1600 and Rejected?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1600 in one sitting or super scored? ([/b]I think there's a difference.[b] I don't know if colleges do.)

My niece with a superscored 1600 was rejected from HYP, got into Cornell, and is going to a BS/MD program somewhere ... I forget which school but it is not Rice or Brown.

Why do you think there is a difference? Presumably the math and verbal sections are equally difficult across different sittings. This is just yet another thing that creates artificial distinctions between students who aren’t really different.

Not every college considers a super-score.

Right, they do it as a way to create artificial distinctions, like I said. Is a kid who scored 1560 on test 1 (780/780) and then a 1600 on test 2 different from a kid who scored 780/800 and 800/780? No they aren’t. Way too much is placed on the SAT/ACT. All they test is whether you are good at that test or not, and to a certain degree, how affluent you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just getting a good board score is not enough to gain admission to any school.

And the applicant was likely rejected from Michigan because they showed zero interest in actually attending.

You would not have done well on the Reading Comprehension section.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes. I know a kid who took tons of prep classes and private tutoring and got a 1600. But had a low gpa and no ECs. Got rejected from plenty of places include state flagship.

If I were an admission counselor, I'd much rather take someone with a 1500 and a high gpa vs someone with a low gpa and no ECs. GPA in HS is fairly easy to get at least a 3.5/3.6, really even higher if someone can manage to get a 1600. So the low GPA demonstrates lack of effort on the kid's part. I'd rather have a hard worker on my campus than someone who plans to coast by. Colleges want kids who are gonna get involved and do something.

[Anonymous]

There are no differences once you are 1570. SAT itself becomes easier and easier. If you get one math question wrong, you get 780 on math. Many super smart kids easily make mistakes because they feel the tests are so easy. Obsessed with 1600 is a signal of perfectionist and is a red flag to AO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just getting a good board score is not enough to gain admission to any school.

And the applicant was likely rejected from Michigan because they showed zero interest in actually attending.

You would not have done well on the Reading Comprehension section.

Classic DCUM.

OP: I understand a perfect score is not enough. Don't need to tell me.
First poster: You need to understand that a perfect score is not enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1600 in one sitting or super scored? ([/b]I think there's a difference.[b] I don't know if colleges do.)

My niece with a superscored 1600 was rejected from HYP, got into Cornell, and is going to a BS/MD program somewhere ... I forget which school but it is not Rice or Brown.

Why do you think there is a difference? Presumably the math and verbal sections are equally difficult across different sittings. This is just yet another thing that creates artificial distinctions between students who aren’t really different.

Not every college considers a super-score.

Right, they do it as a way to create artificial distinctions, like I said. Is a kid who scored 1560 on test 1 (780/780) and then a 1600 on test 2 different from a kid who scored 780/800 and 800/780? No they aren’t. Way too much is placed on the SAT/ACT. All they test is whether you are good at that test or not, and to a certain degree, how affluent you are.

Definately measures how affluent you are. Much easier to raise your score with private/1-1 tutoring. I know, it works. My own kid (3.99 UW Gpa, 10 AP courses) went from a 1300 to a 1500 with just 4 hours of tutoring and 2-3 hours of their own outside "studying". And the remaining 5 hours of tutoring my kid did plus 3 more practice tests were all around 1500 +/- 20 points. These tutors help your kid hone in on specifically what they are missing and help with the basic tricks of how to navigate the test.

I have no doubt that if my kid wanted to do more intensive tutoring (10-20 hours), they could have gotten to a 1550. They were hovering around a perfect Math but never got it. And verbal could easily improve with more work. We chose not to do it, as mentally it's just not worth taking the extra time for another 40-50 points. I felt my kid had gotten to their sweet spot. But if I wanted to spend another $2K and 20+ hours of my kid's time, they could have scored higher. However, majority of people cannot afford to do that---most just use online free tutoring, which is not as helpful as one-one tutoring typically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are no differences once you are 1570. SAT itself becomes easier and easier. If you get one math question wrong, you get 780 on math. Many super smart kids easily make mistakes because they feel the tests are so easy. Obsessed with 1600 is a signal of perfectionist and is a red flag to AO.

+1. My kid. Always got 780/790 with 1 question wrong (multiple practice tests done thru tutor)
Fact is my kid is often a perfectionist, but really didn't care about the SATs. My kid knows they understand the math and easily get most math, so no need to keep going to get a perfect score

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, my DC 2 years ago. Rejected from Columbia, waitlist then reject from MIT, Waitlist twice at UChicago. Accepted Princeton, Yale, Georgetown, UPenn, and state school.

1600 isn't a magic ticket. There's an awful lot more about any kid (including my DC) than one test score. GPA (theirs wasn't perfect), course rigor, ECs, goals, etc.

Given this evidence, a 1600 was a magic ticket for your kid if he was accepted at Princeton, Yale, Penn, Georgetown and a state flagship. Most kids would consider those acceptances as beating the odds. You can only matriculate at one place.

[Anonymous]

Yup, me 20 years ago. Rejected at Harvard and Princeton. Ended up at state flagship.

[Anonymous]

I heard recently that Cornell rejected ~88% of applicants with a 1600. Other ivies are probably similar.

[Anonymous]

Why do you want anecdotes when you already know perfect testing doesn’t guarantee acceptances?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's all about being well rounded. Anyone can study for a test and go to prep courses. Colleges know this.

Sure. And if well-rounded means that your kid selects something to sell (popcorn, string bracelets, lanyards, dog leashes, etc.) and provides all of the profits to a worthy cause, meanwhile mom is hustling all her friends on her FB and IG accounts to buy kid's stuff to raise that money, well I hope that colleges can see through this too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I heard recently that Cornell rejected ~88% of applicants with a 1600. Other ivies are probably similar.

Wow! If that is true, very interesting!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do you want anecdotes when you already know perfect testing doesn’t guarantee acceptances?

Why do you care? If the question is so idiotic, do not click on the thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yup, me 20 years ago. Rejected at Harvard and Princeton. Ended up at state flagship.

For free I hope.