Can we clear this up once and for all:The importance of essays for Princeton?

Colleges and Universities A-Z Princeton University
61

<p>i'm new to this forum, but the importance of essays is something i discuss with pretty much everyone with whom i discuss college. i'm a very firm believer in the importance of the essays, recommendations, extracurricular activities, etc. if princeton wanted to build a class of people of perfect scores, they could, but there's a reason why people with lower GPAs and scores are admitted. </p>

<p>if you read the first page of the application, there's a letter from the dean of admissions. she says something to the effect of, "the best applicants are those who refine their message" - something like that - meaning that the people who work on the subjective things (i.e., essays) to build a complete profile of themselves are the most desirable, not those who can have collegeboard.com send over some stellar numbers...</p>

62

<p>Of course, but I'm sure that Princeton takes a few 2400's just to knock up the SAT average.</p>

63

<p>basically i think that only athletes and legacy are "allowed" to have > 2100 essays cause yeah, like what whoamg said, they need the high SAT average to keep their name</p>

64

<p>Actually, it seems that I lied.</p>

<p>I have never seen Princeton's average SAT score charts (although they very well may exist). Rather, the "middle 50%" charts seem to be the more prevalent ones, which means that even if Princeton takes applicants with a 2400 SAT, it's not going to help them. </p>

<p>If we take this data for admitted applications (<a href="http://www.princeton.edu/pr/facts/profile/06/08.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.princeton.edu/pr/facts/profile/06/08.htm&lt;/a&gt;)
CR: 690-800
Math: 700-790
Writing: 680-780
SAT II: 710-790</p>

<p>...we can see that the middle 50%'s SAT range is from 2070 to 2370. Of course, this fact is flawed because an admitted person with CR 800, Math 800, and Writing 600 would not be represented in the middle 50% for Writing, so we cannot assume that the low end applicants did have 2070's and that the high end ones had 2370's. Either way, saying that the middle 50% is from 2070 to 2370 gives us an idea of the larger picture.</p>

<p>This is the data that Princeton cares about. Now, in all honesty, I do not see how that SAT average of the bottom one-third of the class is about 2100. However, focusing on the low end of things will only result in rejection letters. It's the high end of the middle 50% which is closer to the average score of your average (non-legacy, non-athlete, non-URM, non-world champion) applicant. Thus, if we consider a target score of be 2300 to 2350 to be average, then we can already see the necessity of a high score if we are average applicants. </p>

<p>However, this is already common knowledge, and the purpose of this brief analysis is to prove why a 2400 score is no better than slightly lower score, in the scope of the admission office, that is (A 2400 still grants bragging rights). After the middle 50%, Princeton simply doesn't care. Who cares if the top 25% is made up purely of 2400-scorers? No one sees that data. Of course, a few 2400's are sure to help shift up the middle 50% statistic, but so would a 2380 or 2390. Actually, any score above the exact middle would move the middle 50% up, and by an equal amount as well (one person's worth). Thus, if someone were to have a score about the exact middle (not the average), they would be increasing Princeton's middle 50% (sounds rather obvious now).</p>

<p>If we look at the middle, I would guess it to be in the mid 2100 range (2140~2160). Thus, a 2200 would indeed statistically help Princeton as much as a 2400.</p>

<p>Does this mean that a 2200 is the same as a 2400? Of course not. Just looking at the low end of things, Princeton seems to not care too much about the numbers, so the impact of either score on the middle 50% is probably a minor consideration. No, what makes the 2400 so much more attractive is the fact that there are only a few hundred applicants with a 2400, where as thousands will be in the 2200 range. The 2400-scores have one more thing to help set themselves aside from the rest of the applicant pool, which is important in the admissions process.</p>

<p>Summary: Statistically, a 2200 is as good as a 2400.
Summary of a summary: a 2400 is still going to help a lot more than will a 2200.</p>

<p>Ok, I just spent my time proving the obvious. kthxbai</p>

65

<p>whoamg!! i forgot why i came on to the board on reading your post..lol</p>

66

<p>whoamg - great summary/analysis. Thanks for clearing that up. :)</p>

67

<p>Hey, whoamg,
That was a nice analysis you wrote up there, and I agree with your main point: the fact that a 2200 is pretty the same in the admissions' office eyes as a 2400.
However, I believe you make some assumptions that are mathematically wrong. (Sorry, since I'm a prospective math major, I felt like I had to bring them up)</p>

