17/male/chinese/taken. UCB bound or Wharton ED bound? or neither!!

Chance Me / Match Me!
21

<p>
[quote]
he's an Asian male meaning his standards are brought up dramatically.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Not "dramatically." Those "higher" standards tend to be more in ECs, honors/awards, and essays, not so much the numbers.</p>

<p>
[quote]
A 2180 is definitely on the low side for a school as selective as Wharton

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Source?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Your SAT II's are also pretty lacking because that Chinese counts for almost nothing considering that is your natural language.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Wrong. It counts for something. Sure, it's not as impressive as, say, Literature, but it definitely counts for something (or else Penn would specifically say, "Subject tests in your native language do not count" -- at least, I don't think they've ever said such).</p>

<p>
[quote]
Your only hardcore science is Chem and you didn't score so well.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>My god, only on CC. (A 730 is just fine.)</p>

<p>
[quote]
Again to kyledavid, there is a HUGE difference between 2180 and 2300.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, there isn't. People on CC have such an overblown idea of the SAT. The difference is just a few questions -- really, about 3 questions on each section. Colleges know that you could have gotten them right. 3 questions is nothing. Really, after a certain point in SATs, it all means the same, unless perhaps it's a very high-end score (like a 2390 and whatnot).</p>

<p>
[quote]
I believe you probably scored fairly low on the SAT's

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Let's not make personal attacks, shall we? Review the TOS. (And no, to quell your curiosity, I did very well on the SAT.)</p>

<p>
[quote]
are aiming high for the Ivies

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Wrong again.</p>

<p>
[quote]
which makes you want to compensate by calming your nerves on this forum

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Three strikes. You're out. =)</p>

22

<p>Applause for Kyledavid.</p>

23

<p>just a question but how on earth do you find time for doing all these stuff?? like extracurriculars and honors and keeping up with your grades...</p>

24

<p>i really dont know. persistence thats all.</p>

<p>i thought i was decent until i saw the massive amounts of amazing people here on CC. hahah</p>

25

<p>kyledavid80, you are awesome. ;)</p>

26

<p>thanks you guys!!</p>

27

<p>Overall, I'd say you'll have an okay chance. Your SAT's really are fine, it'll be nice if they were better, but they're fine. You have a really good GPA, and your EC's are okay.</p>

28

<p>A note to all the people on this thread (and in general) who say that there "really isn't much of a difference between a 2180 and a 2300" and "your (insert something here) isn't fantastic but it's good, you still have a shot" need a little bit of a reality check.</p>

<p>The truth is that they're wrong. In the grand scheme of things, they're right - you're slightly-less-than-perfect (insert stat here) doesn't make you inferior by any means to anyone who gets into one of these schools.</p>

<p>But the top-tier schools - especially places like Wharton, which are small, amazingly well known, and inundated with applicants - are practically looking for reasons to reject applicants rather than to accept them. Imagine being in the admissions officers' place - they have to discriminate in between a huge number of people, most of whom are qualified and can do the work. Though in the real world, a 2180 isn't very different from a 2300, it will matter in the admissions race. </p>

<p>And that's my two cents on that.</p>

<p>As for the guy who started this thread - yes, you have a shot. No, they won't literally "toss out" the Chinese SAT II, but it shows no variety or intellectual depth, and to be honest, your ethnicity would probably make anything less than a perfect score somewhat eyebrow-raising. They won't throw you away automatically at Wharton, but my personal opinion is that you won't get in in the long run. Sorry to be a downer. :(</p>

<p>On the other hand, you WILL get in somewhere great, even if it's not Wharton, and you will have a successful, fulfilling college experience. ^_^</p>

29

<p>
[quote]
are practically looking for reasons to reject applicants rather than to accept them.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I remember having read, in multiple places, from colleges that they look for reasons to accept you, not to reject you. (Your assertion seems like pure speculation.)</p>

