Hey I have been rejected 4 times by BU, Pepperdine, UCSD and UCLA…feel really nervous for Emory. I wish I have a shot at Oxford? My GPA isn’t great but I have a lot of EC and my essay is solid.
GPA: UW: 3.5 (hmmm, I know)
SAT: 1420
ACT: 29 (didn’t send)
AP: Calc AB, Calc BC, Physics 1, Chemistry, Chinese, Art, Lit, Stats, Biology and 1 college course. My school is a very good one here in LA and all my classmates are competitive. School doesn’t rank.
SAT 2: Math 2 760, Chem: 740, Physics: 700
EC: Biology league captain, JV sport, cross country, Paid job, summer school at Caltech, art exhibition, Club President, etc.
Do I at least have a shot at Oxford? Thank you!
How exactly does Emory calculate GPA? I know they don’t use weighted gpa. I have heard a couple different things, one is that they only use core classes without freshman year.
@hhootle I think they take out the non academic classes (PE, music, health, etc.) but I’m not sure.
@hhootle @TheTennisNinja That is what we were told by admissions as well… they remove all non-academic classes and calculate based on that. I would imagine that they also look at the number of honors/AP/IB classes so that they are looking at apples to apples.
@TheTennisNinja @nightstalker160 Thanks. I do wonder if the GPA on their class profile doesn’t include non academic classes, seeing as they would want that number to be as high as possible.
@hhootle I would guess it does as well… but how you use it for admissions decisions is different than how you want to market your school 
@hhootle : Not necessarily. Schools (especially those with a decent amount of challenge in their curriculum) emphasize those who report ranks. Top schools like getting students who either a) came from rigorous high schools, or embraced rigor that was offered in their HS as much as possible. They know that many/most schools have grade inflation and that certain courses can pad GPAs and are not particularly interested. It sort of doesn’t matter what their GPA range says if they can claim a large % of students in the top decile or several valedictorians. The new (okay not so new) trend among those who really want to push the rankings needle is to focus on cherrypicking SAT/ACT scores. When selecting between students, regardless of what they end up including in the final GPA on their admissions website, most are going to exclude certain courses from the calculation to make it easier and to account for rigor. Also, I think Emory may excludes those and I am pretty sure it reweights AP courses lower than most HSs would (also some High Schools weight honors courses, so they would likely remove those weights). GPAs are really placed in context, so they don’t or shouldn’t feel bad about presenting a more realistic range. Now a lot of flagship publics attempt to present the highest range possible often to say that they keep improving (in some cases, when say, UGA, Georgia’s flagship does this, it seems like a reach for saying: “Hey we are trying to show that our students earn better grades than do Emory and Tech students”…basically reaching for relevance in terms of selectivity, so they make press releases reporting weighted, or sketchily unweighted GPAs)
I believe I read a while back that some small merit awards are still possible or is that no longer a possibility for Emory this week?
@hhootle, congrats on WashU. S was waitlisted there. Emory and WashU are both great schools. I think they might compete in the same division sports.
I know chancing is hard to do and annoying to see all over this page but I would appreciate if someone could give me some idea of where I stand:
32 ACT
4.55 gpa
8 APs
80 hours of volunteer work/community service
4 seasons of varsity track
@pvlmtreez I’m sort of in your boat. I have a 1430, 4.5gpa, 11 APs, 150 hours, and 2 varsity sports - soccer and hockey. But after being denied from Northeast and waitlisted at BU, I’m not feeling too good about my chances. What I have learned so far is that there’s no real sense to the college admission process, so not sure what chancing will help. Good luck. We’ll all find out Thursday.
@pvlmtreez I got a 1290 SAT, and a 28 ACT, 4.1gpa. Lol not the most qualified but I was accepted last week. I had a lot of leadership though.I think you will be fine
@ViolinGod did you apply regular decision? How did you get your decision so soon?
@turtledude
They were accepted early through the Essence of Emory program, for URM (Black/Hispanic), and other underrepresented students.
@ViolinGod : What is “qualified”? Emory is not like some tough job, it is a college. Were you outside of the IQR for the score? Sure, but Emory is not Caltech or something. Your score (hint: Ideally most of the tests you take in college, at least at Emory or other high caliber schools will not be fully multiple choice or even mostly multiple choice. If they are, your money and time is being wasted) and especially the GPA (leadership positions suggest you work hard in and out of the classroom. Do not feel horrible for not circling all the right answers on a test not representative of Emory level work, and then got into Emory) make you “qualified”…qualified and “typical” or competitive should not be conflated. Either way, congratulations on your admissions!
@bernie12, completely agree that exams that want to accurately measure learning, will likely have an essay component that requires some writing. Some students have been able to cheat their way through multiple choice tests in high school and may have a rude awakening that it is not going to be so easy in college, whether Emory or other college. Many experts have already questioned the validity of SAT/ACT standardized tests as being predictive of future success in college.
@Nomorelurker : Let us keep it honest, if the scores were not associated with various parts of the ranking directly or indirectly, some of the very top schools would likely stop using them. What I think I observe with some students is “diminished returns” on their very high scores in certain scenarios because it indicates ability to do a certain type of learning (and is well-coached in many cases).
