|By Gxing (Gxing) on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 10:08 pm: Edit|
For example, would Harvard value a combined of 1500 on 3 different SATs (taking the highest math and verbal) more/less/equal than getting the 1500 in one sitting with the same math and verbal? Thanks!
|By Ubercollegeman (Ubercollegeman) on Saturday, July 10, 2004 - 12:20 am: Edit|
Adcoms tend to not like test obsession. Taking the SATI three times is bordering on that.
The one sitting is definitely worth more.
|By Albertfermat (Albertfermat) on Saturday, July 10, 2004 - 09:41 am: Edit|
i dont think so. 1500 in three sittings is the exact sames as 1500 in one sitting. Thats because adcoms dont look at your records directly; a clerk of some kind just takes your highest math and highest verbal and thats what he reports to the adcoms. the adcoms dont have time to do that. if u dont believe, go look on the yale website, what i just told you is on their website.
|By Ubercollegeman (Ubercollegeman) on Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 01:22 am: Edit|
Right, I know about that, but at some point, people do look at how many times you took the SAT.
Multiple adcoms can be quoted that they dislike test-obsessed students.
|By Northrams (Northrams) on Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 04:02 pm: Edit|
i think theyd be more worried about someone who retakes when they already have a 1500, as some people on this board have mentioned doing, as opposed to someone who gets, say, a 1300 twice and then hits 1500 on the third shot.
|By 007 (007) on Monday, July 12, 2004 - 04:01 am: Edit|
lets say i got a 1300 1st try, 1400 2nd try would it look bad if i took it once more to cross 1500?
|By Gxing (Gxing) on Monday, July 12, 2004 - 01:26 pm: Edit|
what about 1570 on first try 800 math and 770 verbal and 1540 second try 800 verbal and 740 math. how would this combined 1600 compare with an actual 1600?
|By Blankspace (Blankspace) on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 02:54 am: Edit|
I asked a Yale officer like a week ago at an orientation, and he quoted your situation saying he'd judge it just like all the other 1600's.
|By Ubercollegeman (Ubercollegeman) on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 03:57 am: Edit|
Well, I could've been wrong.
Report an offensive message on this page E-mail this page to a friend
|Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.|
|Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only|