<p>Different schools look for different things. I doubt jhu wouldn't admit students once they are above a certain level... the average SAT there is about 1450. </p>
<p>It just comes down to being interesting in the application process. Some schools needed students like him and obviously others didn't.</p>
<p>Is a really high SAT scorer an auto-admit at Caltech? Do Tufts and JHU reject kids after they reach a threshold? Was this kid an Asain Math Grind? No, No, and most likely not. I don't know too much about Tufts (considering their syndrome), but JHU certainly will not auto-reject kids with high scorers, at least 25% of the students are raping the SAT apparently. Furthermore, this kid was not a math grind, he wouldn't have been admitted to Brown or MIT if math and science were the only things he was good at (nor would he have gotten a 3.9 UW) The only puzzling thing is that he was rejected at Tufts and accepted at MIT, I think his essays were the culprit here.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The entire reason that there is an anti-SAT (and SAT-optional) movement across colleges (including some of the most selective colleges) is that you are completely wrong. Studies concerning SATs and college success are extremely inconclusive, and it is the opinion of a number of college admissions officers (including those at ivies, i.e. Cornell) that SAT scores are not a dependable way to determine college success. The ACT is largely considered a better indicator.</p>
<p>double post.</p>
<p>
What a load of bull. Do you have any evidence for this assertion besides your self-righteous claim that it was a lack of high SATs that led to your rejection from Caltech? </p>
<p>I personally find the premise of this thread amusing as the student in question got into MIT as well, and MIT is notorious for not valuing ultra-high SAT scores (especially from Asian males!). That reality didn't stop you though, phuriku, for rashly and falsely coming to a conclusion that fits your personal agenda.</p>
<p>^^
Well even though I don't as strongly side with phuriku on this one, Caltech is the first top school to say on their website that their students are "good test takers". Even though that's undoubtedly true about alot of other top schools, Caltech is the first one to say openly that they look first at test scores. Again, I'm not saying other top schools aren't like this. However, "low" (relative to Caltech's standards) test scores wouldn't be the sole reason for rejection nor would very high test scores be the sole reason for acceptance. I think EC's in math and science are right up there with test scores for Caltech. If you have few of those you'll find it tough getting in. Cghen, I don't know if there's a whole story about Phuriku and he's spewing info out for his own agenda.</p>
<p>We're goin 12 rounds</p>
<p>Phuriku in the blue corner...chgen is the red corner</p>
<p>Also, FredFred, since when has "raping" something meant doing a good job? It sounds barbaric...</p>
<p>Barbarism is the only way to deal with the likes of the SAT.</p>
<p>Fred, I don't think I'm arguing anything different than you are. I was contesting the notion that "a 2360 becomes an auto-accept at Caltech many times compared with a 2200-2250," which doesn't include the influence of grades, essays, recs, or as you mentioned, science/math/engineering ECs which are so highly valued for Caltech admissions.</p>
<p>Additionally, I don't think I've seen any evidence that Caltech distinguishes between a 2250 and a 2400 in terms of admissions; more specifically (since Caltech doesn't care about writing at all), I don't think Caltech distinguishes between a 750 math and an 800 math or a 700 verbal and an 800 verbal as phuriku directly suggests. I do think, however, that Caltech distinguishes between a 700 math and an 800 math, though of course, not all 700 math applicants will be rejected and not all 800 math applicants will be accepted. If you have any evidence to the contrary, by all means share it.</p>
<p>Also, for the record, this is the full excerpt of the admissions site you pointed to:
[quote=<a href="http://www.admissions.caltech.edu/applying/decisions%5DWe">http://www.admissions.caltech.edu/applying/decisions]
We</a> first look for academic ability by evaluating test scores, grades, and recommendations. Caltech students are gifted in math and science and also are good test takers. If you have low math and science test scores, we will look for evidence of abilities in other parts of your application. Even if you have done well on your standardized tests, we will confirm that ability with your grades and teacher recommendations. Caltech students are not only good at math and science; they love those subjects, too. We will look for your love of learning in your curriculum and teacher recommendations. If you have taken courses or done research outside of school, be sure to include those transcripts and, if possible, recommendations from those experiences.
