<p>hi all!
will a good SAT I (above 2250) score & 800 score in SAT II Maths, Physics and Chemistry be sufficient to get in CalTech, for International Student from India, with financial aid?
Any idea about International acceptees?</p>
<p>Heck no. Have you not read anything else on this board? International is a tough ticket limited to International Olympiad winners and other student luminaries. Besides, 2250 is a crap score anyway.</p>
<p>Are you being sarcastic, SteelPangolin, or are you just extremely bitter?</p>
<p>LOL...</p>
<p>A 2400 with three 800's on the SAT II's probably isn't enough alone for a domestic applicant, so of course it's not going to be much for an international applicant.</p>
<p>Normally I'm both, asiaknight, but in this case it's the truth.</p>
<p>okok...
Can anyone list good Engg schools in USA with fin aid for stats like mine...
I have a good ECA plus one regional level distinction...</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>in which case most of them will reject Caltech's offers since they will opt to study elsewhere (or at least the IxO medalists).</p>
<p>Lighten up, SteelPangolin. This attitude shows nothing but extreme arrogance and bitterness in the Caltech community.</p>
<p>
[quote]
in which case most of them will reject Caltech's offers since they will opt to study elsewhere (or at least the IxO medalists).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>SteelPangolin's hyperbole and sarcasm annoy me too, but let's not take it out on Caltech as a whole. After all, in my class alone we have three IMO golds and the world champion of the IPhO.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ben,</p>
<p>I doubt that Caltech's attempt at recuiting world champions and academic superstars would go to drain; after all, Caltech is of the only schools that offer real education, in my opinion. But limiting the international spots (or at least claiming that these spots are limited to superstars and medalists) would not help Caltech recuitment to the slightest. My observations from AoPS, where many of the math medalists (domestic and international) hang out, is that most of these medalists enroll at Harvard, Princeton, or MIT. Forgive me, but Caltech isn't as prestigous as its east coast counterpart or H & P, from their perspective.</p>
<p>Since Caltech has always been my top choice, I will most definitely give it a shot and apply. It is only disheartening to hear that Caltech's main focus is the admittance of olympiad winners and superstars, leaving everyone else no chance of acceptance.</p>
<p>TrevUK,</p>
<p>I certainly see your frustration with the difficulty of international admissions. And fairly ordinary people get in, too, but it's hard. After all, we have little choice but to admit the strongest n students in the international pool; if the majority of them end up being olympiad medalists, so it is.</p>
<p>If your argument is "admitting mostly medalists is a waste, you're more likely to get your admits if you aim slightly lower" the answer is twofold: (a) we don't have Tufts syndrome; our admissions process is merit-based. (b) We know what our yield on internationals is (it isn't bad); we admit exactly the number of internationals we need to get our target number of enrollments.</p>
<p>If the criticism is "why do you need to be at or near the IMO level to get in, that's not fair to non-superstars", the sad truth is that most of the college admissions process at elite institutions is unfair to non-superstars. I feel for you, but I think you'd agree that it isn't Caltech's fault that the people who apply here are so darn good.</p>
<p>All that said, I agree that it's discouraging from a public relations standpoint to say those things in an unkind way. I really wish my classmates would remember that it's no good for Caltech to intimidate prospective applicants on CC. This scares away applicants -- and not only the marginal applicants who make our ratio of admits to applicants look good. It also scares off excellent but modest students who would get in if they applied, and who would probably turn out to be much more of an asset to the institute than the small minds who spend their time on message boards intimidating worried high school kids. </p>
<p>I think you're right in making the decision to apply, TrevUK, and I think you may find that this admissions business holds a lot of surprises.</p>
<p>Hey kids! If you look closely you will see that Ben said the same thing I did but with more words. Soon the learner will become the master.</p>
<p>kung fu, huy yaa!</p>
<p>To be semi-helpful, I took the old SAT and got a 1440 (this is out of 1600, of course) and I was admitted and will be attending. On the other hand, I probably have the lowest SAT score out of anyone admitted as a freshman this year, knowing my lack of ability when it comes to pointless standardized tests, so I don't want to get anyone's hopes up (although I may just have crushed people's hopes even more with that statement).</p>
<p>Anyway, I want to wish the best of luck to applicants this year, and try not to let standardized tests discourage you from applying.</p>
<p>Please explain the components of your admissions metric. Class rank, test scores, EC's? As well, is the ACT alone considered acceptable if it is the only score submitted (e.g., a 35 composite on the ACT as a 10th grader)? Thanks.</p>
<p>The ACT is accepted with no problems instead of the SAT I, but you still have to take at least two SAT II subject tests, one of which must be Math IIc. </p>
<p>School class rank is important, as well as standardized (especially subject) tests, but these are essentially graded on a pass/fail basis, so once you're in the top few possible scores there's no need to fret.</p>
<p>The most important quality, once you've passed the basic test of competence (i.e. top few percentile class rank, and great standardized scores), is passion for science. We have to be convinced that you'll love devoting most of your time to studying science and math. This must be conveyed through evidence that you've done this before (EC's) and your essays.</p>
<p>Class rank is an issue at some schools. Students who can opt for study halls and not take extra classes that are not honors or AP can have higher class ranks than students who take full loads. No one who was in band/choir in our public high school has been #1 in the class for years. The students who are in the top three typically have only taken the minimum requirements and earned A's in the honors/AP courses avoiding any 4.0 classes that might pull down the GPA. Some actually plan to take their required PE classes the second semester of their senior year so their class rank is higher for their apps. </p>
<p>The "top" students are usually in the four through ten spots out of classes usually numbering 575-625 at our school. </p>
<p>Does Cal Tech understand that being number three or four might actually be better than being number one or two in the class?</p>
<p>I was ranked 5th in my class, 4th at the time of application for exactly those reasons. I took orchestra for four years which dragged down my GPA and I got in so I'm sure Caltech takes it into account.</p>
<p>Yes, we realize that various nonsense might make the difference between #1 and #3. When I said we have a pass/fail metric, I basically meant that, at a fairly "normal" high school, you have to be in the top 5%, or sometimes the top 10% of your class -- of course, there are exceptions to every rule, but that's the guideline. We don't mince tiny details like whether you're #1 or #7 in a 600 person class.</p>
<p>What if your school doesn't weight GPA's or record class ranks Ben??? For example, I think my school just gives schools a UW GPA and a percentile(like top 10%, etc.), however this doesn't take into account the difficulty of one's schedule as compared to others.</p>
<p>For example, I am taking the hardest courseload that is availabe to me in my school(all AP), including the major math and science ones like Chem, Calc BC, and Phys C(which I assume is required for Caltech anyway) and humanity ones as well(Lang, Histories, etc.), so what would be an acceptable UW GPA for me??? I am sure I will be in the top 10% at least. -:P</p>
<p>To make it clear, I am basically asking for what kind of GPA you would deem a Pass or a Fail, like you mentioned Caltech Admissions assesses in your previous post.</p>
<p>Physics C isn't required for Caltech (as few schools in the nation offer it). But if your school has Physics C, then you pretty much have to take it.</p>
<p>As for your math/science courses, try to get straight A's on them. Caltech's courseloads are far more difficult than these and if you can't do exceptionally in high school courses, then your ability to perform well in Caltech courses will be put into question. One or two A-'s probably wouldn't hurt as people do make mistakes but more probably would as you're competing against people with straight A's. I think Caltech's more lenient on Humanities though.</p>