<p>whoever said SAT scores get you into places was lying. i know someone who had a 2400 and was in NHS, but got rejected from almost all her choices (including duke)</p>
<p>really, getting that state U admission over with made me feel better</p>
<p>gonzo lux~ I absolutely agree with you. Stellar SAT scores don't guarantee admission to Harvard. Harvard doesn't accept all the 2400s scores even though they do accept a higher % of them than non perfect scorers. </p>
<p>paro46~Hopefully you will get into Penn. I hope so too but I have heard enough stories to know that I shouldn't hope on one college. </p>
<p>Here is what I will be/am doing. I applied to my reach/dream school ED. I am looking at some schools that are on my level somewere between matches and safeties. I will also be applying to the honors college at our state university. I already attend classes so admission is almost 100% guaranteed. That school also has rolling admissions so it helps cut the worries. </p>
<p>I think the biggest mistake many kids do on this site is have overconfidence in themselves and think that a perfect transcript (E/C, SAT, GPA) will guarantee them a spot at the ivies. I think us 007er's should not become indulged in that overconfidence and take the advice most of you are giving out. Safeties are not NYU or the the really good LAC's.</p>
<p>Good Luck all 007er's!!!!!!</p>
<p>yah.. but if you have all the ingredients right, a good SAT score can make it certain... it might not be everything but... you can't dismiss it as having no significance</p>
<p>
[quote]
I can imagine a scenario in which Safeties think I am too good for them, Reaches think I am not good enough and Matches think I will get into a better school, and therefore, don't want to spoil their yield.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Don't worry. Your safety schools will accept you. You're not that great.</p>
<p>I know plenty of great students (both people I went to hs with and students at my current university) who went to community college for a semester or year due to financial or personal reasons. Don't look at community college as a "God forbid" type of situation-- many very intelligent people use it as a way to get some quick and cheap credits.</p>
<p>I was rejected by all 12 schools to which I applied (Waitlist -> Reject at Columbia and Cornell). I was working full-time at that point, graduated HS at the end of that year, but when the thin envelopes came in I just kept working. That job I had was the best thing that ever happened to me, because not only did I get a lot of professional experience and money for college, but it gave me credibility that I had matured and had the work ethic that my high school transcript lacked.</p>
<p>The next year, after 18 months of FT work, I applied ED to columbia and got in.</p>
<p>Don't underestimate gap years, they can be one of the best decisions of your life.</p>
<p>
You misunderstand me. Or worse, you are an a******e.</p>
<p>I am saying that my credentials may be perceived to be too good by a particular school that thinks I am using it only as a back up (without any real interest in attending). Kids with high GPA & test scores are sometimes spurned by a low-ranked school.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What do you think was the problem with your applications? Did you have "sure-bet" schools in your list?</p>
<p>does anyone know where i can get a list of schools that "roll" their admissions?</p>
<p>I know why he was rejected or put on the wait list. Just look at his SAT score, it was just average! If you are in the honors soceity and are the top 10 percent of your high school, colleges want to validate all of this, and the only way they can do it is by the SAT. </p>
<p>When I hear people say that the SAT's only account for 20% of your admissions that is totally false. In my old school Scarsdale, my dean told me it counts for more than 50% and sometimes over 65%. It varies from school to school but still it is weighted heavily, especially if you are applying to universities. </p>
<p>Also, these days "Honors" are not really Honors. For example, at Scarsdale there was so much grade inflation and everyone was getting A's and for mediocre work. This is why their SAt scores over the years has been down and that is why I am not there anymore. </p>
<p>Though what you have to remember is not to get straight A's if you are not getting in the 1900's you have to be well rounded and make sure your Sat score is really high. Getting straight A's and being in the Honors soceity with a 1500 SAT is not going to get you into a competitive school, at most you will go to a Public Ivy; however, it may not be enough.</p>
<p>So what do you write for the question, What other schhols are you applying to?</p>
<p>genericgenius and Bababasjd: SAT scores do matter or we wouldn't be taking them. My meaning was that sometimes students with perfect GPA, SAT scores, and E/C get rejected. We should learn to keep the overconfidence level low. </p>
<p>Bababasjd~ I doubt even a public IVY will allow a person with a 1500 score. Schools like Berkeley are quite better than some private Ivies. I would think even a 2100 is low for really top schools. </p>
<p>SAT shouldn't mean anything. Many kids at our school have like 2.9 GPA and a 2200+ SAT. What does that mean? They have the brains but horrible work ethic meaning that they will not put those brains to use. Why should a University admit someone who isn't willing to work? I think getting straight As show that you are willing to work but you just might not be as smart. My mom always says a normal person with a excellent work ethic will outshine a person with inborn intelligence. I have seen many examples of it too...my dad being one...</p>
