<p>According to Collegeboard.com In freshman class of Columbia University there were quite a few people with 500-600 SAT in individual sections.</p>
<p>Crit. Reading - 8% of the freshman class was in 500-600 range
Math - 6% of the freshman class was in 500-600 range
Writing -8% of the freshman class was in 500-600 range.</p>
<p>What do you think about this? I assume its around 1800-1900 SAT on the most part. How could those people possible beat other very qualified students? Total students are 1658 - now make the calculations yourself.</p>
<p>It means you need to have a pretty amazing set of ECs, recs, and essays, or be an athlete, and/or legacy/development case, or extremely sought-after minority or special case. Most likely a combination of the above.</p>
<p>I don't think URM is <em>that</em> much of a hook. I think it's a hook if you're qualified enough with nothing extremely special, but I don't think it makes up for things you lack. For the stats above, I think <em>unique</em> has to involve extremely different or unusual personal stories as well as URMs, athletes, celebrities...</p>
<p>Not only is the original post premised on poor logic, but the other posters failed to catch it as well. The OP utterly failed to consider the fact that someone with a 500-600 on one section of the SAT may very well have kicked butt on the other two sections; therefore "assume its around 1800-1900 SAT on the most part" is wholly wrong.</p>
<p>I'm familiar with a number of people who have very high grades, 750-800 SAT2's, and a split SAT score. These people have a good package overall and one bad SAT section won't necessarily disqualify them.</p>
<p>well, I personally know people, from this forum, who got as URMs with mostly 500+s on each section, and even 400+ on one of the SATIIs. I am not basing anything on "poor logic", I am just telling what I saw here and people I talked to.</p>
<p>I sincerely doubt that URM makes up for abysmal scores like these (sorry but by ivy standard that is abysmal).</p>
<p>I know URM (politically-relevant ones from genocide-torn areas) that did not get in with these scores. I think that the people that do have academic profiles that show that these results are not reflective of their academic potential. i.e. 4.0 GPA, academic awards, honors, etc...If you have these things and a bad score than it shows that the number does not reflect on your academic ability but rather state on that fateful saturday morning. You might get some leeway there.</p>
<p>Forget extracurriculars and the likes; an 1800-level student is just not academically up to par. (of course this is not applicable to athletes).</p>
<p>I got an overal 86 percentile on the ssats and my gpa is a 3.75 and im in all honors and only in 9th grade and my interviews went excellent do you think i have a good chance at making choate, deerfield, and hotchkiss?</p>
<p>polsci--you still have a shot at the SAT. Go on standby for the December SAT if you have not already registered. All this is rather pointless speculation, so do something practical that will possibly raise your SAT score, i.e. take it again.</p>
<p>You guys dont get the picture if i get 2200 and which is 800 math 800 CR and 600 Writing
Then it gets reported there alota people dont do well in one section while they have overall good scores</p>
<p>I kno of ppl from my school who got into both Duke and Columbia with 1800-1900, but they were all minorities. To get into any top school with that SAT, you need the hook of either legacy, minority, athlete, or employee (I say the employee part because a kid from my old school got into Yale the year before I graduated with an 1800 flat, without having legacy, minority, or athlete, but because his dad ranked high in Yale’s security)</p>
<p>Where is PASSION going? If one does not have any of those “ridiculous” things like minority, legacy, athlete or employee, he/she still manages to show PASSION on something. That Passion is very much what college admissioners look for in those days. Remember SAT is just a component of admission and they won’t fail you only because you can’t do well on some or all parts of that CRAP test. And yet, PASSIONATE people are those who will win in the long-run, not the short-run like getting into colleges. The school who doesn’t like such PASSIONATE students and chose the NERDY people having high SAT score is the wrong school for you to go. Be brave and shows your passion through your app! The rest doesn’t matter too much!</p>
<p>PS: I’m applying for Columbia too and my SAT is 1890(I’m an international student), so maybe I’m a bit subjective. But yeah, just do what you love to do, Great success will come naturally to you!</p>
<p>I have a 600 on SAT Math but a 2170 overall (800 Critical Reading, 770 Writing). I’m an RD applicant, so I can’t say whether or not I’m the kind of student who would be admitted overall, but a score in that range in one section by far does not imply such a score in any other section.</p>
<p>yeah very simple reasoning really, that 6-8% either have </p>
<p>a) 750-800 scores in the other two
b) some amazing diversity value (like first gen, native american, not just Black or Hispanic) or coming from a country that is not represented at all in Columbia’s undergrad
c) Top notch recruited athlete
d) For CR + W, could be an international for whom english is a 3rd language, but who has just bulldozed opportunity in high school
e) Someone who has seriously excelled at an international level in something non-obscure. </p>
<p>Most times it’s a combination of these.</p>
<p>I had a friend get in with a 1870, but he was on a national basketball team, silver medalist at junior olympics for tae kwon do with top grades at a very competitive high school.</p>
<p>Also if you look at it, its 6% for Math and 8% for CR + W, meaning there is less leeway if you mess up math, but they give leeway to kids who have english as a 3rd language. ~5-10% of kids at Columbia fall into this category.</p>
<p>I personally hate passion as a buzzword. All too often it means that to be considered a really competitive or “good” applicant you have to have a singular and well developed interest before you ever get to college. I suppose this is probably true, and they are building a well-rounded class not a class of well rounded kids, and for this reason I will most likely be rejected. Let that color my response as it will. I just feel like the pressure on kids to specialize will lead to a lot of burn outs and a lot of kids who never took the time to explore all the facets of life they can when there are still relatively few consequences for doing so. If a student pushes himself in a particular direction that’s fine of course, but I could see a lot of kids choosing a path too early because they assume (correctly) that this will make them a better candidate for competitive universities.</p>