<p>Yeah, I wouldnt say that. In regards to GPA/SAT correlation, I didnt do well on the SATs at all, but it doesnt make me a retard...</p>
<p>actually i agree with avant. i mean with a GPA liek that you shouldn't have a score like THAT. Im not saying your retarded. I'm just saying that you def could have done better if you took the right steps like a hour of tutoring for a week is good enough to raise those scores by more than 40 each.</p>
<p>uhhhh yeah
grade inflation and most people don't study for the sat much. i did a few hours every weekend for 2 months well actually that is a lot. oh well. Major grade inflation at your school. your reaches are way too unrealistic.</p>
<p>I had an english and math tutor. I studied enough. I only raise my score by like 30 points...</p>
<p>i agree with unregistered.</p>
<p>i don't believe people should bash you and tell you not to apply, but you implying that you have more money and asking why someone is a year behind is uncalled for. you asked for your chances, and they're giving it to you. a little harsh, yes, and avant-garde's comment maybe too honest but it doesn't give you the right to demean other people.</p>
<p>i do agree that half of the schools you listed are 0%. by all means, apply, but using the counselor-o-matic from princeton review isn't the best indicator of which colleges will accept you. plus, if you checked the "reach/match/safety" column, you'd realize possibility of a school accepting you doesn't correlate to the good match/okay match/poor match column. just because the school has all the characteristics you listed that you want from a school doesn't mean you have a good shot at being admitted.</p>
<p>"...Carnegie Mellon, Cornell, NYU, USC, Yale, Amherst, Dartmouth, Harvey Mudd, John Hopkins, and Rice."</p>
<p>these schools range from reaches (NYU, USC, CM) to huge reaches (Yale, Harvey Mudd, Amherst, basically all of the ones left).</p>
<p>Sweetie, this is a mean thread. Have you thought about Baylor?</p>