I got a 670 on US History, 710 on math IIC and 730 on bio. (SAT IIs) Is that okay for colleges like Stanford?
<p>They're low for top colleges.</p>
<p>try more for all 770+ for stanford</p>
<p>WOW really? Uh oh. Does that go for all top colleges or just Stanford?</p>
<p>I would say 750 are pretty standard for all ivies, ivy like and top LACs. Have you checked out the threads about who got in where this year Reality?</p>
<p>No, this site is an abberation; kids here are cream of the crop. Personally, I'd just get your SAT II's above 700, and you'll just do fine come admission time. On the otherhand, HYPSM--the credentials do need to be higher. As for the other IVY's and top LAC's, anything over a 700 will do you justice. In addition, most schools will only take your top two scores; in this case--your math IIC and your Biology.</p>
<p>Have you chacked the averages ivyleague? You're just plain wrong. Sure, there is a lot of trash advice on this site, so only looking at school averages will tell you anything. Then put those in context, average is gragged down by hooked candidates. If you're white/asian without a hook, you need to be above average.</p>
<p>Not a soul got into an ivy with 700 and below SAT anythings from my school, which sends 35% to ivies, without a serious hook.</p>
<p>Maybe that's the case at your school, suze, but that doesn't speak for the entire class of 2005. at any rate, schools won't reject you just because your SAT 2 scores are (at least in your case) a little bit below average. there's so much other stuff that colleges take into consideration besides SATs- essays, GPA, ecs, recs. in short, take them if you're sure you'll improve by a lot, but otherwise, standardized test scores are only used to show that you're qualified- once you're within a range, it's other stuff that sets you apart.</p>
<p>They will put you at a disadvantage, but you won't get rejected outright because of them. I'd certainly try to get the Math 2C to a 750+, and possibly raise the USH to 700+.</p>
<p>Okay, let's break this down. Take any of the ivies. There are about 20% URMs in each class. Then there are up to 10% legacies. Figure another 15% between recruited athletes, senator's kids, and those with national level (or international) talents wanted by various departments from math to music. Then the million dollar donor kids. </p>
<p>Half the class is now full, and those above have the honor of having had the schools bend in terms of stats. Why on earth would they go below average for a white/asian with no hook? By the numbers, they simply can't and don't do it very often.</p>
<p>Also consider the fact that the US News averages many here are using are 2 years old, and they have gone up considerably in these years.</p>
<p>Telling people they have a shot with low 700s just feeds into HYPMS's ability to keep rejecting 9 out of 10 candidates.</p>
<p>Ok, well assuming that we're talking about all the ivy's in general, I'd say you're pretty oblivious. I looked at various stats of the incoming class of 2009-2010, and there were quite a few average caucasians who scored low 700's and high 600's and were accepted to outstanding schools like Dartmouth, Penn, and Brown. Furthermore, SAT means projected on sights such as Princetonreview and other websites (fallacy pending)--SAT means seem to be exorbitantly lower than people on this site. This site contains over achievers, which I personally find fantastic in comparing my stats with theirs; it truly encouraged me to raise the bar. Nevertheless, college admission is a craph shoot. I'm sure that for HYPMS, yes, he/she will by all means need slightly higher SAT I's and II's; however, for other Ivy's he's fine.</p>
<p>What are you talking about? I'm talking about the actual accepted averages. Nothing to do with what people post here. Take Dartmouth class of '09. Average SAT I is 1480. Average SATII composit is 2210.</p>
<p>If you spend any time on cc you get to sort of "know" the posters and their personalities. I have come to think of Suze as "bad news Suze" since she (?) is always right there, the first to burst anyone's bubble of hope. Suze is tough and she doesn't spare herself when it comes to doling out the gloom and doom regarding just about anyone's chances. However, that said, I have also come to really respect Suze as one of the more honest, realistic poster on cc. Suze isn't out to win a popularity contest, she tells it like it is, and since admissions is a pretty tough world, she's probably dead on most of the time. I think that she has a very valid point here. Break down the numbers, take away the spots taken by urm's, legacies, athletes, and high profile familes, and there isn't a whole lot of wiggle room left. The people who hope to fill the remaining spots had better be above average if they want to have even an average shot at getting a spot.</p>
<p>Thanks coldcomfort, those who really know me just call me the sledgehammer. There isn't really debate here if you parse the numbers. My college counselor believes in cold hard reality and she's right about the numbers, I've checked.</p>
<p>For ivies & top LACs, one 750+, the other two 700+, and you'll be fine. For good schools that aren't the very, very top, most selective, etc, 700+ will be enough anywhere else. Also remember that many top schools don't require SAT IIs (you can send ACT instead)</p>
<p>I adore Suze and also believe her calls are bang on. You know that Suze! I also believe you should be aiming for 750 on all to be truly competitive without a hook.</p>
<p>Will being from Hawaii help?</p>
<p>Someone said 770+ for Stanford. Do I need to retake my 760 M Bio? Will 10 or 20 points make a very big difference?</p>
<p>No, 20 or 30 points won't, look at the combined scores which you want to average 750. </p>
<p>Applying from Hawaii is better than from NJ or MA, but it is just a small tilt factor.</p>
<p>Haha I see.</p>