<p>Snuffles:</p>
<p>What was his point?</p>
<p>And, do you realize that Canuck maintains that ED is of no benefit to you, unlike what the schools themselves say?</p>
<p>Blaineko, I wish you the best of luck getting into the school of your choice. Go foward and excel, dude!</p>
<p>Was it that Canuck believes or asserts that all <1400 scorers for the SAT were URMs?</p>
<p>Thanks for the best wishes...maybe you will be pleasntly surprised that someone like me will get into one of my college choices and mend your beliefs. ;)</p>
<p>Good luck on midterms. Have a good vacation. :)</p>
<p>"Hey, my point here is that it's crazy to be telling white and Asian kids who do not have something totally extraordinary and an under 1500 SAT that they have a good chance. They might have a chance, but it's certainly not good at HYPMS and several others! Period!!"</p>
<p>High grades and SATs aren't enough anymore. I find that to be something that most people have a hard time swallowing. I believe this to be one of the most important ideas to consider on this very self centered (and at times myopic) forum. People may try to rationalize that they have a chance, but in reality, for the ultra elites, I think that it takes an extraordinary individual to succeed. Again, the definition of extraordinary differs among people to people - but like the OP believes, it's not on the lenient side.</p>
<p>i kinda agree... i mean every asian kid plays violin/viola/cello/piano (stereotyping hahaha)... (but i'm asian so it's ok ;)) it doesn't stand out much... which is why i've decided not to apply to MIT my dream school)... and settle for <em>sigh</em> cornell (still a dream school, but not so much as MIT)</p>
<p>Snuffles:</p>
<p>Since Asians, as a group, score higher than any other group, does that mean that Yale is giving whites an admissions boost over Asians? And since when are grinds with high grades and scores the ones who should get in over those with other positives? Thus, if you look at my responses to posts here, I use terms like Iffy, Okay, Good, Very Good, Excellent, and Unlikely. As I do not only look at stats and grades, my opinions will differ from others here, though they are just as valid. </p>
<p>The adcoms, know this about grinds. That is why perfect scores and perfect gpa candidates are also negged. I personally think that making a blanket assumption of an individual based on group racial or ethnic affiliation is prejudice to say the least. If what you and Canuck said is true, I would not have gotten into Yale or Columbia, let alone the others.</p>
<p>Thus, my apps to Amherst, Middlebury, Bowdoin, etc...are doomed by my 1490 and 1520, and by my 3.99 gpa, and my 750+ SAT II scores. That does not make sense, especially when they all said I was a very strong candidate at several receptions, interviews, and college visits. If I don't get into any of them then, I must have done something wrong. But we'll see, right? That's the test.</p>
<p>I have always been a realist when it comes to having Reaches/Matches/Safeties on my list. And, just remember, the SAT was recentered upwards in 1996, so the SAT scores are less indicative of our academic or testing prowise than we think. Talk about myopic and self-centered. How did it come to be that we think we are better than those just a decade ago. If anything, our generation is the one that caused such competition because we pay too much attention to rank rather than fit.</p>
<p>Like I said, adcoms at private schools use a holistic approach. It's just that there will continue to be an upward blip every year in college admissions until after 2013. How do you think it will affect admissions percentages? Fewer seats for many more applicants, that's how.</p>
<p>Like I said above, the word extraordinary is subjective.</p>
<p>But you agreed with Canuck about URMs scoring <1400 on SATs. If extraodinary is subjective, how is it that Yale does not (according to Canuck) practice holistic review, and how does a 1600 SAT scorer with perfect grades and ECs get rejected, since Canuck believes that anyone scoring less than 1450 is atually not in the running statistically EVEN WHEN they are comfortably in the middle-50%ile?</p>
<p>Talk about mis-information. Sheesh.</p>
<p>PS--most people do not have a hard time with things being more competative, nor with the fact that you need more than just grades and scores to get into better schools. Have you read CC posts that are not in this forum, and did you not, yourself, post questions reguarding your chances, and ask for suggestions for colleges to add to your list?</p>
<p>Stats are not indicative of success for it only really makes one an eligible candidate for a seat at a specific school. A 1600 can be rejected simply because he is not as competitive as other applicants in terms of interest-appeal. This explains why harvard doesn't accept every 1600 it comes across. Quite frankly, I believe that there are mounds of college applicants that believe that their scores will get them into the elite - this only propagates the institution's selectivity. They enjoy asking students with high SATs to apply, hoping to encourage more to apply, while a great majority of them will not be selected simply because of seating spots and because not everyone is remarkable. Being "in the running" may only be the starting base for elite admissions. Everything else is up for grabs.</p>
