<p>white male
senior-to-be
public school
class rank: 9/ 705
GPA: UW - 3.97; W - 4.4
SAT: 2200 (CR - 740 M - 660 W - 800)
SAT II: 670 800 740
Honors:
- Varsity basketball (nationally ranked team)
- namesake for basketball award to be given in the future to most dedicated player
- volunteer basketball coaching with young kids
- school award for best English student
- volunteer tutoring with young kids
- selected to attend numerous leadership camps
- math team (placed 5th in NIM at regional competition)</p>
<p>Application: At the risk of sounding cocky, I assume my essays will be competitive with most top applicants. Two of my recommendations will praise me as one of the best students in the recommender's experience. The other probably won't place me on such an elite pedestal but will nevertheless laud my scholarship while also speaking candidly about my ability to adapt to situations, utilize resources and handle disappointments.</p>
<p>So what do you think my chances are at the following schools:</p>
<p>Stanford (SCEA)
Harvard
Yale
Princeton
Columbia
Cal
UCLA</p>
<p>a 1400 sat at Harvard and co is at the 25% line......are you a recruitable athlete for bball? if not...the sats alone would make them big reaches...</p>
<p>No, I'm probably not good enough to be a DI athlete, even at the Ivy League level.</p>
<p>They would ALL be big reaches? Isn't the CR+M middle 50% at Stanford 1360 to 1560? I understand Harvard's averages are a bit higher, but what about Stanford or Yale? </p>
<p>Additionally, could the following factors compensate for or overshadow the 660 Math score? I've taken Calc BC (got a 4/5) and scored an 800 on the SAT II Math IIC. Furthermore, my demonstrated passion is for the humanities and I've been thinking of explicitly articulating as much in one of my essays by relating not only my own experience but also concern for our society's tendency to trivialize artistic accomplishment favor of more quantifiable endeavors. Might any of that matter? Thanks for your input :)</p>
<p>Read the common data sets that the colleges publish to see where you stand against admitted students. Without being recruited for a sport or having another hook, there are very few admits with your stats at the schools you list. Don't confuse the 25% scores, Stanford just has more room to take low scoring athletes than the ivies and more of them. Schools where you fall at the 75% will be a match unless they are an ivy calibre school.</p>
<p>The difference in acceptance rate for a kid with no hook would be nothing among these schools.</p>
<p>you obviously like basketball. but apart from that nothing stands out (basketball actually doesn't stand out either). mediocre scores for top schools. i say reject by HYPS. in at some lower ivies</p>
<p>Okay, here's an admission: this post was an impulsive experiment. I'd hoped maybe a few more people would respond before I revealed my ruse, but I'm going to leave work soon and I want to conclude this thing before I do so. </p>
<p>Before I continue, let me thank the three of you who replied both for your answers and what appears to be a sincere desire to help other posters.</p>
<p>Now, on the chase...</p>
<p>The truth is, I applied to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, UCLA, and Cal in 2002. My applications were filled with, among other things, the details I listed above. Save Princeton, every school accepted me.</p>
<p>I'm now a graduate of one of the HYPS group, a status that not only gives me some insight into what qualifications my fellow students possessed before they were admitted but also allowed me to work in my alma maters office of undergraduate admission for a time.</p>
<p>I decided to post the fake query above because this site frustrates me. So many people (and I hope the people who replied here don't take offense, since, as I mentioned, they seem sincerely altruistic) log on and spout profoundly incorrect advice, sometimes out of ignorance and sometimes, it seems, to compensate for uncertainties about their own worthiness. Black and white generalization rule the day in virtually every thread, with people whove scored in the SATs 99th percentile (my 1600-scale score was 97th percentile; if my SAT II Writing were included, it would convert to a 99th percentile 2400-scale score) being told they just cant compete. Abstract requirements for hooks or Intel Prize recognition pepper almost every what are my chances post. Meanwhile, meaningful application material the essays, for example is disregarded altogether. </p>
<p>To be fair, I understand this reasoning: while we can never trust someones appraisal of their own essays, especially since writing is judged so subjectively and is impossible to quantify, we can make assumptions based on hard statistics, like test scores. Thats fine. But a number of posters extrapolate to ridiculous extremes, declaring, as though endowed with a Dean of Admissions authority, that someones test scores alone do or do not qualify them for admission. Responses frequently overlook objective analysis, eschewing the qualifications and provisos such evaluations demand for dramatic reject! proclamations punctuated with incredibly flawed reasoning (You gotta have at least a 2200 for Harvard to even read your applicationunless youre an athlete/ minority/ whatever, etc.).</p>
