<p>Based on a quick study, it seems that there is less correlation between scores and acceptances at Stanford than at Yale. I can’t easily draw any conclusions about thresholds for being accepted early at Stanford as I did for Yale.</p>
<p>I wasn’t trying to argue anything, but okay…</p>
<p>
I never said scores weren’t important, but you’ll never know if they were accepted SCEA due to their scores - it could’ve been due to subjective factors you’ve never seen, or in comparison to the overall applicant pool. </p>
<p>Regardless, does Yale actually release an accepted % of stats in the ranges like Princeton does? It’s be cool to find out that, to avoid this kind of speculation.</p>
<p>This is what I’ve been saying for awhile. It seems only logical to me that the people Y accepts EA are those who would be accepted in ANY pool of applicants. Y accepts them early because they’re the students that will get multiple acceptances at top colleges and this gives Y extra time to woo them. If there’s any question about a candidate, they are just deferred to RD when they can be compared to the the rest of the applicants.</p>
<p>This is part of my issue with the sample size. The students on C.C. are more likely than not high achieving students who earn amazing grades/scores. So, the fact that their scores exceed 2310 doesn’t mean that EVERY unhooked applicant needs a 2310+ score. The CC pool is consistently on the upper echelon of applicants to begin with.</p>
<p>Now, that being said, I will heed one point, as much as I hate to talk about “hooks” because I feel the conversation always has the undertone that “hooked applicants” are less qualified: the pool of “unhooked” applicants is larger than that of “hooked” applicants. Therefore, “unhooked” applicants NEED to standout within that pool by whatever means necessary. Usually, that means is academic which would explain why so many unhooked applicants have stellar academics, which agrees with your conclusion.</p>
<p>BUT, I think it’s also important to keep in mind that academics isn’t everything. Those with stellar grades/scores most likely also have really good essay, recs, and ECs. Do not forget about the “subjective” areas of admissions in an attempt to enhance only your academic portfolio. Sometimes, having stellar essays, recs, and ECs can make up for not having a 2310+/3.8+ for “unhooked” applicants.</p>
<p>I am bumping this thread up because I think it contains information that some current browsers may have missed and is even more pertinent now as applicants decide when they want to apply to schools. Furthermore, the thread housing the posts has been lost behind many pages on the College Admissions forum.</p>
<p>I am still willing to answer any questions! I’m not biased in a relevant way yet; my turn comes up next year.</p>
<p>Great analysis, Silverturtle. You are a whiz at this statistical stuff. One follow-up question: Assuming an unhooked candidate is over the apparent SAT I/GPA “threshhold” (for this purpose, let’s call it 2300/3.9 gpa) what are the odds of acceptance based on the data you analyzed? I’m assuming for this purpose that no information is available about the subjective elements (EC’s, essays, recs, etc) to distinguish one candidate in the “pool” from another. Does the answer differ by white vs ORM? You’ve probably answered these question already in one of the threads, but, on quick review, I couldn’t find it.</p>
<p>That’s a good question; about 40% of those who passed the “threshold” were accepted.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, I think the most important conclusions that can be drawn are more about what one must have in order to get accepted early. The sample size doesn’t make conclusions about the chances of this viable group very convincingly.</p>
<p>Yes, and it also occurs to me that the cc bias towards overachievers (as against the overall population of candidates over the threshhold) may particularly skew the % acceptance statistic. In other words, cc participants in the “pool” may be more likely as a group to have outstanding subjective elements relative to their non cc counterparts. On the other hand, perhaps the reverse is true, since spending a lot of time of cc may get in the way of developing outstanding EC’s. :)</p>
<p>Your comments about the perhaps unrepresentative strength of the applicants’ subjective elements may be true, which is why the data should be used only in determining thresholds; the subjective elements’ relative strength is likely not so great as to meaningfully skew the practical threshold.</p>
<p>Assuming that my objective elements (2370 SAT, 3.95 GPA), are up to par with the SCEA number, would it be more advantageous to apply early or during regular decision?</p>
<p>I’ve heard mixed messages, with saying that SCEA is best only for hooked applicants (which I’m certainly not…middle class ORM) and others saying that SCEA is best for those with ‘different’ subjective elements as compared to most Yale applicants.</p>
<p>Which is true?
I have fairly ‘unique’ ECs (A lot of political/debate stuff and math/science stuff), and otherwise stereotypical Asian stats. The only thing I think that sets me apart is my interest in politics.</p>
<p>You’ve got a decent chance. However, your SAT may be a little low: none of the Asian applicants in the study were accepted with an SAT score below 2300.</p>
<p>(And yes, only on CC could I call a score at approximately the 99.7 percentile too low.)</p>
<p>Did you consider blocking the academic stats (GPA, SAT) by school type? I have a 3.80 (I think eight B/B+'s) at a rigorous prep school (but 2360 single sitting) and am an ORM–is that an absolute killer?</p>