<p>haha virtuoso just owned everyone who said he had no chances at the ivies whatsoever. Got into stanford too right? But, in their defense, they were probably right in saying you had little chance considering your SAT score at the time. Raising your score from 1900 to 2220 helped a lot. In any case, great job.</p>
<p>
[quote]
haha virtuoso just owned everyone who said he had no chances at the ivies whatsoever. Got into stanford too right? But, in their defense, they were probably right in saying you had little chance considering your SAT score at the time. Raising your score from 1900 to 2220 helped a lot.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, this was a predictable "likely" (or substantial chance) admission if not a sure thing, even with a score of 1900. </p>
<p>An SAT total of 1900 was exactly in the range for admission at the richest Ivies, given his socioeconomics. Low-performing high school in bad neighborhood, top 2-4 in the class (he was 2nd), impoverished family, first-generation college student, first-generation immigrant.... and with the "disadvantage card" played forcefully in the essay and recommendations. HYPS are working hard to admit applicants of that kind, and 1900 has been reported as a good SAT in that situation. As a related data point, the OP wrote in other postings that Berkeley and UCLA had been admitting a number of students from his high school with lower GPA's than his, and with test scores all below 1800 (which seems to also indicate that he and possibly the valedictorian were statistically "best in years" from that high school). Inferring from that one can see that, again, the applicant was well inside the statistical range required for Harvard/Yale/Princeton/Stanford. </p>
<p>So this case is not a poster child for SAT improvement, but for certain patterns of disadvantage as a powerful "hook" in the era of financial aid expansion by the super-endowment schools.</p>
<p>^^ Very well said, siserune, I agree.</p>