<p>Yes, I have read chances threads that have not been on CC. And no, I did not post my statistics on CC nor ask for other chances.</p>
<p>Snuffles:</p>
<p>Sorry...I see that you just remarked on other peoples chances to Tufts and the like. My mistake.</p>
<p>If a 1600 candidate is not "interesting" (but just a grind with no EC participation), he or she is lopsided and thus, often not a good fit for a competative school. What propogates a colleges selectivity is the upward blip in applicants (til 2013), and the recentering of SAT scores by about 100 points (post 1995). The percentages that apply to top schools will continue to grow because of the number increase (yearly). More applicants, lower rates for the same number of seats. </p>
<p>Look at the trends by studying the USNews from 1983-2004. When the number of high school graduates rose, acceptance percentages at the better colleges went down, and when the percentages fell, acceptance rates rose. Couple that with the upward recentering of the SAT for classes after 1996, and you have more people in the statistical middle ground (again, using data from USNews 1983-2004) although middle-50%ile averages are similar.</p>
<p>Your are right, being in the running is just a start. But telling people that they are out even if they are in the middle-50%ile of a school, means often that they will not consider their chances as individuals to a school. Thus, Canuck, is doing a diservice to URMs, Whites, Asians, etc...by saying that even if your scores place you in the middle, you have no chance to get in. Right, rather than let the people asking advice learn for themselves and see that it is possible through research that will have to be done no matter the college, Canuck would simply discourage any applicant that does not score 1450+ on the SATs. Never mind that SAT II tests might be higher (according to the CollegeBoard). Never mind that they may have amazing ECs, or have overcome difficulties, etc...</p>
<p>You say that people rationalize their chances, when they hear the negative. I would argue that most here use their intelligence instead, to hone their list of schools--dropping those colleges that are far reaches for ones that are plain reaches or matches. I've been on here a long time (and on the old board), that does not seem to be the case with the better applicants. Often, posters are looking for people with similar stats, etc...that have gotten in at schools they are interested in, so it is not, like Canuck said that they are being unrealistic.</p>
<p>I repeat: What is unrealistic is his stance that people who score <1450 on the SAT are ALL URM. I cannot agree to that, nor can I agree with the notion that what is CAUSING lower acceptance rates at the better schools is due to students being unrealistic about their chances. Does it happen, of course it does, but less often than what you assume. Look at Bowdoin. It does not require the SAT, and acceptance rates there have followed the trend (of fewer high school graduates, higher acceptance rates; And, higher numbers of high school graduates, lower rates of acceptance). The large trend has been discussed here, and in the mass media. Are all the experts wrong, and is Canuck right? I don't believe so. Nor do my friends at the Ivies and other top schools.</p>
<p>Mis-information or lack there of is what causes students, who do not have access to information, or do not have support from high school staff, to look at other places for information (a socioeconomic issue itself). Amost all of the info under this sub-topic are just the starting point. Most want to assess whether they have a chance at particular schools. Thus, when I respond to a post the middle-50%ile score is one of the factors I look at, along with class rank, AP, IB and Honors classes, grades, ECs, and recs and essays (although for the last two I would have to rely on assesment by the person asking the question)--before I comment. Usually, I post that it is just an opinion--unless I'm in a hurry.</p>
<p>Schools that are at the top are always going to have more applicants than seats, unless we somehow go back to a time where college was only for weathly, white men (ie. for most of higher education history). And, it is folly that Canuck and you (since you agree with him) have set an arbitrary SAT score that is not born out of the stats that guidebooks, magazines, and colleges themselves use. A plot? No. Far from it. The published stats, with a few exceptions, are more likely a guide or measuring stick to use to see if one is a viable candidate to a particular school. That does not necessarily mean that person will get in, but that's why one's college lists often has Reach/Match/Safety schools on them.</p>
<p>Again, my 2 cents.</p>