<p>From the reported deliberations that take place in the ADCOM meetings, it is pretty clear that selective colleges look for students that have parts of the application supporting each other. For applicants with no special 'quota/fame' benefit everything has to go together. That is, high GPA validated by a high SAT score, good recs that talk about the soft qualities, ECs with a certain purpose (not dozens of contrived activities just to look good), good essays that conform to all other elements of the application. A great essay with a bad grade in English and low writing score will probably raise a red flag. If parts are disjointed, the ADCOMs pick it up in seconds. Easiest to pick up is lopsided GPA-SAT numbers. Anybody that says SAT or ACT is not important is mostly incorrect.</p>
<p>The SAT is important to validate your GPA. If theres a lot of grade inflation and you have a 4.0 UW GPA but then only have like, 1800 on the SAT its going to hurt... a lot</p>
<p>Collegebound is rigiht.... your application MUST support itself. if you are passionate in something you should have ECs that show it, essays that show it and perhaps even a rec that mentions it. If you have like... ultimate frisbey with peer mediation and mock trial as your ECs, theres no real connection... if u had like, mock trial, debate and great scores in hist/english it shows what you are passionate about/good at</p>
<p>
[quote]
What do you think was the problem with your applications? Did you have "sure-bet" schools in your list?
[/quote]
the problem was my GPA. I had the classic profile of the brilliant slacker.</p>
<p>I had no sure-thing schools in my list because I wasn't interested in going, at that point, to anything that wasn't a top-tier institution.</p>
<p>I ended up getting into Columbia because I fixed the 'slacker' part, by proving that I could hold down a full-time professional job and getting a big rec from my boss.</p>
<p>I also had a much better essay and Why-Columbia mini-essay the 2nd time around. Basically, I was much more focused, and knew what my first choice was at that point.</p>
<p>To that end, my advice is: anyone without focus should take a year off. By the end of my year, I was much more mature, and knew exactly why I wanted to go back to school - and once I got there, I was more motivated than most of my peers, which helped a lot with freshman-year grades.</p>
<p>Thanks, Denzera. Your story is quite helpful to others.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Now that I have finished the application process, sometimes I sit and worry about being rejected everywhere. I can imagine a scenario in which Safeties think I am too good for them, Reaches think I am not good enough and Matches think I will get into a better school, and therefore, don't want to spoil their yield.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There was a funny movie about this..</p>
<p>"I am saying that my credentials may be perceived to be too good by a particular school that thinks I am using it only as a back up (without any real interest in attending). Kids with high GPA & test scores are sometimes spurned by a low-ranked school."</p>
<p>That is completly not true so long as your fall back is a state uni. They are cheap to start and they offer scholarships. They know that there are many overqualified applicants who will be forced to go either because of massive rejection, cost, distance from home, etc. State schools admit every overqualified instate applicant. Colleges like WashU are known to reject overqualified applicants if they do not apply to specail programs/scholarships and/or if the applicnat has shown no interest in the college. However, if you are overqualified but show a great amount of interest and apply for the competitive programs your chances increase.</p>
<p>"When I hear people say that the SAT's only account for 20% of your admissions that is totally false. In my old school Scarsdale, my dean told me it counts for more than 50% and sometimes over 65%. It varies from school to school but still it is weighted heavily, especially if you are applying to universities."</p>
<p>I compeletly agree to an extent. SAT scores are god. They show if you are smart or stupid. If you cannot break 1500 you are just plain average. There is no getting around that. If you cannot break 2000 you are not very smart. 2000s are the lower tier students applying to top unis and the typical scores of people applying to the next tier colleges ranked 25-50. The issue is you can overcome scores with amazing ECs. Also, there is very little difference between scores in a range. 2100-2250 is not a huge difference, assuming your scores on all sections are about equal. A 2250-2350 is not too different also. A 2400 is god. I think I saw Columbia rejects 2 of every 3 2400s. That is great news for 2400s. 33.3% acceptance is much better than the ~10% acceptance rate for everyone. I have also seen people on CC who are vals but do not break 2100 on the SAT. That just goes to show that the school is not very competitive and that they may not be cut out for top colleges. SAT is the best indicator of college success because it is standard with everyone in the country and the ultimate leveling stick. For those who say that you can study for the SAT and that people spend thousands on SAT prep, I say so what. If you can study for it that means that it takes work and motivation to score well and that only the true geniuses can break 2200 with no studying. Also, I believe that your inteligence affects how much you get out of SAT prep. After so many hours of studying, your score stops going up because you just are not smart enough for it to go up anymore. For someone who is naturally a 1500, lots of study and practice may raise the score to a respectable 1800. For a person who is naturaly 2000, maybe extra study can raise the score to a 2200 or even 2300 which is good enough for any Ivy. Thousands of dollars on prep and hours of studying will not get event he most hardworking person to raise a 1500 to a 2400.</p>
<p>
[Quote]
U is NOT a safety. If you used BU as your safety I would be VERY worried.
