<p>In CR, even if you normally have an excellent vocabulary but the SAT happens to test you on a word you don’t know, you could still use elimination or rely on the CR curves that allow you to still get an 800 with two wrong.</p>
<p>If I read books that are above my grade level, would that improve my reading comprehension?</p>
<p>How do you miss 9 on the vocabulary? There are only 19 problems in total. :-O</p>
<p>Haha don’t ask me… the first time I took it I missed a lot in the passage based readings, so I decided to start reading more. I increased my passage reading scores, but decreased my vocabulary. Now if I could just improve both? any tips on increasing CC?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you have an outstanding vocabulary, you’ll probably know all SAT words. But if you just have a good vocabulary, on some tests, you’ll the words you need, and in others you won’t - its luck.</p>
<p>^ You’re kind of dancing around the obvious point: luck is always needed to an extent, as is skill. The need for each is inversely related, but there are no absolute thresholds.</p>
<p>As a 2400 (who retook from 2380), I think I can weigh in on this.</p>
<p>2400 is not luck. The practice tests give you a range of scores based on your results. There’s a reason for this. I think this is roughly the breakdown:</p>
<p>2400 Probable: Take the test 100 times, you’ll never get below 2350. The vast majority of your tests will be within a question or two of 2400. Most 2400’s come out of this pool.</p>
<p>2400 Possible: Take the test 100 times, you’ll always be in the 2300 range. If you’re having a really good day, you could get 2400.</p>
<p>2400 Remote: Generally in the high 2200 - low 2300 range. Maybe hope for a miracle.</p>
<p>Anything else: You would have to be unbelievably lucky.</p>
<p>What determines these ranges? Practice, bounded by the limits of intelligence.</p>
<p>Again using my daughter as an example, she was one CR question and and the essay (not sure if 10 would have given her an 800 with 80MC?) away from a 2400, which yielded a 2330. That sounds like a big difference 2400 to 2330, but I think it just illustrates how hard it is to get that 2400 in one sitting. She didn’t prep other than taking the PSAT in October and is kind of kicking herself that she didn’t review what she needed to do for a 12 essay. She wouldn’t dream of retaking though so it’s all good.</p>
<p>I certainly agree with quite a bit of this content. I think intelligence plays more of a role than luck, but also dedication, both to a particular domain of study (math or English) and to the entire exam. The first time I took the exam (junior year) I studied mostly for the reading and writing sections, which I did outstandingly well on (800 reading 770 writing) but I absolutely bombed the math portion (600) (Still “good” for whatever it’s worth) I attribute this to my lack of attention to mathematics review. I think true competency arises more from constantly studying material, than actually <em>learning</em> the material. Anyone can learn the material necessary to score a 2400, the thing is most people just do not dedicate the time necessary to do so. I think luck plays a remarkably small role, and above all else are dedication and the desire to perform well on the exam. Hence, I retook the exam, studied math, and scored a 740 on the math. I worked hard.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Don’t generalise please.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Many (and I would say most) people don’t have the time/resources/energy, nor even WANT to take the SAT practice test that many times (ie. 100). </p></li>
<li><p>I think that you will find that many people buck your guidelines, I know someone who got 2400 on the first go, having done only 1 or 2 practices. I know people who did mediocre-ly in the practices (ie. 2100 to 2200) and got a 2400. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>I’m sure that someone that does do as many practices as you’re suggesting and does do well in those practices is no doubt highly qualified and has a great shot at getting a 2400, but **I hardly think that you can impose categories like that on the general population. **</p>
<p>and besides, SAT is not the be all and end all. Nor is standardised testing. I heard directly from Harvard and Yale area officers that they look at everything, and SAT is one of the least considered points.</p>
<p>They want to build an interesting class with diverse and compelling personalities. Not load it up with a bunch of fanatic test takers.</p>
<p>
Frankly, I don’t think you can separate them so distinctly. </p>
<p>I’ve taken BB tests where I’ve literally finished all 3 CR sections in 45 minutes and don’t miss a question. Then other times I miss a CR here and there and BAM, 800 to mid/high-700s. Sometimes the reading questions literally feel like are-you-smarter-than-a-5th-grader questions. Other times they are surprisingly tricky. You’re either on or off, or maybe the test itself is “on or off.” If you can nail 800s in this one every time, then bravo, but from what I’ve seen even the strongest readers sometimes face a passage that baffles them a bit.</p>
<p>Math and Writing are generally consistent for me and for others but as we all know the Math curve can be ridiculous and nobody is invulnerable to making mistakes, and there is a bit of subjectivity that affects the writing score. </p>