<p>
[quote]
they have to discriminate in between a huge number of people, most of whom are qualified and can do the work.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And they'll discriminate based on factors like ECs, honors/awards, and essays, not so much on SATs when they're at that point (i.e. if they're already both extremely high). The adcoms realize that the difference between a 2180 and a 2300 is just a few questions. They wouldn't rule out a potentially great candidate -- one who could bring much to the campus, who could graduate at the top of the class, who could go on to do great things and bring prestige to the university -- simply because they missed a few questions more on the SAT. (Hell, even Stephen King got something like a 1300 on the SAT.) They're going to be looking at how accomplished you are, etc., because they realize that there is much more to a student than numbers, and a 2180 is numbers enough. After that point, they're really going to be focusing on other factors -- is the student engaging, interesting, unique? Does he/she have a sense of intellectual vitality? etc.</p>

30

<p>Stephen King, though an interesting example, is completely irrelevant.</p>

<p>Equally irrelevant is your assertion that this is "pure speculation." I hate to break it to you, but THIS ENTIRE BOARD IS PURE SPECULATION. There is no reasonable way to "calculate someone's chances" at admission. I'm sorry if you were deluded into thinking otherwise.</p>

<p>I do agree with you that colleges are certainly looking for much more than numbers (contributions to community, personality, etc.) but ceteris paribus, the student with the 2300 will be accepted. </p>

<p>Also, understand that a surprisingly small number of people are reading these thousands and thousands of applications. I am hesitant to believe that an admissions officer will read deeply into a profile in order to find any subjective talent to outweigh a poorer SAT score.</p>

31

<p>
[quote]
Stephen King, though an interesting example, is completely irrelevant.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It was an aside. Note that I used parentheses.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Equally irrelevant is your assertion that this is "pure speculation."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I was pointing out that your "two cents" is pure speculation. How that's not pertinent, I don't know.</p>

<p>
[quote]
but THIS ENTIRE BOARD IS PURE SPECULATION.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Not when the university itself makes official statements. For example, Penn has never said, "Subject tests in your native language do not count for the requirement." And universities--including Ivies--have said on numerous occasions (in info sessions, on tours, on sites and FAQs, even) that they look for reasons to admit you, not to reject you. This has become general knowledge, which is why I don't see why you're disputing it.</p>

<p>
[quote]
There is no reasonable way to "calculate someone's chances" at admission.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I hardly see how that's relevant. I'm saying that your "are practically looking for reasons to reject applicants rather than to accept them" was speculation. I'm not talking about chances. I'm not talking about anything but your statement there.</p>

<p>
[quote]
but ceteris paribus, the student with the 2300 will be accepted.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>We can agree to disagree, then.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I am hesitant to believe that an admissions officer will read deeply into a profile in order to find any subjective talent to outweigh a poorer SAT score.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And I'd be willing to believe the opposite. Admissions at the tippy top universities generally goes like this: they do a first round of reading in which they get rid of all the non-competitive applicants (and no, a person with a 2180 would not fall out in this round) and perhaps accept the "clear admits." After that, all those who were neither accepted nor rejected are reviewed, and it's narrowed down until they have the right number. It gets to the point that adcoms are looking at all the student's attributes. There are many articles out there that peek into admissions processes (of which I've read many, though Harvard's and Stanford's stick out in my memory). Here's one of them:</p>

<p>The</a> Sink or Swim Round</p>

<p>Plus, I wouldn't say that a 2180 is a "poorer" score, which has distinctly negative connotations. Not to mention there's nothing really to "outweigh," as you say, because a 2180 is far from weak. It would probably be enough incentive for the reader to look further into the application, even for Wharton.</p>

