<p>You might, then, acknolwedge the low score, advise that you are still interested, and let the chips fall where they may. Anything else, quite frankly, does sound like an excuse.</p>
<p>I am curious though . . .and this is a general question, not so much directed at your particular circumstance.</p>
<p>If the SAT are an indicator of “scholastic aptitude” [and many will argue that it is not; but that’s a different thread] and one works hard to improve their score, utilzing coaches, techniques, above suggestions, and whatever else the test-taker might use to imrpove their score . . . . is that person setting themself up for some hard times ahead?</p>
<p>That is, does a natural 1100 [well, let’s say, 1000 since that is the “average” score] have a harder time keeping up and doing well in school than a natural 1500? Obviously there are exceptions, but does the 1000’er have to work harder to keep up? They obviously needed a lot of help/coaching to get their natural score up, so what will that person do when off on their own, dropped in the tank so to speak to swim with the sharks? In that regard, then, isn’t working to improve your score [at least significantly] somewhat detrimental in the long run?</p>