Is there honestly a difference from the adcom's perspective between a 25 and 26 AA?

[DustFreeEraser]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Obviously not strictly speaking 25 and 26, but I mean high scores in general. Anything over 23 seems statistically formidable. Any benefit in reality?

I ask this because we know that the difference between the upper tier scores can ultimately come down to one person answering one or two more questions correctly. What's the true value in that?

 

[sjv]

Not much, you said it yourself, the difference may be 1 or 2 questions.

 

[cacajuate]

I believe you are right about over 23. Seems like the tipping point where scores are all lumped into awesome.

 

[doc toothache]

Anything from 21+ is pretty much in the elite group.

 

[DustFreeEraser]

So then in regards to schools that clearly have a higher DAT score average of the accepted applicants, is it because they accept those of higher gpa and it just happened to be that higher gpa typically correlated with higher DAT? Because it would seem silly for schools to deliberately pick applicants with higher DAT scores when anything above 21-23 is the difference between a single question or two.

 

[Glimmer1991]

Nah. I mean, I'm sure my DAT score helped... but I don't think it opened any more doors for me as compared to people who had, say, a 23 on the DAT. Or probably even a 22.

 

[doc toothache]

So then in regards to schools that clearly have a higher DAT score average of the accepted applicants, is it because they accept those of higher gpa and it just happened to be that higher gpa typically correlated with higher DAT? Because it would seem silly for schools to deliberately pick applicants with higher DAT scores when anything above 21-23 is the difference between a single question or two.

Or it could be that the entire package was appealing.