<p>So almost all "selective" colleges like UChicago, Northwestern, Barnard, Ivies, etc. publish their mid-50th percentile SAT ranges, but the rule of thumb is that you...need to have high SATs. Even if you're in the lower ranges, you'd better have some hook. And then the colleges are always going on about their holistic admissions process, but when everyone you know who had bad, or just average SAT scores was rejected, you start to wonder...</p>
<p>If you have subpar/low-compared-to-most-applicants stats, can you still get into these places? I know UChicago is more stickler about scores than many - how is Northwestern? Barnard?</p>
<p>Any personal anecdotes - have you, or someone you knew, gotten into one of these colleges with stats below their averages?</p>
<p>“Holistic admissions” is code for “We let in whoever we want”.</p>
<p>You are correct, the lower 25% is generally reserved for athletes, legacies, URMs, developmentals, children of faculty, celebrities, and trades such as exchanging faculty admits with another school, doing a favor for a feeder school, etc. It’s not impossible for an ordinary admit to fall in that block, but they better have something spectacular in their file, like 15 APs with 5s or the aforementioned college courses with 4.0.</p>
Yes, I was accepted to Stanford, MIT, and ivies with combined test scores in the bottom quartile and verbal SAT in the bottom 1% at all schools to which I applied. My HS GPA was also among the bottom few percent at most of these colleges.</p>
<p>There are many portions of the application besides test scores. Being in the lower quartile does not mean it’s impossible to be accepted. Instead it means some combination of factors in the rest of your app needs to make admissions overlook the lower scores. It doesn’t need to be academic. It might relate to non-academic ECs/awards, amazing essays & LORs, unique experiences/background, etc. </p>
<p>Sometimes it is not things most forum members would find impressive. For example, there was a parent who recently posted on the Stanford forum about her daughter being accepted with an 1890 SAT. She didn’t have any apparent hooks, only took 1 AP class, and didn’t have any really impressive academic achievements compared to most Stanford apps. Instead she grew up in a smaller rural community and had some state level Future Farmers of America awards. I expect she brought a unique voice and viewpoint to Stanford with her unique background an experiences. Another example is an officer in the military who was admitted with a sub 2000 SAT. I’m sure he also had unique experiences. The guy who started the thread at <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/stanford-university/1568725-chances-stanford-rea-low-sat-awesome-ecs.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/stanford-university/1568725-chances-stanford-rea-low-sat-awesome-ecs.html</a> back in October was admitted in the recent SCEA class with a bottom quartile combined SAT (barely). In my opinion, he was one of the most obvious admits within the decision thread because of his ECs (his app practically shouts will be a startup founder). If you look at the early decision threads for other selective colleges, most show students with lower quartile test scores who were admitted without obvious hooks.</p>
<p>There are also colleges that place lower emphasis on test scores than most. For example, the CDS for Wake Forest indicates test scores are only “considered if submitted”, not important or very important. I doubt that lower test scores are going to hurt you as much as at most selective colleges.</p>
<p>Data10 - thanks for your input. Why do you think you were accepted to so many schools with low statistics? What do you think was your “hook” or EC that stood out?</p>
It was a combination of many factors. As ucbalumnus mentioned, a key factor was taking a lot of college courses and doing well in them. However, many applicants to selective colleges do this via dual enrollment classes in their HS or almost ridiculously high numbers of AP classes. What made my situation unique was I went to a basic HS that did not have a large number of advanced classes. When I ran out of challenging classes that interested me in my HS, I took the initiative to find ways of taking higher levels of classes outside of my HS. As far as I know, nobody had ever done this in my HS before, which I’m sure led to a unique GC LOR. Having a college professor from one of my external classes write one of my other LORs also probably stood out. The classes I chose to take an external universities were not just the usual ones students take because they expect it’s what colleges want to see. There were also electives I found interesting, which hardly any other applicants would have taken. An example is a class in Biopsycholgy and Behavioral Neuroscience.</p>
<p>The rest of my application had a common theme of a strong math/science/programming talent and interest, as well as a unique personality, all traits colleges value. My Stanford acceptance included a hand written note mentioning one of my essays, which related to a personality of taking risks and not limiting myself to what is common or has been done before.</p>
<p>The answers above are all valid. You have to bring something else to the table that the admissions committee considers really special and unusual, something which they believe would make a substantial contribution to their student community. Something that makes you “the only one of you” that the school would have, or one of very few. The college experience is as much about students learning from and about each other as it is about classroom time.</p>