- Joined
- Feb 2026
- Subscription
- Core
Admissions profile
Applications
Discussions
Honestly all over the place, 163-171 over the past 2 months, and on the higher end of that range in June. It's weird, and I attribute it to my testing conditions not being consistent.
Interesting, I really appreciate your perspective. Is there any value to keeping it? I guess I'm hesitant to cancel it because at an abstract level, I feel averse to the idea of hiding information about me from the AOs, especially because it seems to me that a 164 isn't an end of the world score? Maybe I'm emotionally attached to the hard work that the 164 cost me, even if I feel it is at my lower range and I'm not especially thrilled by it.
For more numerical context, my goal schools' medians are around 170, but luckily my gpa meets and beats the gpa medians.
Thank you for your help!!
Thank you for the input! Is there any merit to the fear that if they see a canceled score, they might assume it's greater than a 4pt decrease?
I got a 168 in June, and a 164 in September. I plan on taking it again in October; I am going to push myself, but I am not setting my sights unrealistically high by expecting to get much higher than 168. (although my goal is 170-174...)
What I am wondering is if I should keep or cancel my 164 score. Will AOs see that I took it in Sept but canceled the score? Would they rather see a canceled score, or a 164? Should I keep the score, but have a brief addendum explaining the factors I think led to the score decrease (taking it in a test center instead of at home, a break in my studying in June for traveling)? Anyone else contemplating canceling a score?
Thank you!!
I was hesitant to pick E because I worried it was too big of an assumption to equate "great amount of time 'wasted'" to not being more efficient. I figured couldn't someone spend a lot of time organizing their activities, but then be super efficient and fast at completing them?
I ultimately selected this because of POE, but my question still remains.. it doesn't seem perfectly clear to me that spending a great amount of time organizing activities means less room to be efficient.
Got it wrong first time and BR, and I mostly understand where I went wrong looking back with the concept of "other people", but don't the products still involve an "other people" (the consumers) compared to the people selling the products? I read it as there was still peoples' (the product sellers) actions are harming others and therefore should restricted.
Can someone explain to me where that thinking falls through?
How is this "connecting" the analogy? Isn't it the analogy itself? That's where I got caught up.
Can someone refresh my understanding of "not all"? I ruled out C on my first look through because 99% could mean not all, and to me, nothing in the stimulus supported the possibility that potentially 99% of cats are identical with respect to the proteins contained in their skin secretions and saliva. I agree that the idea that cats differ is supported, but I'm still hung up on the "not all."
Thank you!! You too!!!!! (if you are taking it :))