<p>I saw it many times here.
can someone tell me what super score means?</p>
<p>It means that a school takes your top section score from all of your sittings. For example:</p>
<p>Sitting 1:
CR 670
M 730
WR 750</p>
<p>Sitting 2:
CR 740
M 720
WR 780</p>
<p>Superscore:
CR 740
M 730
WR 780</p>
<p>Do schools like Yale view superscored SATs differently than a score in a single sitting. For example, I took it once and got a good enough score but if someone else takes it three times and superscores up to my score, will Yale say we are on equal terms scorewise?</p>
<p>^ Yes.</p>
<p>^oh man! that’s not fair.</p>
<p>In looking through Yale’s website, there was a section in which it was stated that the version of the application that eventually ends up in an admissions officer’s hands only contains summarized test score information. As such, the best scores in each section will be presented to the admissions officer. That said, there will also be something that says whether or not these scores came from multiple sittings, which the admissions officer may choose to investigate if necessary.</p>
<p>[Yale</a> Daily News - No choice on scores](<a href=“http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/university-news/2009/01/16/no-choice-on-scores/]Yale”>http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/university-news/2009/01/16/no-choice-on-scores/)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One should infer from J Brenzel’s remarks to mean that a kid from an economic strata/school district where kids routinely sit for the SAT 3 or more times after 1+ years of test prep classes/tutors – their “achievements” will be rightly compared in context with the urban/rural kid who takes the ACT or SAT in one sitting with no Saturday test prep courses.</p>
<p>^but how do they know who has had prep classes, etc, and who hasn’t? i mean, there are probably kids from rich neighborhoods that don’t have tutoring, prep, etc. and there are kids from less rich neighborhoods who do. so that seems kinda fishy.</p>
<p>I’m just saying a rural kid who scores 2100 in one sitting stands out more than a 34ACT kid from Northern Virginia.</p>
<p>^really? they take where you live into consideration? then why on all the chance threads do people rarely look at where an applicant lives and instead would say “2100…too low for yale” type of thing?</p>
<p>^Because this website isn’t always accurate.</p>
<p>So, will they assume that higher income = prep courses? Because I took the ACT cold and got a 34, so I don’t think they should be assuming that my parents got me prepped. We live in a semi-rural area, though.</p>
<p>Because Chances threads are close to useless since the majority of the people responding are other HS jrs and srs who know next to nothing about the admissions process.</p>
<p>There, I’ve said it, that feels good ;).</p>
<p>If students spent more time reading college websites and using the Search function on CC to gather information rather than posting pointless Chances threads, they’d learn a lot more about how to build a realistic college list.</p>
<p>LOL: I wasn’t gonna be so blunt entomom! </p>
<p>Because admissions professionals read thousands of files a year and it’s their job to know the communities from which applications are sent. The kid in rural Idaho with a 2000 SAT is gonna be much more noticed than the two hundred violin/tennis/math club kids with 2250SAT/3.9GPA that apply.</p>
<p>^it just doesn’t seem to add up, though. just looking at the applicant stats on this website and on the yale website, it seems like no one would get in with a 2000 sat. especially if the only reason was because they lived in rural idaho. if they had no outstanding ec’s or anything, why the hell would yale let them in just cuz they live in a rural area? doesn’t make sense.</p>
<p>Yale is looking for interesting people who will contribute to the Yale community. Sometimes, it’s that super achieving Idahoan kid. There’s no need to just take the kids with the best metrics. Many great applicants don’t have your def’n of “great ECs” because they do “less than great” ECs such as work or watch siblings or un-impressive things like that. But a kid who works 30 hrs a week on a farm or his parents’ party store, yet achieves great academically and is clearly a leader or superstar – they stand out compared to the “typical” high-achieving Yale applicant, wouldn’t you say? That’s the def’n of “holistic” evaluation, whitecadillac.</p>
<p>Admissions is an art, not a science.</p>
<p>A guy in my college/class at Yale was from a really rural area in the Southwest – nowheresville. He was really raw when he arrived, too. In subsequent years, he was captain of the Yale football team, a member of Scroll & Key, Editor-In-Chief of the University of Virginia Law Review, a law clerk to Justice Lewis Powell on the U.S. Supreme Court, Attorney General of his state, and now he’s a federal judge.</p>
<p>Or . . . think about Dick Cheney’s career.</p>
<p>That’s why they look at kids from rural areas. It’s not about achievement when you apply to college – hardly anyone has really achieved anything at that point, except for artificial competitions with their peers. It’s about potential. And a kid from a rural area who shows signs of intellectual ability and leadership can have a lot of potential, and will bring a perspective to the table that few other people have.</p>
<p>i’m not saying a rural kid doesn’t have as much potential. but how can you say he has MORE potential than a kid who has a 2300+ sat, great ec’s, great gpa, etc? how can you really say the latter kid has LESS potential? </p>