<p>"...we can see that the middle 50%'s SAT range is from 2070 to 2370"</p>

<p>"If we take this data for admitted applications (<a href="http://www.princeton.edu/pr/facts/profile/06/08.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.princeton.edu/pr/facts/profile/06/08.htm&lt;/a&gt;)
CR: 690-800
Math: 700-790
Writing: 680-780
SAT II: 710-790"</p>

<p>I may be wrong, but I do not believe you can claim that based on these figures alone, the middle 50%'s SAT range is from 2070 to 2370. This is like saying if you scored in the 99th percentile in every standardized test in your lifetime, you would be in the 99th percentile. (You'd probably be in the 99.99999th percentile)</p>

<p>Second, you claim that "a 2200 would indeed statistically help Princeton as much as a 2400" because it would shift up the middle 50% statistic. </p>

<p>Well let us examine this hypothetical scenario: the admissions office has the choice of admitting a group of kids with 2400s, or another group kids with 2200s. The middle average score appears to be, as you say, somewhere around 2140-2160. Let's just assume this is true. If the admissions office TRULY cared about their mid-50% range or whatever, I believe it is to their advantage to accept the ten kids with 2400s. After all, no matter how many kids are in the 2200 group, they cannot make the average go over 2200. However, if the admissions office takes enough of the 2400 kids, the average may rise from 2140-2160 up to the 2200s and higher. So statistically, a 2200 is not as good as a 2400, because while it may increase the mid 50% range/average, it will not increase it as much as a 2400 would. </p>

<p>Another example would be with test scores:</p>

<p>Assume you have an 89.7% in physics this semester. I believe a comparable argument to what you are making is that there is no statistical difference between getting an 90% on the next test, than getting a 95% or 100%. However, notice that although a 90% will indeed boost your average, you will never be able to reach a 90% average for the semester. However, if you get a few 100s, you will possibly boost your average into this 90s, and maybe even get an A.</p>

<p>However, I believe it is true that SATs, once you are over a certain cutoff (2150 to 2200), then it is where everything else comes into play a lot more, like essays, ECs, etc.</p>

68

<p><em>bows down to the math major</em></p>

<p>Like I said, the middle 50% statistic is probably flawed to a degree; however, it still presents a general view of what Princeton wants. Of course, I believe that the statistics published came out of accepting students who did well in two sections but bombed the third, rather then some students who got 2370's and some who got 2070's. </p>

<p>I agree that accepting a bunch of 2400's is more beneficial than taking the same number of 2200's, because if the rest of the pool consists of 2200's, then the first set of 2200's will do nothing to increase the middle 50%. However, neither will the 2400's if there are enough 2200's to kick the 2400's out of the middle 50%.</p>

<p>Your physics example - it's using averages, not a middle 50%. Two different things.</p>

<p>Another interesting note: a person with a 2200 is more likely to go to Princeton than one with a 2400, who probably has a wider selection of places from which to choose. Thus, if Princeton were concerned about yield, then they might purposely take lower scores...
In ED though, they want to establish a strong profile, and they can "force" higher scorers to attend, so a 2400 is going to be a boost to Princeton and the applicant's chances.</p>

<p>Another thought - maybe Princeton takes low scores on purpose so that their middle 50% range is as large as possible?</p>

69

<p>Yeah, I explained the physics example pretty badly, lol...</p>

<p>The way I had meant to say:</p>

<p>Assume the middle 50% range of the scores of students in a class is 87% to 89%. Adding students with scores of 90s will not help raise the mid 50% range of the class large enough so that it may become something like 90% to 92%. However, adding some students who scored 100s definitely would, given enough students are added.</p>

<p>Anyways, I just felt like (sorry, MAJOR OCD) saying that in with Princeton's stats chart, it cannot really be assumed that 2370 is at around the 75th percentile (even if it's true that most students who do well in two section don't tend to bomb the third). </p>

<p>I'm actually starting to doubt myself now though. It seems as if everyone on this forum has like a 2380 or something...</p>