<p>Herere some real facts: </p>
<p>A) Anything over a 2100 gets you a look. Yes, having a 2400 gives you a better shot, but sub-700 scores in individual subjects are hardly uncommon. Granted, they dont grace Ivy League campuses quite as often as, say, hubris does, but they arent exactly academic sasquatches either. Whats more, those scores in the 640s, 660s, and so forth occur across all demographics, not just among the athletes or underrepresented minorities. White kids even ones who lack a hook, like I did are not doomed by a single weak subject.</p>
<p>B) As the only application component that lets evaluators judge a student in wholly unquantifiable terms, the essay is far and away the most important aspect a school will evaluate. Granted, even a Shakespeare-level composition wont compensate for a test score well beneath matriculated students middle 50% range, but a number of students in the 2050-2250 are chosen for big envelopes over their 2300+ peers because they write thoughtful, articulate essays. </p>
<p>C) Passion means more than perfect grades. Colleges like to admit well-rounded classesand doing so means accepting a number of students with rough edges who cumulatively form a diverse community. If an applicant demonstrates a clear, intense, and extraordinary passion for, say, chemistry, Yale probably will forgive a students 680 Critical Reading score. Likewise, if a student has been a published journalist in a major publication since he was 15 (like I wassorry, forgot to mention that in the first post), Harvard might overlook a relatively modest math score. An incredible number of students write applications based on what they imagine schools want to hear and admissions officials develop something akin to a sixth sense when it comes to cutting through the B.S. They can differentiate genuine passion from manufactured, calculated efforts. Likewise, they can tell which ostensibly excellent students will just fade into the background of a college campus and which students with somewhat lower marks will contribute vibrantly to the universitys culture. Believe it or not, most schools would prefer someone with a 2150 whos going to be an energetic force than the 2400-scoring valedictorian who lacks intellectual curiosity and motivation.</p>
<p>In short, my point is this: too many people on this site purport to know things they clearly do not know (feel free to assume Im part of that group if youre feeling snarky, but it doesnt necessarily negate my point) and too many people speak in absolutist tones when proper analysis requires shades of gray. Admission is a funny game. You can deduce trends to your hearts content, but the truth is, to a very large extent, no one knows anything and the sort of half-assed prognostication that typifies this site shouldnt be taken seriously.</p>
<p>hmmm. add some lower ivies, top LAC's (if you favor LAC's).
Humanities? what abooot Uchicago?
But I think youre good enough to be accepted in hopefully SCEA.
Good luck.</p>
<p>Before I continue, let me thank the three of you who replied both for your answers and what appears to be a sincere desire to help other posters.</p>
<p>Now, on the chase...</p>
<p>The truth is, I applied to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, UCLA, and Cal in 2002. My applications were filled with, among other things, the details I listed above. Save Princeton, every school accepted me.</p>
<p>I'm now a graduate of one of the HYPS group, a status that not only gives me some insight into what qualifications my fellow students possessed before they were admitted but also allowed me to work in my alma mater’s office of undergraduate admission for a time.</p>
<p>I decided to post the fake query above because this site frustrates me. So many people (and I hope the people who replied here don't take offense, since, as I mentioned, they seem sincerely altruistic) log on and spout profoundly incorrect advice, sometimes out of ignorance and sometimes, it seems, to compensate for uncertainties about their own worthiness. Black and white generalization rule the day in virtually every thread, with people who’ve scored in the SAT’s 99th percentile (my 1600-scale score was 97th percentile; if my SAT II Writing were included, it would convert to a 99th percentile 2400-scale score) being told they just can’t compete. Abstract requirements for “hooks” or Intel Prize recognition pepper almost every “what are my chances” post. Meanwhile, meaningful application material – the essays, for example – is disregarded altogether.</p>
