<p>
[quote]
Are you kidding me? No offence but that is funny! Harvard is more random than Caltech anyday!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's oxymoronic. Harvard is more holistic in evaluating it's applicants and that's why it's more random.</p>
<p>^ Probably difference in views. I stick with what I said. Caltech doesn't need 'good' people who can't handle math and science.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That's oxymoronic. Harvard is more holistic in evaluating it's applicants and that's why it's more random.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>ahah that depends on whether we're talking about institutional holism or individual holism</p>
<p>given Harvard's cynical ploy to dominate the world, it takes in students with all kinds of unique/wierd/extraordinary/one-of-a-kind/diverse (whichever u prefer) traits and qualities to build institutional holism, thereby maintaining a suffocating grip on the upper echelons of every field and blatantly indulging in self-promotion</p>
<p>other institutions however, may well choose to emphasize on individual holism, prefering students to be well-rounded and qualified in various ways, rather than extremely talented in a specific field</p>
<p>its a matter of strategy IMO</p>
<p>^ exactly.</p>
<p>They both are different institutions with different needs.</p>
<p>'-given Harvard's cynical ploy to dominate the world-'
If that's true, they'll most definitely drool over children of affluent, well established families with strong political affiliations. Not to mention virtuoso artists and athletes. Guess my chances are screwed,lol.</p>
<p>The son of the Nepalese king, who later went on a suicidal rampage where he took the lives of his family and himself, as well as Pakistan's former Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto who was assassinated, were both from Harvard. I guess legacy matters there.</p>
<p>This thread is very pointless and rude to the OP...</p>
<p>haha... can u guys focus on my problem? jkjk..</p>
<p>Fedexpress, I gave my A-levels and SATs like you did, and I'm applying for some of the prestigious ones as well. You have a good SAT essay score, but your critical and writing scores are not so hot. You have a pretty good SAT II score but then you got the B in history (although you have my compliments for attempting six courses). You ECs will definitely help prove that you're well rounded, which is good. </p>
<p>But will they take you based on your EC's? Will they do it based on academics? Will they do it because you bring cash to the table? Maybe because you're essays show a side of your personality that you're credentials don't? Nobody knows for sure! You can never tell when the committee takes a fancy to some aspect of you; and that's usually enough for them to admit you. </p>
<p>'can u guys focus on my problem?' - Dude, you said you aren't applying for aid, and that you have a Princeton Alumni backing you. What problem? I don't see any problem.</p>
<p>anik, r u in England as well?
i did AS history for fun cos i did maths and further maths in GCSE years and I got left nothing to do at A2. so i didn't revise or anything. but then i realised that only art subject i took (economics is half-half) was quite important to US application in terms of academic all-roundedness!!! Damn.. i asked my school to cross it out in report, only leaving the As </p>
<p>I find that the US and UK system favour very different types of students. I know a couple of Chinese students who got crap SAT (sth below 1800) but great A-levels like me. They eased through Oxbriodge but were all rejected by American's Top Unis.
Based on my observation, Oxbridge judge candidates on their academic intellegence mainly, which is not neccesarily performance. That's why they weight interviews so heavily. US evaluates candidates' abilities in all fields.</p>
<p>u gotta be kidding me....1800+ for SAT and you can do "great" in A-levels? even ease thru oxbridge? where does your source come from?</p>
<p>and i tink you meant academic "potential" instead of "intelligence"....its true that US and UK look for diff things during admissions....the Brits dont care bout your NASA stint or art exhibition or extensive community involvement, at the end of the day you must have the academic potential to excel....not a bad system IMO, who gives a toot about your debating/swim club/voluntary stints when u step into the workforce anyway?</p>
<p>i can guarantee you that is true..it's not from any source. it's in myown frdz circle. these people r all doing well at oxbridge. i can pick a handful of 4+ straight A student who cannot do SAT. Getting A at Alevel is really not that difficult, especially when you only do the subjects that you are good at. Most common combination for Asians are maths, further maths, physics, chemistry and biology. That's already 4 or 5! They are really easy!!</p>
<p>Chance me:</p>
<p>SAT 1: 2220 (Math 800 CR 690 W 730)
SAT 2: 2400 (Math2, Physics, Chemistry)
Transcript: 1 B in the last 3.5 years..rest all A+'s
Class rank: 6/177</p>
<p>Science-related awards:
Secured the 6th position in the TCS IT Quiz (over 600 teams participated), 2007
· Won the School Academic Award in classes 6, 10 and 11
· Secured rank 263 in the National Science Olympiad in 2005
· Secured rank 51 in Delhi in the Junior Science Talent Search Examination in 2005
· Secured the first position in school in the Green Olympiad in both 2004 and 2005
· Represented the school in an Astronomy Quiz ands secured the third position
· Won a consolation prize in the Tata World Essay Competition
· Won the second prize in the Inter House Table Tennis Competition in 2003
· Won the first position in an inter-house science quiz in 2001
· Won the first position in the speed event in the Open Ice-Skating Championship held in 2001
· Secured the first position in school in the Aryabhatta Inter School Mathematics Competition
in 2000</p>
<p>· Quizzing: Have participated and won numerous awards in inter-school quizzes in the last 4
years
· Computer Programming: Have participated and won numerous awards in more than 10
inter-school symposia in the last 5 years.