You definitely see it in college STEM, but elsewhere as well. You will have these super high scorers at selective colleges and universities, who when they somehow land in the course of an actually rigorous instructor, will feel oppressed or taken aback. This is because said instructors do not make it easy to score high by regurgitating material, doing “tricks” to eliminate answers, employ already presented algorithms to solve problems, etc. Basically things that require drilling or fairly superficial learning. You have to really know the material and then these professors often ask you to be able or open to doing something completely new with the knowledge or combining all the knowledge to tackle a very complex multi-concept problem. Unfortunately some will feel that everything, including this type of scenario, will(or should) be easy simply because they scored high on the SAT/ACT. Doesn’t work that way. Many lower scoring students with AP/IB credit or “experience” and passion in the related area may come out with an edge (or at least whine less in such courses) simply because of a) previous exposure, and b) a willingness to use deep learning methods because one is interested.
Sometimes it just helps more to work hard and care about learning just because…Like if you come to Emory and take some of the top instructors, being able to circle the correct answer will do no good (in fact if you don’t adapt to a different mindset, one may under perform in such courses). Not to mention, many of them may not place emphasis on the exams at all and will gear more of it towards writing and research based learning (this is especially in humanities and social sciences).
*I know when I mentored there: I always advised many students, especially high scoring ones in STEM, to take at least 2 instructors that require a high level of critical thinking and did not use much (or any) multiple choice, just so that they can ensure that their thinking and test taking abilities evolve beyond what they could do in HS. If they remain the same and are only comfortable with simplicity, nearly rote memorization, “applied memorization”, and very close-ended assessments, then what exactly has the top tier institution done for them academically? They still just have a high caliber high school brain that hasn’t been truly challenged to do much differently. Also such classes tend to prepare students better for entering research projects because a) these processes usually expose students to far more advanced and modern material that is the work of research and b) Some creativity/model building and general “think one’s way out of the box” ability is demanded from students in such courses. Gets you comfortable throwing out an idea you may not be sure about, but is nonetheless based in some knowledge or evidence…as opposed to “I was just supposed to know the answer because it was in the book or lecture”.
@Nomorelurker
There are also studies that indicate the opposite, stating increases in Standardized test scores results with an increase in outcomes and financial outcomes. The appreciation of students with lower stats that have other attributes that can indicate success, should not result in the demeaning of students whom only have high stats/intellectual capabilities to offer.
Short answer - yes @jacquebear. And, in case no one has told you this yet, you are obviously someone who works hard and does not give up. Whether you end up at Emory or some other school, you clearly have what it takes to be successful. Don’t let this process define you!
@VANDEMORY1342 : Actually it is much more complicated than that…there are studies that suggest that people in a certain RANGE of scores tend to correlate with success in certain areas, but this range is super broad, plus no one is demeaning the top performers. I am just pointing to the fact that the score alone is not too meaningful beyond the first year of college performance (which is sensible as courses are larger and the types of exams and stuff employed may more so resemble HS). That range starts at like 1300 on the old or whatever rendition of the SAT (a classical study highlighted primarily those 650 + on the sections). A 1290 for example, is awfully close. Then there are additional complications such as: how many times did someone take a test? A person who scored very high or near perfect in the first sitting is more indicative of actual high ability. An uncoached/no prepbook person (they do exist) that scores high is also likely more relevant/can be decoupled from SES and other things. Others within a certain range, who knows?
A person with a score in or near that 300 point is considered “high achieving” with respect to that standardized test. Things that will make those within or near that group stand out intellectually have something to do with a mixture of resources, raw talent, and “grit” and grit is related to resilience and simply pursuing the areas of interest prior to matriculating at a university. An experienced good test taker (at least on an IQ or SAT) is just not the same as a person whose main feature is the SAT or IQ. There are a lot of the latter and I don’t know if it indicates “intellectual ability”…again much evidence shows that it has limits to doing that and also function as a proxy to income levels, parental education, and SES which themselves, are a proxy for future earnings, etc almost irregardless of how or what they do in college (go society! Life is unfair. It is what it is).
I am in STEM and even studies on the GRE which is like an annoying big boy SAT just do not yield much information on one’s ability to complete a quality thesis or to publish. It remains unclear. Much like most elite undergraduate programs, some programs (UCSF’s umbrella program in biological sciences) have found correlation with SUBJECT tests in the field. And in biology, there were actually two good subject tests, biology and molecular cell and biochemistry which test a lot of higher level items and also demands a lot of knowledge. “Tricks” will not get you through either and there isn’t much practice material and there are certainly no prep. courses. There are certainly exceptions where programs can benefit from a particular score on the GRE (such as math or writing), but even in such cases (like physics, math, and CS), many programs ask for a subject test. Undergraduate is honestly not much different as you will pick a major in some area, in which case consistently solid scores on AP or some SAT2’s in an area of interest in addition to a SOLID (not necessarily super high) general SAT/ACT score is probably much more useful.
And this is likely for the same reason above, restricted range and the fact that the GRE or SAT, within that range, have a hard time predicting the existence of important skill sets for said areas (studies have even found limitations in the use of the GPA in doctoral admissions vs. productivity and I suspect it is because many students have “contrived” GPAs via careful course and professor selection, even those in STEM. Again, if you were great at memorizing and doing relatively straight forward tasks in your area of interest in HS, and you wanna go to grad. school, and are obsessed with GPA, do you select the instructors that teach in a way that your former training does not work as well, or do you find those that teach and test in a way closer to what you are used to? Most likely you will run to those with multiple choice questions and other items tested at a superficial level. A mixture of RMP and hearsay can carve out an ideal schedule).
@VANDEMORY1342, was somebody demeaning students who have high stats?