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>No way BU is my safety. It is one of my matches, though. But it is a backup for me in the sense that I'd rather go to my safety (state U) with a full-ride than BU without much aid. Don't know how things will turn out, I have 3 safeties + 3 matches + 5 reaches = 11 total.</p>
<p>"I compeletly agree to an extent. SAT scores are god. They show if you are smart or stupid. "</p>
<p>"For those who say that you can study for the SAT and that people spend thousands on SAT prep, I say so what. If you can study for it that means that it takes work and motivation to score well and that only the true geniuses can break 2200 with no studying."</p>
<p>There's a contradiction here. You say that the SAT test is a measure of a person's intelligence. But yet you also insist that it's ok for kids to study for it because it shows "work and motivation". If the SAT truly is a measure of innate intelligence (which is what you say it is), then hard work and motivation should have no impact on scores AND no one should study for it, because it's a measure of a person's ability, not how much time the person spent prepping. </p>
<p>". Also, I believe that your inteligence affects how much you get out of SAT prep."</p>
<p>That may be true, but when we're talking about the places where SAT's really matter (the tier 1 institutions) it is possible for someone to just prep their way from a "2000ish" score (what you think is good enough for a #25-50 school) to a 2150ish score, good enough for all but the top 5 schools in the nation. You even admit this, ". For a person who is naturaly 2000, maybe extra study can raise the score to a 2200 or even 2300 which is good enough for any Ivy." But this still doesn't fit well with your "SAT determins if you're smart or stupid" thesis. You seem to state that some people are just innately "2000" scores, and some people are "2150-2250" scores, and because of their inborn intelligence, they should be seperated out, the 2000's to Lafyette and URochester and the 2200's to Columbia and Duke. But if prep can have a measurable effect on the 2000+ reange, (which you concede) then this ordering of intelligence you hold so dear is broken. People who naturally (as you see it) should not be going to the top schools because of their intelligence can, through their prep work. So your use of the SAT to seperate the smart from the dumb doesn't work at the top levels (it may work for the bottom 80%, but where it really matters, where parents spend thousands for prep classes, it doesn't work). </p>
<p>Even if the SAT was somehow a good indicator of "hard work and motivation" (what I would say is the best predictor of success in college), you must ask two questions: 1) Are the skills tested on the SAT really the best ones to test someone's work ethic with? 2) Is there a better way to assess motivation?</p>
<p>1) The SAT tests ability in solving trivial algebraic and geometric puzzles and test knowledge of arcane vocabulary. The skills that make students successful in college are the ability to take in information presented to them and synthesize it into a powerful and logically consistant viewpoint. In math and science classes, algebraic skills may help craft models, but they aren't everything. In the humanities, arcane words sometimes make a person sound intelligent, but they really don't help them analyze texts or the world. The things emphasized on the SAT are secondary to skills needed to succeed in college and in life. Studying for the SAT's just leads to more memorization and rote learning, not actual understanding needed to research quantum physics, analyze Shakespeare or run a business, the things taught at the university. </p>
<p>2) Grades and teacher recommendations are better ways of finding out how motivated a student is than standardized testing. Sure, many schools have serious grade inflation (or, in some cases deflation), but teachers never the less observe students at work and can gauge how focused they are. Grades (which show how well a person works) and teacher recommendations (which show how they work) are much better predictors that a 4 hour test.</p>