<p>but me(Right on the home page of this site)? I feel I was out of the loop on this one. If this is true, SAT IIs really are equally impt to SATs at the Ivy level. But guide books don’t publish average SAT II scores and their true importance seems to be a big secret. The colleges and guidance counselors need to be doing a better job of informing us about this. BTW, I read that this used to be used for athletes only, but made its way to top colleges including the Ivys. Does anyone know if this is still used at Penn? I wish they would just come right out and tell us how they make these decisions. Interesting point the article makes is that the higher your number, the less of an additional hook you will probably need. Someone with an AI of 9 might not need anything else spectacular to get in, in other words. OTOH, the lower the AI, the more impressive your other things will need to be. </p>
<p>I did my AI score and it varied wildly depending on whether I used the “GPA only” feature for unranked schools. So, basically, I don’t think I actually learned anything new.</p>
<p>ya.. 215 (5/9) for me.. but when i enter my unweighted gpa (which i figured was wrong since youre supposed to use weighted.. i got 214 using 3.57).. my weighted gpa is 4.11 and that put me at 223 (7/9).. crazy!</p>
<p>The other question I have is, if they are still using this, have the standards gotten harder? For example the article says 80-90% of ppl with 8s or 9s get in (do they mean to Dartmouth or Ivys in general?) and only 11% of those with a 4 do.</p>
<p>Maybe the formula has been updated , but I would be curious to know if those percentages are current.</p>
<p>At this point I guess it is what it is, but I'm still curious as to how the whole thing works.</p>
<p>Yeah, the weighted/unweighted thing seems a little odd. </p>
<p>I think the reason why average SAT II scores aren't shown is because there are so many. Imagine if only one person applied with an SAT II Korean and got in, and got a 200 on that test. It wouldn't make too much sense to put up average SAT II scores because 1. as mentioned, there are to many 2. tests vary in difficulty 3. different tests may be weighed by the school differently.</p>
<p>I get a 9/9 with my UW GPA but a 6/9 with an estimated rank (my school doesn't rank), so I don't know...</p>
<p>Those % are based on a book published in 1990's, so they aren't up-to-date. I don't like AI because if your school only submits GPA, then your AI is much difffernt (for the better) than if it submits rank</p>
<p>The % may stay the same if they change the formula to keep up. For example, maybe in 1999 you needed lower SATs, SAT IIs and GPA to give you the same AI. Don't know.</p>
<p>i'm a 6 with my rank which is hovering around 5% but with my uw gpa of 3.7 i'm at like a 7... but if you weight it slightly i'm at like a 8/9 which is weird</p>
<p>this thing is weird... i too got a 6/9 when i put my percentile (cos my school doesn't use GPA) But, if i estimate my GPA and put tt... it's 8/9
i think it's CRAZY</p>
<p>I think the coaches have learned to manipulate the AI to get the athletes in ED/RD by entering whatever stats (GPA or class rank etc) helps get that outside lineman admitted. </p>
<p>BTW, I heard that NONE of last year's Cornell football recruits would have been admitted this year with the same stats because the Ivy League raised the minimum AI.</p>
<p>(with my stats from last year) 6/9 with estimated unofficial rank, 8/9 with GPA. </p>
<p>The main problem is that rank and GPA have different implications within different schools and their "weight" in admissions depends on your school.</p>
<p>It does not take into account the competativeness of a school</p>
<p>Im probably in the top 10 in my school (which is a top 50 public school in the country) where the difference between being ranked #1 and #10 is like 4.9 and 4.8. Also in my school, i would think that the top 30 or so kids in my school could be #1 in most public schools.</p>
<p>I'd think they take things like school competitiveness into consideration. Ivies use the AI mainly to gauge how an applicant compares to others that go to similarly competitive schools. And if your school really is competitive, say, like, Andover or Exeter, they may often adjust your AI, boosting it a point or two to make up for the class rank.</p>
<p>Also, for all those using GPA, it makes a note near the bottom that you're ONLY supposed to use GPA if you have no class rank (since it's much less reliable). Your rank gives a true estimate of your AI.</p>
<p>Usually, a good AI rank is around a 7, which gives you around a 70% chance of getting into an Ivy like Dartmouth, while a 6 gives you a 50% chance. 8s and 9s are usually automatic in's, since it's almost impossible to get them (unless you don't have any sort of ECs or anything).</p>
<p>I still think it's BS, as it doesnt take the school into account. I mean, according to this, a valevictorian at a school in the inner city with an average SAT score of say...900 has the a high AI than someone who is in the top 20% at an ueber competitive school which is basically an ivy feeder.</p>
<p>if the columbia EDs taught me ANYTHING, it's that really, we have no idea of who is going to get in.</p>