[/quote]
That doesn't seem to different than what I'm suggesting, particularly the part about looking past low test scores for people with other demonstrated achievement.</p>
<p>I know a young man who had a 4.4 GPA from a private prep school, National AP scholar (8 5's), 34 or 35 ACT, NMFinalist, lots of demonstrated leadership, great EC's, wonderful recommendations, very well rounded, not in need of any financial aid. Rejected by Brown, which he REALLY wanted to attend. He's at Penn. There are no guarantees!</p>
<p>Tufts student are 'raping' the SAT too (as one person said above): all average SAT I scores are 715, 720 minimum. And that's for the enrolling class--certainly the accepted class' average is higher. Tufts syndrome is no longer true, at least not at Tufts.. WUSTL on the other hand ;)</p>
<p>Tufts's scores: </p>
<p>"The ACT is largely considered a better indicator."</p>
<p>Are there studies to back this up? Based on my experience, I'd disagree. I know people who do badly on the SAT but good on the ACT, but they seem to be people with less reasoning capabilities. Again, this is my experience.</p>
<p>when visiting Cal Poly the admissions people said they had found the ACT to be a better indicator. They don't require the ACT, just found that test scores on the ACT better indicated how well students did there.</p>
<p>What did the title indicate, and what has this topic turned into?</p>
<p>phuruiku: "Except that you're making the assumption that SAT scores are very highly correlated with intelligence, which isn't exactly the case. Apparently, even JHU and Tufts saw something wrong with this applicant, whereas he was just an auto-admit at Caltech because of high scores on reasonably easy tests.</p>
<h2>There's a reason why Princeton and Harvard will reject you if you have a 2400 SAT, hard classes, but nothing else. It's because higher test scores don't necessarily correlate with success, whereas I think Caltech believes that it does. (This last paragraph is actually a suitable response for the OP's implied question.)"</h2>
<p>I've seen you say this sort of thing again and again, and you couldn't be more wrong. Caltech admits like 200 people in the entire United States per year. It's not that hard for them to find 200 people who could ace a deep class like real analysis and ace the SAT's in their sleep. Acing the SAT's does not make you an auto-admit at Caltech.</p>
<p>Do you really think Harvard cares whether their average undergrads are smart enough to understand deep mathematics? That's not why they take some people with sub-par scores. It's because they want to take the recruited athlete, the legacy, the guy who built a mud hut in Zimbabwe. They recruit math people by looking at who qualifed for MOSP. You're right--the top ivies don't believe test scores/grades predict success, but they're not talking about success in intellectual pursuits when they say that. They are talking about guys who are going to become professional comedy writers, or a professional dancers, or athletes, etc... The idea that Caltech is somehow more anti-intellectual than Harvard is laughable.</p>
<p>Think of the SAT in the same way that the NFL Combine scouts record prospects' 40-yard dash times and bench-press reps. Workout stats alone do not make an All-Pro; NFL camps are full of athletes with great numbers who don't have the work ethic, decision-making ability, or determination to turn their potential into performance. But on the other hand, someone without a significant level of speed and strength is going to be very limited in how far qualities of character can take them. That's why SAT scores can be useful while 2400s can get turned down at elite universities - they need to show some evidence that they've got a track record of achievement to back up all the potential.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That's a very apt analogy.</p>
<p>That case is very strange, but he is going to Caltech, which is an awesome school.
I got a 1560/2280 and was rejected or waitlisted by six out of the seven Ivies I applied to. (Didn't apply to Yale and accepted to Dartmouth), cases where people who score '2200 and up' and actually get rejected by colleges is not strange at all.</p>