<p>i can see someone comparing two kids with both 2300+ sats, great ec’s, great gpa and perhaps choosing the rural kid due to the idea that “oh, he probably didn’t have as many resources and opportunities”. but i still think that’s kinda bs. it’s not a high-achieving kid’s fault if he was born into a wealthier environment that has more resources and if he took advantage of them. </p>
<p>it’s like you’re saying a kid from a rural area that shows SOME intelligence has more potential than a much MORE intelligent and accomplished kid from a wealthier area just cuz the former is from a rural area. and i don’t think that’s true. the rural kid MIGHT in fact have tons of potential but to reject a smarter and more accomplished kid who more obviously has great academic potential just on a whim that the other kid MIGHT have potential seems ridiculous.</p>
<p>maybe if the rural kid did do something very special or outstanding. but working and taking care of siblings…lots of kids do that. if he was able to achieve GREATLY despite it (again, 2300+, 4.0 gpa, etc) then i can see the logic. but he works, takes care of siblings, and gets 2000 sat and mediocre gpa? so what? what makes him stand out?</p>
<p>i guess the only thing is a “different perspective” that jhs mentioned. i don’t think it’s vastly different though, since a ton of kids work and other things like that. living on a farm is different, but that alone shouldn’t enough to get a mediocre applicant in at yale.</p>
<p>"but i still think that’s kinda bs. it’s not a high-achieving kid’s fault if he was born into a wealthier environment that has more resources and if he took advantage of them. </p>
<p>it’s like you’re saying a kid from a rural area that shows SOME intelligence has more potential than a much MORE intelligent and accomplished kid from a wealthier area just cuz the former is from a rural area. and i don’t think that’s true. the rural kid MIGHT in fact have tons of potential but to reject a smarter and more accomplished kid who more obviously has great academic potential just on a whim that the other kid MIGHT have potential seems ridiculous."</p>
<p>No where would I or Yale say that the hypothetical rural kid has MORE potential just because. However I’m definitely saying that schools like Yale are in such a cat-bird seat that they can (and do) cherry pick from the crop of the 29K+ applications this year. They can (and do) create and mold the incoming class. They can (and do) make offers to that rural kid OVER other kids who may have higher metrics but are otherwise similar to another 300 applicants. </p>
<p>It’s not a judgement that the high SAT kid has less potential. It’s just that 500 have already been put on the accept list. And indeed, a full 1950 could be put on that list. Why should it be so?</p>
<p>And isn’t this Yale’s purview? Yale admissions isn’t solely a meritocracy – and it never has said so.</p>
<p>You say that a couple of hundred SAT points demands acceptance and recognition, period. Yale says that they are in a situation where they don’t have to be limited like that. You say that’s ridiculous? You’re entitled to your opinion. But Yale’s formula for pulling together its freshman class has seemed to work pretty well for the last 40 years, IMHO.</p>
<p>(OK, I’m biased. I’m a chinese whose stats would now be in the 25th percentile of currently admtted students. No way even close to what kids post on their “Yale Chances” threads. But I was from an immigrant family and attended an inner city HS. I rose to the highest level of student leadership in a predominantly black HS while taking every AP/honors level class available in my city. Did some New Jersey Korean girl pianist/tennis player with a 35 ACT not get admitted over me? Maybe. I wouldn’t be surprised. But I would argue that Yale’s admissions stance has been one factor in its stable position amongst undergraduate institutions extant)</p>
<p>^your situation is a little different than what you were saying about the rural kid, though. that was my whole point. if you had hard circumstances and achieved despite it, then i see the logic. if you had hard circumstances but didn’t achieve at the level of other applicants, then i don’t.</p>
<p>“You say that a couple of hundred SAT points demands acceptance and recognition, period. Yale says that they are in a situation where they don’t have to be limited like that. You say that’s ridiculous? You’re entitled to your opinion. But Yale’s formula for pulling together its freshman class has seemed to work pretty well for the last 40 years, IMHO.”</p>
<p>no i’m not saying that a high sat deserves acceptance, period. i never once said that. i don’t have a particularly high sat myself (2140), so…no. what i’m saying is that a kid with stats WAY below yale’s standards who has completely mediocre/low sats, gpa, and ec’s does NOT deserve a spot in the class JUST BECAUSE he lives in a rural area. there shouldn’t be an argument that to accept a kid for the ONLY reason that he lives in a rural area and achieved only mediocrity is ridiculous. </p>
<p>if he achieved something great or actually did something to make him stand out, sure. but again, if everything about his profile is mediocre, i don’t think he deserves a spot based solely on the fact that he is from a rural area and may not have had as many opportunities. cuz the whole point of the “less opportunities” thing is to recognize applicants who have achieved GREATLY (not just so-so) despite having less opportunities.</p>