorsed the idea that today SAT I scores are mostly used as a threshold requirement before other aspects of the application are looked at. “If you get above a decent, competitive level, you’re okay.” Beyond getting to a competitive level (I recommend getting to the 75th percentile cut-off for the college you most desire), SAT I scores are not particularly determinative of who gets into college.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>sjmom2329, yes, you’re right in the overall context. I’m not trying to diminish anything. I was just trying to give a more realistic range and caution against focusing too narrowly on one line of SAT data. Add in high ACT scores and the number of qualified candidates seeking a narrow number of slots goes up (acknowledging overlaps of course).</p>
<p>It was eye-opening for my S to see the full percentile ranges. He was well served to focus on his apps rather than on some notion of how special he was.</p>