<p>And 2 cents is what it's worth! I'm not trying to discourage anyone from applying anywhere. I believe if you have dream schools you should apply, you never know. But 2 plus years ago I posted my stats and had lots of well meaning people tell me I had a good chance. I was slightly above the average! I'm still reading posts which say that you just need above 1400 and then you're well in the running at HYPMS. It's just sad to see that kids really believe this! I'm just trying to temper some old wives tales and help kids applying adjust to what the chances really are. If you get in, fabulous. If you don't, have a great alternative!</p>
<p>Canuck:</p>
<p>I did my research, so it is not a question about MY chances. It's that you're making a statement about SPECIFIC SAT scores and URM status (ie. <1450, must be URM). I also, respond thoughtfully, for the most part. </p>
<p>You are discouraging people who score under 1450, of which you maintain are ALL URMs from applying to Ivy caliber schools. You are creating a wives tail by saying an applicant needs above a 1450 SAT score to be competative as an applicant to the 'better' schools. That is not true, although at most schools, they suggest that most kids who score in the 1300-1350 are unlikely to get in...even at the LACs in the top 10. That does jibe with the middle-50%ile statistics.</p>
<p>Although I do not know the specifics of your situation, I do know people with high scores and grades, and decent ECs who were not admitted to the Ivies or top-LACs. That does not necessarily mean that the method the schools used when assessing a candidate was faulty. It could be that an applicant was at fault, as well.</p>
<p>Do I think it a conspiracy that I got Negged by UPenn, or wait listed by Carleton, while I made it in at Yale, Columbia, and several other universities? Nope. It just means that different methods of holistic review mean that there are often different outcomes. I knew this in high school, and I know this now.</p>
<p>Maybe, when you applied the first time around, you wanted to believe ALL the advice you were given, and perhaps did not always put your best foot forward. I know I've done that a few times in other areas and with not so surprising results. Perhaps, you thought grades and scores would make up for depth in your ECs, I dunno. That, however, does not explain why you would discourage ALL applicants from applying to the better schools that score below 1450 on their SATs. Some people who score <1450 get in, and some do not. Often, it's a matter of how you present yourself on the application, through recs, essays, and interviews that count. Unless you are absolutely sure you got negged the first time around BECAUSE of your scores, it would be a disservice to those who you say stand NO chance at the Ivies, and top tier colleges.</p>
<p>That is why, I keep responding here. Because the advice you have given with respect to scores seem more like a sour experience (though I question why you would want to go to a school that had negged you previously), rather than a constructive warning. Perhaps, I'm missing something. My problem continues to be the absolutist stance you take with people who score below 1450, and if you did ultimately get into Yale as a transfer with a 1450 or less, then I'd be very shocked that you could give such advice--as it is harder to get into Yale as a transfer than as a first-year.</p>
<p>Just how I feel. :)</p>
<p>PS--It is also more difficult, in certain instances, for International students to get into US colleges and universities, as some schools do consider the ability to pay a factor.</p>
<p>PPS--I am near the 75%ile at most of the schools I've applied to currently, but was closer to the average when I applied at Yale during the first go a round. At UPenn, I was in the top-25%ile for reference. Still got negged by UPenn and accepted at Yale. And, a good LAC, Carleton, waitlisted me, even if I was in the top 25%-ile of the applicant pool. Point being: A lot of things go into an admissions decision.</p>
<p>Canuckeh, did you read the Cornell admissions site that says ED is an advantage? Or how about any book on admissions (including A is for Admission, written by an adcom). ED isnt going to get a 1400 3.8 good EC into HYPSM, but it might get them into Northwestern!!</p>
<p>Actually Cornell publically states that ED doesn't make a difference.</p>
<p>The ED rate at Cornell is about 40% while the RD rate is in the mid-20s. Thus, statistically, ED applicants have a better chance than during the RD round. That is according to Newsweek, and published statistics by Kaplan.</p>
<p>Well the point is that there may be a greater portion of the class that is filled, but they're just accepting the same people that they would have picked from the regular class. They make it clear that there is no distinguishing factor that they put into consideration with early decision because of the sheer number of applications. They're the only ivy that does this (for the early decision program at least).</p>
<p>If that is the case about picking the same students, then the admissions percentages would be closer between ED and RD (as it is at Middlebury). And, for the record, Cornell fills between 30-40% of it's class with ED admits...so there is a bump for an ED applicant.</p>
<p>if you guys spent on homework the time you spend writing crap on CC, you could probably get into a good school</p>
<p>It's called multi-tasking. And, I believe that we have a chance at a good school. :)</p>