[Farm93]

[quote author=Stymie link=topic=9617.msg119756#msg119756 date=1433191867]
[quote author=BobK link=topic=9617.msg119729#msg119729 date=1433174195]
No athlete would be accepted if that's 3 part.  And not even close if non FB.

I assume that if the 1425  is a 2 part, he's in, no?
[/quote]


Do they have a choice of 2 or 3 part?  I thought Stanford required the writing part?
[/quote]

SAT is going back to two part scores in 2016.  So two part scores will return soon enough.  I think he will be in the last class that will routinely use three part scores.  If he is at 3.4 with 1450 on a two part, then there are no worries.  And that is an AMAZING score for a D1 football player.  If he is at 3.4 with a 1450 on a three part, then I wonder if the early verbal was a good idea.

The article was written as if 1450 was impressive, so perhaps that is the two part score.

[Farm93]

[quote author=Stymie link=topic=9617.msg119756#msg119756 date=1433191867]
[quote author=BobK link=topic=9617.msg119729#msg119729 date=1433174195]
No athlete would be accepted if that's 3 part.  And not even close if non FB.

I assume that if the 1425  is a 2 part, he's in, no?
[/quote]


Do they have a choice of 2 or 3 part?  I thought Stanford required the writing part?
[/quote]

SAT is going back to two part scores in 2016.  So two part scores will return soon enough.  I think he will be in the last class that will routinely use three part scores.  If he is at 3.4 with 1450 on a two part, then there are no worries.  And that is an AMAZING score for a D1 football player.  If he is at 3.4 with a 1450 on a three part, then I wonder if the early verbal was a good idea.

The article was written as if 1450 was impressive, so perhaps that is the two part score.