<p>Stats :</p>
<p>SAT I : 2400 - [M:800, CR:800, W:800]</p>
<p>SAT II : Math Level 2 : 800, Chemistry : 800</p>
<p>AP : Calculus AB : 5, Environmental Science : 5, Biology : 5, Calculus BC : 5</p>
<p>GPA : 3.86</p>
<p>Rank : not available</p>
<p>Senior : AP Economics, AP Chemistry, AP Statistics, AP Physics C, AP Physics B, AP Music Theory</p>
<p>Extracurricular : I don't want to post my ECs online. They are decent</p>
<p>I posted this at the Harvard and Yale threads of your same post, but for those readers that do not visit those sites, here it is again.</p>
<p>Every chance thread poster should read this article before posting: </p>
<p>[Why</a> getting into Harvard is no longer an honor - Class Struggle - The Washington Post](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/class-struggle/post/why-getting-into-harvard-is-no-longer-an-honor/2012/04/04/gIQAPhBVvS_blog.html?wprss=rss_education]Why”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/class-struggle/post/why-getting-into-harvard-is-no-longer-an-honor/2012/04/04/gIQAPhBVvS_blog.html?wprss=rss_education)</p>
<p>It’s a deeply rooted idea in today’s academic culture that more qualifications equate with better chances. After all, who doesn’t perceive the selection process as a judgment panel that deems one applicant, for want of a better word, superior to another? Call it a myth, a misconception, or whatever you like, but this belief is positively unshakable.</p>
<p>Perhaps a different approach is in order. It’s high time the public understands and embraces the notion that college admissions decisions aren’t based on better academic or extracurricular specifications any longer, if ever in the first place. Just as neither perfect SAT scores nor Nobel prizes guarantee a spot in the branches of the Ivies, it’s apparent that what we identify as top colleges seek attributes that are intangible, elusive, and quite plainly put, mysterious.</p>
<p>Take a friend of mine, for example. Despite the 14 Advanced Placement tests (11 top scores) and two consecutive placings in the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair under his belt, he found no welcome at any of the eight Ivy League schools, and neither did his co-founded company aid him in clinching even a position on the wait-lists of several of their peers. His great weakness? He’s an Asian applying for financial aid. It’s easy to argue that one case alone does not justify a loss in faith in the college admissions process, but open the question up for discussion and there’s no doubt the resounding response will taste of misgivings flavored with skepticism. Taking a glance at the qualifications of despondent rejects is enough to convince anyone that surely not all who were accepted into eminent institutes performed better either in terms of academics or extracurriculars, or, for that matter, had more passion.</p>
<p>So, instead of rationalizing that the admissions decision is an objective verdict that evaluates one’s educational caliber and is not an assessment of character, and hence should not be taken personally, it would be more accurate to recognize that the admissions decision does no such thing. They’re not looking for the finest scholars or greatest leaders, and being the best won’t get you into the “best” universities. What they’re looking for is, well, whatever they’re looking for, and with over 4,000 colleges in the U.S. alone, it’s good to remember that we have almost as much bargaining power as they do.</p>
<p>Reluctantly, I’ll play.</p>
<p>Test scores: perfect
GPA: decent
ECs: self described “decent”
Hooks: apparently none</p>
<p>Chances: In line with the general unhooked admission rate, say 5%.</p>
<p>Test scores aren’t the only thing gets you into an Ivy League school. Even people with perfect scores don’t get in if they don’t have strong ECs and other desirable characteristics. Therefore, it’s not accurate to judge your chances based solely on your test scores. Sure, they show that you’re smart, but what else do you have to offer?</p>
<p>Why dig up 4 month old threads?</p>