<p>Hi, I’m a junior interested in Columbia’s college of Engineering, and I wondered how to maximize my chances by senior yr.</p>
<p>Here are my prospective stats by senior yr: </p>
<p>4.0 UW, 4.35W, top 25% at competitive public HS
2100+ SAT
a few 750+ SATiis.
6 AP tests (2 5s already)/4 AP courses
Close to NO ECs!! (perhaps 50-100 hrs volunteering, some science/math competition, a JV sport, but no leadership or other national awards)</p>
<p>What is the best way to maximize my chances by next yr?</p>
<li>Get 2300+ or 33+ on the SAT/ACT and a few ECs (but no national/ground breaking stuff though)</li>
<li>Study a college physics course during the summer and a few ECs.</li>
<li>Do some internships, research or more science competitions as well as more significant ECs</li>
</ol>
<p>I wish I could do all 3 options, but they are mutually exclusive. I’m very passionate in science/math, do many things after school. I play piano, guitar, soccer, read science literature, but I don’t really have many opportunities to win awards because I just went to the US, and now changed schools. I’m also from a low income family.</p>
<p>Thanks for reading. I am impatient to read your opinion/advices!!!</p>
<p>-Watson&Crick</p>
<p>You already took the SATs?</p>
<p>ps
I saw Watson in person, and he signed my AP bio book ;]</p>
<p>I'd do number 2 or 3.</p>
<p>They're more interesting than number 1.</p>
<p>No reason you can't study hard for the SAT while partaking in more interesting, significant EC's. </p>
<p>Allow me to demonstrate mathematically:</p>
<p>EC's = x
2300+ SAT = y</p>
<p>x = Good
y = Good</p>
<p>x + y = Better</p>
<p>QED</p>
<p>"You already took the SATs?"</p>
<p>Just practice ones (I took 6 official practice SATs, and scored consistently upper 2100s/low 2200s, so I lowered to 2100 to account for test stress).</p>
<p>BTW, my bio teacher actually has a photograph with either Watson or Crick (don't remember).</p>
<p>Godfather, would you describe that on columbia standard, a relationship like y=x^2 looks better than y=x, or y=A*ln(x) looks better than y=x? (especially for the college of engineering).
"A" will be much greater than 1 btw.</p>
<p>how is a 4.0 UW only top 25%? there has to be some serious grade inflation going on for that to be the case, which seems unlikely at a competitive school.</p>
<p>Watson&Crick, it's evident that ambition is wired in your DNA. Maybe some research. On DNA. Fulfill the destiny of your college confidential user name!</p>
<p>"4.0 UW only top 25%? there has to be some serious grade inflation"</p>
<p>Actually more than half of hour class take 3-4 weighted classes per yr, so it's not that high. My W GPA is just 4.35, which explains why I'm only top 25% (the low weighted GPA is due to transcript error, without that, it would be close to 4.6-4.7)</p>
<p>I don't think there is grade inflation on US standards (on international standards, any US high school is ridiculously grade inflated). Typically, our school gets 2/3 to Cornell, 2 to MIT, 10 kids to Rice each yr.</p>
<p>"I'm only top 25%, Typically, our school gets 2/3 to Cornell, 2 to MIT, 10 kids to Rice each yr."</p>
<p>in that case chances for you for seas are slim. unless your graduating class size is 30 but i doubt it. given that you have no ECs expect a rejection letter.</p>
<p>"Godfather, would you describe that on columbia standard, a relationship like y=x^2 looks better than y=x, or y=A*ln(x) looks better than y=x? (especially for the college of engineering)"</p>
<p>i don't know which looks better, but y=x^2 is more realistic, i.e. above a certain a point say 2100 on the SAT, scope to stand out is much greater through ECs, hence the x^2. the sat is important, but acts more as a threshold, i feel columbia puts emphasis on it, but less so than peer institutions. given that you have no ECs, maybe y=x! (factorial not exclamation) is a better approximation.</p>
<p>Oh, well... I'll still apply anyway, but I didn't build any incredible expectations or expecting a miracle to happen. I'll work harder, and even if I'm rejected, I'll be satisfied with my work.</p>
<p>Regardless, thanks everyone for their clarifications! :)</p>
<p>I have about 10 pictures with him, and even some more on my cell phone.. so ha!:3</p>