I have a 3.88 unweighted GPA & a 1520 on the SAT
For extracurriculars, I have:
Are you a recruitable athlete, a legacy/development case, URM? If no to all three - unlikely. Not because you’re not great, there are just too many people great people applying for the same few openings.
But… why only focus on “Ivy League”? Figure out what you’re interested in - size, location, major, etc - and there will be many schools that are good possibilities.
Your stats are definitely in the ballpark for the ivy league, assuming you took all the right classes in rigorous levels.
That being said, the odds are still tough to beat. Are you state ranked for tennis or track? Any outstanding awards for piano? Sports or music recruitment are possible hooks. Otherwise, your ECs don’t appear to be “stand outs” (but there could be more to the story than what you are telling here?). I think you should still apply to an ivy or two, plus a couple the next level down (like top 20-50). You don’t want to wonder “what if?”, but you don’t want to get obsessed with a “dream school” either.
Spend time and focus on your match and likely schools. Your stats will get you some excellent merit aid at some really great schools. Then you will have a lot of excellent choices. Good luck!
You are fairly average compared to most applicants. As said above, unless you have something that makes you stand out, your chances will be slim. Be prepared to apply to matches and safeties as well!
There are approximately 2474-four-year colleges and universities in this country. NACAC estimates that the average acceptance rate across all schools is somewhere around 66%. Yet, you appear to be rejecting over 99.7% of the schools in favor of 8 that reject an average of 91.2% of their applicants. You’ve probably asked about them because you view them as the most prestigious schools in the country. They may be. They are not necessarily the best schools nor the best school for a given student even if she/he is admitted. Further, within a given field, they might not even be the most prestigious from the standpoint of people “in the know”. Best to choose schools for their fit to needs, achievement levels and interests.
So I’ll try to answer your question while acknowledging that others on this site may disagree. Also there are rare exceptions. But what I say is basically correct for most applicants to 7 of the 8 Ivy league schools. Students who are legacies or development admits have an easier time gaining entry so this is irrelevant for them. Same for offspring of famous/influential people. Lastly, some of what I say is not as relevant to a few of the colleges within Cornell-not because they aren’t as “good”-they are- but because they have a different mission which drives selection of candidates wtih different characteristics (admissions to those schools is as competitive but different).
The Ivy League schools are looking for skill sets and ability levels that are extraordinary and that are either currently or show potential to be world class. In the case of athletes, they are nationally ranked. They are looking for those students who have already demonstrated the likelihood that they will be an asset to the campus while they attend. But as importantly, they appear to be on a track that will lead to achievements after graduating that will be a source of pride to the school.
These are typically the kind of students whose peers recognize their abilities-often by senior year-something that has often been true since they were quite young. I am not saying that they are the students with the best grades or the highest scores. It’s not a horse race. They might be valedictorian but not necessarily. In fact they may be more chill about grades than their peers. They may be amazing writers, a skill already recognized by others-either via publication or wining awards. Some, but fewer, may have none of the achievements I mention but their academic ability may be so strong and consistent that they are viewed as having unusual academic potential. It’s not just a matter of good grades-but intellectual ability that is consistently noted by teachers and that stands way above peers even though the student’s GPA might not. Or they may have already involved themselves in community or political activities such that they are already well known and/or have made a significant difference to their community while successfully balancing a heavy academic load. Most are standouts-quite literally they stand out. They are the kids whose names come up again and again if you asked around your school which are the students who are the best thinkers or who we’ll be reading good things about (for their achievements) 10 years after they get out of school.
Now back to the schools…Consider how few slots we are talking about at those schools (especially since this discussion excludes slots for development or legacy kids). There are at least twice the number of high school valedictorians than 1st year slots in all the Ivy League schools combined. And when you take out the legacy/development admits, well you are down to few slots.
So what about your prospects? You have not provided enough information to judge. You’ve provided a lengthy list of activities but being busy, involved in lots of things and joining clubs, while laudable, isn’t really of much interest to these schools. The question is what have you achieved while in these activities. You may be achieving at a level that would interest an Ivy league school or not. I can’t tell because you have not delineated your achievements in enough detail. For example, In terms of your sports, are you a highly ranked national player? Do you plan to play for your school. If so, that is a big plus. In terms of your music, are you at least at an All State level? Have you won competitions? Or have adjudicators given you reviews that suggest you have unusual talent? In terms of your apps, are they very innovative, original and/or meaningful or have they sold well/gotten attention?
I’ve written so much so that you get a feel for what type of student these schools are interested in. As you read this post you may be thinking that students should not have to already be achieving things most adults couldn’t do. Why should kids have to specialize so early in order to, say, play the piano like a virtuoso? Why should they have to have presentations or publications if they work in a lab. Some faculty members even lack them. They’re just kids after all. Well I totally agree with that stance. And thankfully 99% of the colleges and universities would not have this type of criteria for their applicants. There are only about 12 schools that look for the type of achievements I’ve discussed here. All the other schools don’t. You’ve asked about 8 that happen to. And there are kids who have achieved at the level I’ve described. Should there not be a few schools that are nearly earmarked for such students? And isn’t it great that there are so many other schools that are excellent and available? I think so.
Your Vandy thread says you have a 1490 SAT. So which is correct?