<p>I’d generally say that if you’re in the 2300+ range with mid/high-700s in every section, you have a decent enough shot at the 2400. I think this is the majority of the 2400 demographic, really. I have never accounted a HS student who has made the claim that he could definitely score high-2300s every time, much less execute it. And this is coming from a student who knows quite a few over-achievers from his HS over the years.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I was speaking in terms of statistics. Rule of large numbers: As the number of trials increases, a general probability emerges. I’m saying IF you take the test 100 times, you will never score below 2350, etc. That’s how good you are. I’m not saying you actually take that many practice tests. There aren’t even that many practice tests to take.</p></li>
<li><p>Maybe now that you know what I was talking about, this will make more sense to you.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Whoever told you that the SAT is one of the least considered points is a liar, or you’ve distorted what they said. The SAT is the great equalizer, and colleges continue to use it as such. Are differences between 2310 and 2390 that significant to colleges? No, probably not. But it’s definitely not one of the least important factors. You have to have some majorly better ECs or essays to overcome a 150+ point SAT gap.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thank you monstor, you explained it perfectly. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I heard this directly from Jean Lee - my area admissions officer from Yale, and also directly from what an Adcom at Harvard said - the quote is around somewhere. I stand by my belief that the SAT is one of the least considered aspects of the application. Clearly the SAT is an aspect of the application, and is given its due consideration,however top schools have said, (over and over again) that this is roughly the order of things they consider:</p>
<ol>
<li>Grades, gpa</li>
<li>Teacher and counsellor reccommendations</li>
<li>Essays</li>
<li>SAT/standardised testing</li>
<li>Interview. </li>
</ol>
<p>(2/3 may be interchangeable)</p>
<p>Adcoms have frequently cited being swayed by a particularly compelling essay, or teacher reccommendation. These things will make them advocate for you when committee sits and votes. A perfect test score wont. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I disagree for the aforementioned reasons. </p>
<p>Overall, Christiansoldier, you are perfectly entitled to your views, I am not trying to convince you of mine. However I would appreciate it if you stopped using language such as “moron” - which I consider to be a personal attack. </p>
<p>I stand by my views, and will base my beliefs on the advice of close friends who have gotten into the top 3 ivies, and on the direct information coming from the Adcom’s mouths, thanks.</p>
<p>But you’re suggesting that there are hundreds of HS students every year who could take a practice test 100 times and have a 1/1 probability of scoring at least 2350 each time. If you’re instead suggesting that, over time, a person who takes it that many times becomes so experienced that towards the end of those 100 tests they never score below a 2350, it would be more understandable.</p>
<p>What is a 150+ SAT point gap? I agree that 150 points can make a huge difference, but where? What is the standard that creates the gap? is it 2400? 2300? 2250? And I dislike the focus on composite score. Schools look at individual scores for the SAT. You say that the difference between a 2390 and a 2310 is insignificant to colleges. If the breakdown was 710 CR 800 M 800 W vs. 800 CR 800 M 790 W then I would disagree and say that there is a significant difference. If the breakdown was 770 CR 770 M 770 W vs. 790 CR 800 M 800 W then I would completely agree.</p>
<p>@theskylitup
No admission officer, especially that of a top-tier school, is going to tell you that they weigh standardized tests heavily. The truth is that, at the best schools, high scores are expected and are, in most cases, prerequisites to being considered for admission. This certainly does not make them “the least important” factor in admission decision making.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course. I would never dispute that. I fully expect that admissions at top schools looks for top standardised testing scores. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>note though, I said “one of the least”. I certainly wouldn’t make a categorical statement like “the least”. Because frankly I don’t deal with such absolutes - especially not for something as non-absolute as college admissions. </p>
<p>If I may quote from myself: You will see that I don’t disregard the SATs at all. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Bilgunn - I think that if you read my post again, you’ll find that my viewpoint does not differ greatly from yours. I certainly don’t think that SAT is unimportant. I do believe that 2400 is impressive. I expect that top schools want to see applicants have good marks ie. 2300+ (for example). </p>
<p>My disagreement is that Christiansoldier is categorising groups of students like they are nothing more than an equation, and treating idiosyncratic things such as performances from day to day like it can be measured and defined. </p>
<p>WHICH, I suppose takes us back to the original point of this thread. Namely what it takes to get 2400. I certainly do believe that a certain amount of luck is an element at play. By luck, I mean things such as level of concentration on a day, how much sleep etc.</p>
<p>Luck really can’t be meaured. I think your either good at standarized testing or not.
