<p>Oh definitely, I actually had a disclaimer that this didn't really apply to me personally. You're right about the intangibles--but how can colleges measure those things? It's really hard. I'm not saying colleges shouldn't try to seek out the intangibles at all, or that colleges should turn only to the objective SAT...it's just that all of it is fundamentally imperfect. You're right that we all just have to deal. It's not a tragedy anyway.</p>
<p>
[quote]
hopefully you can move past this and move forward with your life.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No one's died. I think I'll be OK :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why pick the student with lower scores? I honestly DON'T think that more school awards or club leadership positions or cushy activities/summer programs should make one student more desirable in admissions than another with higher test scores...unfortunately colleges seem to pick students who have these things and maybe not perfect test scores, under the assumption that they are more special than students with higher academic ability.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't think "more special" - I think they want to see a record of leadership somehow, going above and beyond. Going to high school (GPA) and taking the SAT are requirements, and even though a 2400 is very very good, it's not necessarily looked at as above and beyond leadership like say, starting a serious charity in addition to everything else that most applicants did (sports, maintain GPA in competitive coursework, etc). I don't really think that school awards, school club leadership, and the summer activities people pay a couple thousand dollars for are looked at as much at all in Ivies admissions. Generally the "non-hooked" applicants that get in have a significant EC that is really somehow outstanding. Not really "I was the leader of 6 clubs that I don't really show any other indication of caring about." </p>
<p>And for non Ivies admissions, I know someone with a 4.0 in AP classes but she doesn't test well on the SAT...and that's too bad because for the state schools with honors programs, they had SAT cutoffs, but the GPA cut off was like a 3.5. For work over four years in high school, she has proved to be an extremely capable student who can handle competitive work and excel...yet because a few hours of testing aren't as exceptional, other people with much lower grades get to be in because it's a cut off and not a holistic review. It really does kind of bother me. The SAT isn't an absolute predictor of academic ability. I think it's useful but I also think it has some discrepancies that should be accounted for. Any totally standardized system is flawed because humans aren't completely predictable, IMO. Someone may show exceptional ability in one area that isn't necessarily revealed by perfect SAT scores (the scores may be unbalanced). But in college and their career, they are likely to keep working towards what they have proven exceptional at, make contributions to society in that area...an elite college isn't going to want to pass that up. </p>
<p>I think at some point (where scores are fiarly high but not perfect - scores do vary...I for one got 100 pts lower the second time and then didn't take it again...that's an odd variation I think, considering my academic ability shouldn't have really gotten less 5 months later. I have no idea what happened though) the record does reveal more about potential. But the truth is, they can't accept everyone with potential and it does at some level come down to a connection or something, a little bit of luck maybe...so I don't think you should feel bad or feel like they viewed others as more "special" - hey you never know. One of the officers may have really wanted to admit you, but it wasn't in the cards. It also comes down obviously to what they need in terms of weak areas or holes, etc, so it could have just not been the year for whatever exceptional thing you might have brought to the table.</p>