<p>To be fair, I understand this reasoning: while we can never trust someone’s appraisal of their own essays, especially since writing is judged so subjectively and is impossible to quantify, we can make assumptions based on hard statistics, like test scores. That’s fine. But a number of posters extrapolate to ridiculous extremes, declaring, as though endowed with a Dean of Admission’s authority, that someone’s test scores alone do or do not qualify them for admission. Responses frequently overlook objective analysis, eschewing the qualifications and provisos such evaluations demand for dramatic “reject!” proclamations punctuated with incredibly flawed reasoning (“You gotta have at least a 2200 for Harvard to even read your application—unless you’re an athlete/ minority/ whatever,” etc.).</p>
<p>Here’re some real facts:</p>
<p>A) Anything over a 2100 gets you a look. Yes, having a 2400 gives you a better shot, but sub-700 scores in individual subjects are hardly uncommon. Granted, they don’t grace Ivy League campuses quite as often as, say, hubris does, but they aren’t exactly academic sasquatches either. What’s more, those scores in the 640s, 660s, and so forth occur across all demographics, not just among the athletes or underrepresented minorities. White kids – even ones who lack a “hook,” like I did – are not doomed by a single “weak” subject.</p>
<p>B) As the only application component that lets evaluators judge a student in wholly unquantifiable terms, the essay is far and away the most important aspect a school will evaluate. Granted, even a Shakespeare-level composition won’t compensate for a test score well beneath matriculated students’ middle 50% range, but a number of students in the 2050-2250 are chosen for big envelopes over their 2300+ peers because they write thoughtful, articulate essays.</p>
<p>C) Passion means more than perfect grades. Colleges like to admit well-rounded classes—and doing so means accepting a number of students with rough edges who cumulatively form a diverse community. If an applicant demonstrates a clear, intense, and extraordinary passion for, say, chemistry, Yale probably will forgive a student’s 680 Critical Reading score. Likewise, if a student has been a published journalist in a major publication since he was 15 (like I was—sorry, forgot to mention that in the first post), Harvard might overlook a relatively modest math score. An incredible number of students write applications based on what they imagine schools want to hear and admissions officials develop something akin to a sixth sense when it comes to cutting through the B.S. They can differentiate genuine passion from manufactured, calculated efforts. Likewise, they can tell which ostensibly excellent students will just fade into the background of a college campus and which students with somewhat lower marks will contribute vibrantly to the university’s culture. Believe it or not, most schools would prefer someone with a 2150 who’s going to be an energetic force than the 2400-scoring valedictorian who lacks intellectual curiosity and motivation.</p>
<p>In short, my point is this: too many people on this site purport to know things they clearly do not know (feel free to assume I’m part of that group if you’re feeling snarky, but it doesn’t necessarily negate my point) and too many people speak in absolutist tones when proper analysis requires shades of gray. Admission is a funny game. You can deduce trends to your heart’s content, but the truth is, to a very large extent, no one knows anything and the sort of half-assed prognostication that typifies this site shouldn’t be taken seriously.
</p>
<p>ok. several problems with your little experiment</p>
<ol>
<li>this is 2007, not 2002. look anywhere and you'll see that application numbers have skyrocketed and acceptance rate gone down significantly. those asking for chances today are applying to colleges in 2008, when it will be even harder to get into top colleges. </li>
<li>keep in mind too that harvard and princeton have gotten rid of early programs for next year, which would make the process even more difficult.</li>
<li>perhaps you wrote great essays. perhaps you had great recs. with the intention of proving us wrong, your presentation of your stats is inherently and unduly biased</li>
</ol>
<p>Oh, the hilarity of time-delay and the Almighty Refresh button.</p>
<p>So, basically the doomsday prophecies of CC Land's posters are only accurate to a point-hard statistics. After that, it's all up to the essays and passions, correct? </p>
<p>phantom, I applaud you on this move! You definitely had me going (and probably every other CCer). This just shows every applicant to take the advice on this board with a grain of salt (as I have learned, even though the constructive criticism can greatly help sometimes) and not to let the negative adivce deter you in your pursuit of a goal
I hate it when people pretend to know what they're talking about, but really have no clue. But I love it even more when they get brought back down to reality and are told how wrong they really are! Great one phantom and thanks for the advice that is probably so much more reputable than firefox's!</p>