· Tennis: Have reached the 2nd round of an Open Tennis Tournament
· Table Tennis: Played for my house team, secured the second position in the inter-house
championship
· Ice Skating: Secured the first position in an Open-Ice Skating Championship</p>
<p>Vice President of the school’s Quiz Club
· Vice-President of the school’s Computer Club
· Member of the School Editorial Board in 2000
· Member of the School Astronomy Club for two years</p>
<p>· Currently teaching 14-15 year old underprivileged children mathematics and science</p>
<p>Applied to: MIT, Stanford, Princeton, UPenn, Harvard, UMich, Caltech (Rejected), Berkeley
for Computer Science</p>
<p>APPLYING FOR AID</p>
<p>Well, actually it is possible. I have a few friends who aced their A Level exams, and then approached the SATs with a very cavalier attitude. They thought filling in circles was as easy as it gets. They had absolutely no idea how devious MCQs could be; the fools. </p>
<p>They tried to approach their SATs in the way they approached A levels, and got their bums whooped by ETS. Their scores ranged from 1700 and above to below 2000. No Fed, I'm from Bangladesh. But we follow your curriculum.</p>
<p>P.S Is Oxbridge a joint institution of Oxford and Cambridge? and btw, do Oxford and Cambridge offer scholarships/merits to students with good A level results?</p>
<p>I got 5 As in maths, further maths, physics, chemistry and economics and got 12As at o-level but did badly in the SATs. They don't test intelligence but simply how quickly you can do simple maths. I spent a month revising further maths but got very easy questions but a lot of them. If they want to identify talent, they should set proper exams.</p>
<p>Nobody said the SAT's are for identifying talent.</p>
<p>
[quote]
They don't test intelligence but simply how quickly you can do simple maths.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>on the contrary, i think SATs are better at testing pure intelligence....one can do well in the A-levels with hardwork, while the questions are no doubt much harder than SATs, pure mugging and tons of practice papers can get you thru because the format of the questions are similar....whereas for SATs, yes the questions are simple but varied, requires clever application of simple concepts....remember how in A-level maths, the difficult questions always stem from a few simple concepts? take for instance trigonometrical identities, only 3 equations yet a myriad of possible questions and solutions zZz</p>
<p>anyway A-levels is kinda of a bad gauge for academic performance anyway....75 and 95 gives u the same grade A, while 2070 and 2270 does equate to alot of diff in SATs =)</p>
<p>and no Anik oxbridge is a collective term for oxford and cambridge...both of them are collegiate institutions, sth like residential colleges but the difference is that you spend most of your college life in within the college, tutorials, studying, living, sports etc.</p>
<p>i agree with lOngbOWmeN... A-level is meant to be knowledge based tests which serves to ensure students have learnt their stuff . SAT is like pure IQ test which focuses on how to apply simple one or several methods to problem solving. they aim at very different things. it's just like APs and SAT. ..
for application of top colleges in US and UK, i think SAT is far more fairer than interviews at Oxbridge.. there's just too much uncertainties at interviews whereas in SAT you can actually prepare to get your best performance</p>
<p>The SAT is anything but an IQ test.</p>
<p>What it claims to test you for is how well you are prepared for college- in a really crappy way.</p>
<p>Like A levels and Boards - anyone who preps enough for the SAT can get a good score in it. Not to mention that most questions have a repetetive trend.
SAT scores are a crappy way to judge someone's intelligence.</p>
<p>I gave my first SAT in oct this year after prepping 2 months - got a 1970.
I was disappointed and gave it another shot in december but didn't prep a word again- got 2160.
Though my score isn't a fabulous score- its going to make a big diference when colleges select me. But was there any change in my abilities- i seriously doubt it.</p>
<p>Shreya, maybe there wasn't any change in your abilities, but can you deny there was a change in the extent to which you used them? Lots of people perform poorly in their first trial, and make a leap on their second. That's because they're more aware and better focused, and apply their same abilities to a greater extent . So yeah, the SAT may not judge your IQ, but it judges the extent to which you use it. That makes SATs a pretty important indicator.</p>
<p>Plus, stuff like deducing the author's tone, and surmising how one person would respond to a passage, and picking the correct camouflaged answer from amongst 4 wrong ones are related to powers of comprehension and deduction and bull - $#!T spotting, all of which are useful tools for higher study.</p>
<p>^ yeah well i did like 12 real sat practice papers before i gave my first SAT so i doubt the Actual SAT made me any more prepared.</p>
<p>well we both agree on the point that SAT doesn't test IQ- which was my main point.</p>