<p>Well? What is your thought process? I think this thread should be a must read prior to anyone's posting WAMC threads. Thanks.</p>
<p>I notice that CCers evaluate chances based on:</p>
<p>GPA- how high is it?
Rank- must be top 10 or low/no chance
SAT scores- must be 1400+ or low/no chance
ECs- show passion/unique/state or national competitions/awards
Hooks- white male or asian not helpful</p>
<p>I just don't like students evaluating others' stats while being clueless about admission. I sense that they are too number-orientated, which may lead to inaccurate predictions. That's why I avoid posting my stats, although I'm very tempted.</p>
<p>Yes I expected that much but I just wanted enough backing behind my thoughts so that other CCers (particularly new ones) are made aware.</p>
<p>Tangent: In general, public universities care more about stats and numbers than how many ECs you have because ECs can't be thoroughly justified. (This is not in regards to scholarships.) </p>
<p>Also: UCSD has a lotto that has you put basis upon your ECs. Not sure how many are selected however. Some other large universities might do the same.</p>
<p>They also look mostly at %. </p>
<p>thats a big one...</p>
<p>the knew trend is that a person would need a 2250 (proportionally equivalent to a 1500) to be competitve at any of the top 15-20 schools...I find this rediculous as that 2250 (1500M+V) is higher then the average at all schools not named MIT, Caltech or HYPS</p>
<p>What you need to understand is that the average is brought way down by unhooked candidates. So if you're not a recruited athlete, urm, prodigy, connected rick/famous, legacy, you need to be way above average.</p>
<p>As much as I agree that the WAMC threads are completely usless threads where clueless HS students predict other HS student chances and that they really serve no purpose, they exist for the sole purpose of extra opinions. More often than not, the poster asking for chances * knows * his/her chances of admissions into a particular college, but is simply looking for that extra opinion that agrees with him/her. It's like a safety net in which the poster makes sure that he's not seeing anything out of context or comparison to other applicants. But, I still fail to understand why WAMC thread starters don't simply check their particular colleges website for admissions criteria and admissions records such as average scores and GPA. We all know that it's important to be highly involved and that awards and esp. national or international awards can't hurt. The real question is how much of a bandwith lag the WAMC threads cause for the rest of CC and how much space they take up in the archives considering that just about all WAMC threads lead to basically the same ideas/opinions.</p>
<p>Just realize that if that no CCer on this board can give you a 100% accurate reponse.</p>
<p>Regardless of their opinion, if you want to go to a school, APPLY. </p>
<p>Admission officers may just see something in you that none of the CCers do.</p>
<p>This is good... it's turning into a FAQ/Response and What-I-should-doWhat-should-you-know thread. :p</p>
<p>I agree with hello_motto. We don't read CCers' essays or interview them. We don't know their personality or their passion. So, we don't know why the applicant deserve to get in despite their stats.</p>
<p>^^we don't even know what they look like!!! ;)</p>
<p>Haha. That's true. But how does looks help us get in?</p>
<p>Haven't you seen Legally Blonde? Don't underestimate the human-ness of admissions officers. Why do you think Brown et al ask for pictures? :p</p>
<p>...i was debating writing sarcasm under my post, but i guess i should have gone ahead and done so</p>
<p>they don't help us get in, but it just seemed like it went along with the fact that CCers really don't know applicants...now, if applications were supposed to be brief paragraph summaries of our lives, then maybe....</p>
<p>Nice, warblersrule86. Nice answer.</p>
<p>"It's like a safety net in which the poster makes sure that he's not seeing anything out of context or comparison to other applicants."</p>
<p>Confidence-booster. People want to hear: "Yes every chance in the world!!!" And if you tell them no, then it's: "Anyone else?"</p>
<p><a href="http://admissionchances.com/%5B/url%5D">http://admissionchances.com/</a></p>
<p>Someone gave me this website. I found the opinions helpful and you can get a computer generated chances as well. I found them the computer very unfair in the ECs department criteria though.</p>
<p>spirited away, i agree</p>
<p>logistics, a member on CC actually designed that...there was a thread about that a while back; i personally don't like it because it's independent of CC and I don't like to visit multiple websites like that, but all of the opinions/information on there can usually be found in CC...it's just more organized looking in there; in addition, I don't like the reviewer rating points mostly because some people don't like to review 24/7, and i don't think someone's opinion should be taken lightly just because he's reviewed less people than the next guy in line</p>
<p>I am a living proof that evaluation by peers is useless. I hava a gpa of 3.0 and SAt of 1400. I Got into all The schools in Rutgers. Dont let peers evaluate you and tell you, youll get in or, those SAT's are not high enough. If you want up front info. Call the deans of admissions and he will give yo the down right truth about admission.</p>
<p>no offense to the people who evaluate chances, but you guys aren't adcoms...and it's all guess-work. it goes beyond just reading the person's SAT scores, GPA, and ECs etc. i know it's tempting to post (And i have done it), but whatever response you get won't affect your chances at all. also, there really isn't much you can do to help your chances now anyway. just sit back and see what happens</p>