<p>In all honesty though, when it comes right down to it, it’s really hard for anyone to tell one way or the other who will get in and who won’t. We can’t see the entire application, and even if we could, it’d still be hard. I’ve seen people with amazing stats get canned and people with ridiculously low stats gain admission. Of course, we can always go for an “on average” approach to things, but such “averages” are widely available on admission statistic pages on the college websites.</p>
<p>All Benjihana is saying, really, is that when it comes to evaluating one’s chances, it’s anyone’s best guess, and people need to be aware that nobody has inside knowledge or even a good idea as to what the admissions process is. Not everyone really understands this when they visit chance threads necessarily.</p>
<p>That being said, however, I can certainly tell you, as a Penn graduate, what kind of students I’ve been around. And, despite popular belief, you do not need perfect stats all across the board to get admitted. Again, check the old ED/RD threads to get a feel for things. </p>
<p>All chance threads are good for are for “outlier-checks” – a way to tell certain people that they are clearly underqualified to apply to the school and would likely get rejected. The problem is that many people on these boards tend to think that, as Rtgrove implied, a 2000 SAT will severely hurt you, for instance. Keep in mind that the historical average has been roughly 1400 old / 2100 new. That’s <em>average</em>. You can be a bit below this and still get in, for instance. </p>
<p>That being said, I think Benjihana is saying that many people post chance threads seeking some sort of objective metric to help appease their anxieties, and only find that they’re being put under additional pressure for no reason because people make recommendations based on potentially inaccurate judgment calls.</p>
<p>“Keep in mind that the historical average has been roughly 1400 old / 2100 new. That’s <em>average</em>. You can be a bit below this and still get in, for instance.”</p>
<p>I don’t mean to put words in her mouth. However, I always read from hmom5 (a former Wharton admissions officer) that those averages arent all that helpful for your average hookless applicant. Those stats are bogged down with all the legacies, URMS, and athletes that often get in with lower stats. I believe she tells most hookless kids that for HYPS/Wharton level schools you always want to be in the 75th percentile range to be competitive.</p>
<p>The point the original poster is trying to make is that people who don’t actually have inside information shouldn’t claim to have it. By saying “you won’t get in with these stats,” you make an assertion you cannot possibly back up unless you are on the admissions team evaluating the applications. There ARE outliers, and there ARE people who have no “hook” who still get in with merely “above average” stats (for example a 3.6 weighted high school GPA and 1300 Math and Verbal SAT). If you look at the incoming class profiles, they give you a range where the average SAT M+V is what, 1400ish? I honestly don’t remember, but if that is the case, that means that no less than 50% of students were admitted with BELOW a 1400 SAT.</p>
<p>On the same token, one of the things that has honestly bothered me about people asserting students that they have a “great chance” is that it is really hard to gauge who has a better chance than someone else. You can have a terrific resume with a perfect GPA and SAT, valedictorian, 3 sport varsity athlete, whatever, but that by no means guarantees you a spot in a class at a school where 83% of all applicants are denied admission. Does someone with a great resume have a better shot on average than someone with no extra curricular activities, a 1000 SAT and a 3.0 GPA? Yes, of course, but honestly it isn’t that much better of a shot! What if this perfect student turns in a lackluster application? What if he shows in his essay that he isn’t going to be a good fit for the Penn community? That would be a major point against him in the admissions process.</p>
<p>The point is that there is advice, as in telling someone that it is advisable to take a fourth year foreign language (though I got into Penn with only three years of language), that it would be helpful to concentrate on passions as opposed to doing a wide breadth of activities without much depth, etc. This kind of advice is generally useful and within a “what are my chances?” thread could help an applicant guide his or her decisions through high school. But saying “oh you have great chances”… that doesn’t really do anything. Similarly “you have terrible chances” doesn’t help at all and is far more potentially harmful than the former statement.</p>
<p>The best advice anyone can give is to put effort into an application, and send it in. Your chance goes up infinitely if you submit an application as opposed to neglecting to do so.</p>
<p>I don’t get where this 1400 SAT number is coming from. That is way below the average. It may have been there in the 90s (and so was Columbia’s), but now it is more like 1470ish.</p>
<p>Benji, RTGrove, Max, Chris, and all: every one of these “chances” is anecdotal. By that, I mean, you are only looking at the small sample of one, the individual. Yet, admissions committees look at the whole to determine how a class is formed. So even if one applicant has great scores, or gpa, or ECs, or whatever else you think would work towards an acceptance, there is still the big unknown factor. That’s why there’s a range of scores, a range of gpa, and so on. The applicant’s profile is one part of that whole class and “fit” means a combination of emotional fit and statistical fit.</p>
<p>[sic] usually refers to a misspelled word or incorrect grammar. “pritty” should be pretty, and “no” should have been “know”.</p>
<p>The “chances” section of the forum has been diluted/corrupted(or whatever word you’d like to use) so much that I really don’t see the point of posts like this anymore.</p>
<p>Seriously, how in the world does someone who needs to be chanced know so much about the admissions process that that person is qualified to “chance back” others?</p>
<p>How in the world is a 99th percentile SAT/ACT score a requirement for high tier schools? The 25th-75th range given by schools is 25th to 75th percentile. That means half of the accepted class that year had scores in that range! High test scores are not a requirement, nor do they really help soooooo much anymore either. I see 2400 SATs get rejected all the time.</p>
<p>I try to avoid saying “you will get in” or “you will get rejected for sure” type of stuff. Blunt, concise advice, and avoid “chancing” if I can. Am I perfect? No. Do I nail all my predictions? I’m probably too often over-critical.</p>
<p>The best thing people can tell others is to either tell them to read past ED/RD results, give straight advice, or just encourage them not to get discouraged. If the readers are really naive enough to fall for that whole “chance back” fiasco, nothing we can do about it.</p>