<p>So i was just wondering what are the basic things brown look for. like sat score range, clubs, etc. Do interviews count alot? or are they just a bunch of crap</p>
<p>SATs: over 700 (this is a relatively new policy, implemented over the last two years. Brown definitely wants to raise its SAT averages). </p>
<p>Interviews: Do not count a lot; all done by alumni. No one gets accepted or denied based on an interview, but the admissions staff definitely does read them and take them into account.</p>
<p>Interest: If you live within driving distance, they would like you to visit.</p>
<p>Grades: You need to take a challenging course load, and get as many A's as possible.</p>
<p>As for clubs, etc.: Nothing is targeted, just show dedication, leadership, yadda yadda.</p>
<p>Brown is particularly interested in scientists, and men, these days. If you are a female interested in humanities, the bar is higher.</p>
<p>sly_vt -- where did you hear about this "over 700 policy"? This is definitely news to me... I thought Brown is not very interested in SAT scores and would never set a specific numerical minimum.</p>
<p><<over 700,="" this="" is="" a="" relatively="" new="" policy="">></over></p>
<p>What do you mean by policy? I doubt that Brown would ever implement policy that restricts admitted students only to kids with 700+ SATs. A rule like that certainly wasn't inforced this year and the school can just as easily raise it's average SAT scores by putting emphasis on them wihtout creating any sort of "over 700 only" mandate.</p>
<p>To the OP: I also heard that Brown likes students who appear to be independent and free-thinking, since they seem like kids who would thrive in a less structured environment i.e. the new curriculum.</p>
<p>You are fooling yourself if you dont think the alumni interview is extremely important. There is no stronger sway than someone who attended Brown saying that a particular student is interesting, and a fit to Brown. I tend to believe that it is their policy in the broadest sense to try to let people be relaxed in their interview. Because they admit only 1 in 7 or so, and 5 of the other 6 are just as qualified, fit is important to admissions directors. I believe that the interview is truly your best chance to show you are a fit.</p>
<p>Sorry, nealc9999, but that's really not the way it works. The purpose of the interview for Brown is mostly for you to learn about the school. If you threaten to kill the interviewer's family or have absolutely no social skills, then the interview could potentially get you rejected. If something comes up during your interview that wasn't clear on your application, it could have some sway in getting you accepted. However, for the most part, the interview has almost nothing to do with your admissions decision. This is backed up on Brown's website, on Princetonreview.com (<a href="http://princetonreview.com/college/research/profiles/admissionsfactors.asp?listing=1023917<id=1&intbucketid=)%5B/url%5D">http://princetonreview.com/college/research/profiles/admissionsfactors.asp?listing=1023917<id=1&intbucketid=)</a>, as well as what my interviewer told me last year and what other students here on CC from around the country have said that their interviewers and admissions officers told them. If you search back through this forum for old threads on interviews, this is almost universally the conclusion.</p>
<p>That may be the "official" position. That position is one that is smart for them to take. Why make you nervous unnessecarily? The thing is a person - a living, breathing, thinking, emotional being - is reading you application. If your interviewer is not very supportive in their letter to the admissions director, they will, as a person, wonder why you have extatic teachers, counsolers, but your interviewer is lukewarm about your prospects. Perhaps this is untrue, but this is not an objective reality. There are no points in this game, emotions rule. An emotion is needed for the admissions person to put your file with the admits rather than the deny's. It isn't black and white. Think about what I am saying, don't just dissmiss it as rubbish just because they say so. (Going on a slight tangent) Yesterday, if you asked the government whether they are tracking phone calls they would have said no. Perhaps they will say they aren't tracking phone calls today, the key is to listen and think about it. Be sensible. What else will motivate an admissions director, your position on the track team?</p>
<p>I agree with neal.... My interview went horrible... I was basically told that there is no chance of me getting in and there're other more qualified applicants... Blah blah blah.... And I know at least another person who have gone through the same experience... And a year later... here we are at Brown... tell me that the interview counts..</p>
<p>The interview doesn't really matter too much...my interview was god-awful but I was still accepted. Then again, I'm a male math/science kid...</p>
<p>wait, profanity... you agree with neal, but you're saying that the interview doesn't count? I'm confused.</p>
<p>We could all give our personal stories (my interviewer was passionless and didn't seem to care about me or Brown, but I got in, while people from my school who had fantastic interviews for Brown were both rejected), but the point is that, unlike the government, there's no reason not to trust Brown. They have their story straight -- the interviewers themselves all say it doesn't matter much (ask SBmom on this board), the admissions people say it doesn't matter much, and students' interview experiences don't seem to correlate too much with their admissions decision. I'm not saying it doesn't matter at all, but that it's only taken into account in extreme cases.</p>
<p>And yes, they definitely weight "ecstatic teachers" over an interviewer who thinks you have "lukewarm prospects" because the ecstatic teacher has had at least a semester of experience with you in their classroom, participating, turning in work, as well as probably outside the classroom, seeing what you've accomplished in the school. All the interviewer has is 20 minutes to 2 hours of face-time with you.</p>
<p>I'm not trying to dissmiss what you have to say or say that it's entirely "rubbish." The interview does have some weight, but it's probably the least important part of your application.</p>
<p>ooopppsss... i agree with Neal on "if your interviewer is not very supportive in their letter to the admissions director, they will, as a person, wonder why you have extatic teachers, counsolers, but your interviewer is lukewarm about your prospects. Perhaps this is untrue, but this is not an objective reality." I guessed I did not read the post carefully</p>
<p>As for the new over-700 SAT policy: I've heard this from three sources. Two are admissions officers; one announced it in public during an information session in April and the other told me this information personally. The admissions office has been told by the president's office to raise the average SAT scores. I know this goes totally against Brown's image and that many kids in the past got in with SATs in the low 600s. It's not a policy that I like, and I imagine other Brown students and alumns won't be thrilled about it either.</p>
<p>700 is not a cut-off; it doesn't mean that Brown will not accept students with under 700 SATs. It means that a student with less than 700 SATs has to have something else the school really really wants for them to overlook the SATs (a star football player, for example). Brown has always had an informal SAT cutoff -- if you scored above a certain level, then the admissions committee felt confident you could handle the work and went on to look at other components of your application. That informal cutoff has just been raised higher.</p>
<p>As for interviews -- I have been doing alumni interviews for 26 years. There are some exceptional situations when a very strong interview, with an influential alumni, can make a difference. But for 99 percent of the cases, an interview writeup has not been the deciding factor in admissions.</p>
<p>I totally agree with sly_vt on both issues. I have also heard that Brown is trying to raise its SAT scores and it is true that the alumni interviews are not terribly influential. The new admissions administration is definitely shaking things up a bit. Legacy definitely does not count as much anymore unless you are in the building giving category . Also strong sports positions seem to help much more than they used to - Brown has been doing serious recruiting.They have also become very strong in music - you have to be very very good for it to matter.</p>
<p>so if i have 640 CR but 800 M am i like screwed? damn, i thought brown was less number based.</p>
<p>how much does the science dude bias count?</p>
<p>hey... That's my SAT score.... And I'm in Brown:)</p>
<p>in to Brown...</p>
<p>I got in this year with all of my SAT scores being sub-700. It's possible, but I'm only one example of this happening. Don't give up hope if your scores aren't super amazing.</p>