Unfortunately, for me, I’m not 
Once a bad test taker, always a bad test taker.
I don’t really think you can learn standarized testing skills; either you have them or you don’t.
Am I wrong?</p>
<p>theskylitup, I agree. I went from a 200 PSAT to a 2190 first time and 2400 second. Generalizations don’t help, nor can one of us speak for an entire group. I kind of like categorizing things like that, but I do understand that exceptions exist. And I only took about 8 practice tests. Frantic retaking isn’t a good idea, nor would it seem to make sense for schools like Yale. In general, though, silverturtle’s right. It requires intelligence and luck. It’s a phemonemon we can’t easily quantify (though, ironically, 2400 is a number) and that’s as far as it goes.</p>
<p>This is my rating from most to least important</p>
<p>Prep
Intelligence
luck</p>
<p>I have examples on all. This one kid at my school never practiced, not even once, and he beat me on the math section (I guess he’s a genius at math, and I am truly not so great) but I beat him on both english related sections because I did practice. Intelligence does matter, usually because intelligence IS paired with a keen eye, but in the end prep beats it. You have to know how the test is organized and what type of questions are asked in order to make the best possible score for you. Taking it without practice won’t help you at all, even if you are intelligent.
Luck DOES play a factor, though a minor one, in the end. If you get passages that you are at least somewhat familiar with, if you get vocab that you know, if you get sentence corrections that you know the diff between nominative and obj. case, if you get questions about triangles and you are good at those, then you’re likely to score better. That IS luck, though that is overcome by practice.</p>
<p>Though I am compelled to make another point, a little off topic, I admit. Whoever said that a score of 2250 (or something around there?) is mediocre, wow? Scores in between 2050-2300 are NOT mediocre. I feel a little insulted by this, and I’m sure a lot of people do. I may not get into Harvard or Yale (not that I am the least interested in those colleges), but with my, at least 2100, I get a full ride scholarship in a tier one university, with tuition, room, food, travel expenses, books, one year study abroad anywhere I want, leadership conferences every friday, opera/symphony tickets, and that’s just the beginning. Yeah, the score wasn’t a perfect score, but my experience in college will not be reflected by a perfect score. And yeah, how many people actually get above 2300? Come on, let’s be realistic here. Full ride scholarships like this one are not easy to come by (in fact, I read that there are only 2 like this one in the entire country, with the full experience, though I may be wrong) and the coordinators of these programs KNOW that most of the kids (they select about 20) won’t get 2400, but they may get a 2200, so they set the minimum at 2100. Just because you don’t have a perfect score doesn’t mean you won’t graduate suma cum laude, or won’t be involved in labs or extracurriculars. A score is, indeed, just a score.</p>
<p>And last, scores are the great equalizer, sadly. I come from a really small rural school (only 47 in my grad class) and I have to compete with others from schools that have awesome math, science, and english programs. It isn’t exactly fair, but it makes sense. Because each person’s environment is different, they want to see how we compare to one another, and then pick the best. But in the end, SAT isn’t number one, let’s not forget that. They do take into consideration what you have done for your community, etc etc…</p>
<p>i think we’re forgettign that the average is below 1500</p>