<p>Brown</a> Admission: Facts & Figures</p>
<p>I'm not looking at those general statistics. I was solely making a statement based on those figures. In fact, Penn has a similar set of statistics, and it seems they are even less numbers-driven than Brown.</p>
<p>be careful, tux, in comparing Admitted stats (the brown link) to Matriculant's stats (common data sets). In all cases (but Harvard?), Admitted stats are higher.</p>
<p>Penn, of course, is the master of obfuscation since they do not publish a common data set, so their numbers are whatever they want them to be. :D</p>
<p>See, the common data set is completely useless. The admitted stats actually give insight to a school's admission policies and trends. The matriculant's stats does not. You want to see acceptance ranges across different SAT and ACT ranges. You don't want to see what the range was for a particular class. What does the latter tell you? Absolutely nothing.</p>
<p>sorry, but I disagree. If you want to attend to a college, it's important to know how the others students at THAT college score. Take, for example, Tulane with an extremely low yield post Katrina. Their admitted stats are still good, but those that actually attend are much lower. </p>
<p>Or, a good friend. He was a Val, 4.0, 2400, at one of the top publics in California. But, he turned down Brown for a full ride at Caltech. His admission boosts Brown's admissions numbers, but at the end of the day, he rejected Brown, thus dropping thier matriculant numbers. I am sure that there are plenty of kids accepted at Brown, but end up at Yale, Harvard, or Princeton.</p>
<p>The point being, acceptance competition is relevant to the students in attendance, not necessarily those that apply and attend elsewhere instead. </p>
<p>Just basic Stats. If they tell you "nothing"......good luck to you.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The point being, acceptance competition is relevant to the students in attendance, not necessarily those that apply and attend elsewhere instead.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Statistics that reflect admissions policies and trends are the most important, and only admitted statistics show how the admissions committee thinks. What good is the SAT range for matriculated students to the applicants, who will have varying SATs? The admitted statistics allows them to determine where they stand in relation to the actual admissions process. </p>
<p>The common data set is good for other things, specifically for showing how "strong" a college really is. However, it's certainly not a good set of statistics for gouging your chances. That's what I was really getting it. I'm sorry, I was little short in my previous post.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm sorry, I was little short in my previous post.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not a problem -- fall is a brutally, trying season. Good luck to you and the other applicants.</p>
<p>Fall is a brutal season - this is an understatement...</p>
<p>I have my company to look after, my school exams, loads of ECs AND college applications :(</p>
<p>I hope I come out alive... :)</p>
<p>i have an idea.</p>
<p>how about you put together a well-rounded application, and then what comes what will.</p>
<p>it doesn't matter if you perceive one school to be more 'numbers-driven' than another, as people with great numbers get rejected from every top-flight school, while people with seemingly low numbers get in everywhere as well.</p>
<p>As i keep saying - Apply and play along :)</p>
<p>rightnotleft, that's definitely true and a better way to look at it.</p>
<p>Fall is a brutal season, but April is the cruelest month.</p>
<p>I believe that Dartmouth and most of the other Ivies are both "holistic" and concerned with SAT scores; these are not mutually exclusive notions. One can also be a "well-rounded" student and have high test scores. In fact, this is often the case with students at Dartmouth, Brown and many other top schools.</p>
<p>The other day I calculated the median SAT scores for the Ivies, Stanford and some of the top LACs. They ran from 2245 (Harvard) to about 2165. The spread was only about 80 points top to bottom. HYPS cluster together in a 20-30 point band. Brown, Dartmouth, Amherst and Williams are next, etc. </p>
<p>Given that, I think that 2100+ gives one a fighting chance, all other things being equal. Below 2000, I think one is out of range, if one is not in a special category or have some phenomenal hook.</p>
<p>On a percent basis, 2245 was in the top 1% of all senior SAT test takers in 2006; 2165 was in the top 2%; and 2100 was in the top 3%. BTW, 2000 was in the top 7%. I believe many of the Ivies, except perhaps Cornell and Penn, are drawing out of the top 3% of the SAT test takers for most of their students.</p>
<p>My guess is, unfortunately for most of us, we've got to be in the 97th percentile or above to be in the game, all other things (grades, recs, ECs, essays, etc.) being equal.</p>
<p>No one really said that having great numbers and being well-rounded were mutually exclusive. </p>
<p>Basically, forget about this. I've been in contact with the Penn admissions office for a bit. Concerning SATs, this is the response I got: "Strong extracurricular activities, essays, and grades can make up for below average SATs, but above average SATs cannot make up for everything else or a lack there of." I'm going by that, and there is more evidence to support that than any of the conclusions anyone has presented in this thread. Just look at the acceptance rate among students with perfect scores on their tests. Let's take the example of Brown. Thirty-nine students applied last year with the elusive 36 on the ACT, but only thirteen were accepted. What happened there? Furthermore, the acceptance rates for applicants with 800s on various SAT sections isn't considerably higher than for other close ranges. SATs are one thing, but they aren't everything or anywhere close.</p>
<p>tux08902,</p>
<p>I am sorry if some of the posts on this thread have been upsetting to you. But if you don't like the answers, then don't ask the questions.</p>
<p>Of course many people with perfect scores get rejected from the Ivies, but many, many, many more with low scores (and high grades) get rejected as well. </p>
<p>Irrespective of what anyone here says, the truth will soon reveal itself to us all.</p>
<p>There is no point discussing who is getting in and why the college wants him. Colleges have different requirements. If they like you, you are in. If they don't, good luck at other places. </p>
<p>Good Luck!</p>
<p>BalletGirl, you have nerve. None of these posts are upsetting me. I know where I stand, and I'm giving people my perspective just like you are yours. If you can't handle other people's perspectives then don't participate. How's that for a little one on one?</p>
<p>BalletGirl......i know people on college confidential are generally very pretentious, but you are ridiculous. you are the most annoyingly pretentious person i've seen who's posted on this site. no one wants to hear your out of line perspectives or hear about you brags (trying to be subtle) about your accomplishments. go get a life. </p>
<p>i agree with you tux08902, thank you.</p>
<p>I don't want to sound like a douche, but just anecdotally, the most obnoxious person I know goes to Dartmouth. Good numbers, came off like a total cad in the essay (which I read). I can't believe she slipped through the admissions crack...made me lose a little bit of faith in Dartmouth admissions (of course we have people like that everywhere, but this was the most extreme case I can think of).</p>
<p>meanwhile, the most obnoxious person I know goes to yale, and the next most to upenn. shoot, they must not know what they're doing either.</p>
<p>i knew it! the ivy league is determined by idiots. i'm glad they picked me.</p>
<p>Nope, not saying that at all. I know idiots slip through the cracks everywhere (you'd think most of them would do a better job of hiding it in their admissions essays, though!)</p>