32

<p>hey man ! right now ur like an average applicant to Wharton so u have an okay chance of getting in but not a really good one. u can improve ur chances by improving ur SAT scores a little. ur gpa is fine and ECs are pretty great.just try to focus on one thing in ur application( like i did in research( and i appreciate ur response to my stats) ).
ur 12th grade stuff is not gonna hurt u....i mean u have 3 AP classes and ur schedule doesn't look empty so u should be fine.
so overall wharton is a slightly high reach for u at this moment....goodluck</p>

33

<p>i appreciate the comments, I (i guess, "we") will just see what happens when that fateful mid-december day comes</p>

34

<p>I'm pretty much in the same boat as you, man (Asian with relatively low SAT-I scores [2230] appyling to Wharton ED). You have a great GPA though and I'm sure that will help you more than a mediocre SAT score will hurt you. Admissions officers, after all, should weigh your entire high school career over one test.</p>

35

<p>thanks virgil. i hope so. this has become such a lengthy chance thread. haha=]</p>

36

<p>It's hilarious what some of you consider "low" SAT scores. hahaha</p>

37

<p>kyledavid: it seems like all you can do is shoot down ideas. you don't seem to validate your own. everything is speculation so don't shoot down others for their speculation. are you an admissions officer at a top-tier school?</p>

38

<p>Firstly, poorer is comparative, and therefore only weighing the two scores, 2180 and 2300 - and yes, 2180 is a poorER score than a 2300.</p>

<p>I would continue arguing, but this is obviously a subjective point which cannot be either conclusively affirmed or exploded, and I see no further point in arguing on this person's thread (after all, the guy's just trying to get people's opinions, and I don't think our argument should distract from that.)</p>

<p>I would, however, be (honestly, not sarcastically) interested in how you could justify a 2180 getting in over a 2300 with everything else equal.</p>

39

<p>how can you not be #1 with an uw 4.0 GPA?</p>

40

<p>lightforce22:</p>

<p>
[quote]
it seems like all you can do is shoot down ideas. you don't seem to validate your own.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Debating is an interactive process. I validate my own -- i.e. I'm forced to rethink and justify them -- as others challenge them.</p>

<p>
[quote]
everything is speculation

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Not when it's actual fact -- i.e. information directly from the universities.</p>

<p>
[quote]
so don't shoot down others for their speculation.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I can and will, when I see fit -- when the information is really off-base.</p>

<p>Kamera:</p>

<p>
[quote]
poorer is comparative

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That was implied when I stated that it has negative connotations. A 2250 is "poorer" than a 2350, but that's misleading because the connotations are obviously negative; neither of them is "poor" in the first place. I don't think such a statement should mislead the OP to think that his SAT score is.</p>

<p>
[quote]
but this is obviously a subjective point which cannot be either conclusively affirmed or exploded

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, certainty isn't something we have, but it's something we can strive for. Let's look at the facts (rather than clumsily guess at admissions' officers thoughts). Wharton's acceptance rate is, supposedly, about 10%, about at HYPS' acceptance rates. The average SAT scores are around a 2230. If we assume that Wharton's statistics follow this (as the acceptance rate is similar, though that doesn't necessarily mean stats will be too), then its average SAT score would be about that. And if we assume normal distribution, there'll be about as many 2300-scorers as 2180-scorers. Not that that even really matters. This is how I think of it: person X takes the SAT once and gets a 2180 -- 680 CR, 770 M, 730 W. Then person X takes it again and gets a 2300 -- 740 CR, 790 M, 770 W. Do I think the person's chances went up dramatically? Not at all. I don't think they really went up at all. Perhaps it might make the adcoms look a little more favorably on him, but again, their ultimate decision would come down to ECs, honors/awards, and essays.</p>

<p>
[quote]
how you could justify a 2180 getting in over a 2300 with everything else equal.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh, I don't doubt that a person with a 2300 would get in over someone with a 2180, all else equal. But that is never the case. No two (competitive) applicants are the same. The decision will, more likely than not, come down to other factors. You can't isolate the SAT like that, or any other factor. That simply isn't how reality works.</p>