<p>I hadn't intended on writing further, but some posters seem to have missed some of my points...</p>
<p>1) As some of you have implied, my thesis that stats dont tell the whole story is somewhat obvious. I agree. Yet, somehow, a lot of people on this site seem to overlook it. It makes me think of tourists who walk around Santa Monica asking how they can get to the ocean. Evidently, the seagulls, sand, and road signs to say nothing of the big ass body of water dont clue them in. Theyre somehow just blind to the obvious. Quasi-ineffective, extended metaphors aside, people on here might recognize that grades and test scores and bullet points on a resume dont add up to an admission decision, but they sure as hell dont act like they do. Ive seen innumerable posts where someones turned their cyber-nose up at the sight of a 1400 M+CR. Ive seen countless people declare with absolute conviction that a student in the SATs 98th percentile is unworthy or a reach. And Ive seen posters who pose the what are my chances questions deflate noticeably at these negative, and frankly misleading, remarks. Thats why I posted the fake profile. If my point were so obvious, would so many posters continually ignore the non-quantifiable factors? It seemed to me that some people needed some perspective.</p>
<p>2) It amuses me that some posters seem to consider me a fossil, someone who applied to college during a bygone age, perhaps when students had to avoid dinosaurs on their way to early morning biology labs or philosophy lectures. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, I recognize that college admission has become more competitive over time, and I certainly won't deny that Harvard, for example, has seen a substantial upward shift in its students average SAT scores over the last five years. That said, I'd caution you not to dwell on this point ad nauseum. Is it possible that the colleges to which I was accepted would deny someone applying today with a profile and essay collection identical to mine? Absolutely. Is it likely? Maybe, although we have no way of knowing for sure-- and that's part of my point. A small number of outstanding applicants (the Intel Prize winners, etc.) have a better-than-average shot, but, by and large, admission is a very arbitrary game. We can offer applicants in these forums analysis based on traditional statistics, but we should not speak in the absolutist terms that so frequently appear.</p>
<p>Furthermore, Im not convinced, applicant boom notwithstanding, that all elite colleges have become markedly more competitive when it comes to test scores. Lets take Stanford as an example, since their website provides a delightfully thorough common data set.</p>
<p>In the 2002-03 figures, Stanford received 18,599 applications and approved 12.7% of them. Admitted students middle 50% range on the SAT was 1350-1540. 24% of them had Math scores in the 600-699 range. Thats a quarter of the class. I doubt a quarter of the class fell under the recruited athlete/ underrepresented minority/ special case umbrella.</p>
<p>For, 2003-04, 38 more people applied and the admit rate remained almost the same: 12.5%. The middle 50% broadened on both side for a 1340-1560 range. 25.1% of students had a 600-699 SAT Math. So, despite the fact admission to Stanford was marginally more competitive in this set than it was the year prior, the figures suggest test scores didnt become a bigger factor. To be fair, without more extensive data we cant conclude that average SAT scores didnt increase for applicants lacking some mitigating circumstances.</p>
<p>For 2004-05, the 600-699 students dropped to 22.4% of the admitted class while the middle 50% become a bit more competitive at 1370-1550. 19,172 students applied, though the admit rate (perhaps in anticipation of a so-so matriculation yield) actually went up to 12.97%.</p>
<p>We might conclude the 2004-05 demonstrates how high test scores have become more essential, but the following year actually saw the test numbers ease a little; 23% of students had 600-699 Math scores and the middle 50% was 1360-1550. 20,195 people applied and the admit rate dropped to 12.0%.</p>
<p>What do these statistics tell us? Well, despite a substantial increase in the annual number of applicants, the statistical profile of admitted students didnt change much; the four-year averages (23.8% of students in the 600-699 range, a middle 50% of 1355-1550) are only a hair higher than 2002-03 figures. Granted, this trend isnt true at all schoolsHarvard, as I mentioned, has stacked the odds against sub-1400 M+CR applicants. Even so, these numbers demonstrate that, even in the face of increased competition, statistics do not tell the whole story and should not be the dominant measure by which we gauge applicants chances. </p>
<p>3) My reasoning was not purely anecdotal. Im well aware that my case alone does not prove ANYTHING. Maybe the schools made a mistake and accidentally stamped my application with accept rather than reject. Maybe my recommendations put me over the top. Maybe I wrote amazing essays. Maybe I just got lucky. </p>
<p>But, as I mentioned, I know what kinds of test scores and accomplishments many of my fellow students managed. Since I worked as a Resident Assistant, I also learned something about more recent admits profilesand the results werent much different.</p>
<p>Most importantly, though, I have EXPERIENCE WORKING IN UNDERGRADUATE ADMISSIONS. Therefore, the facts I posted previously come not only from my own experience but also the practices employed by the school. Those practices confirmed that I was not some anomaly who somehow infiltrated the Ivory Tower but one of literally thousands of applicants whose sub-1500 M+CR didnt disqualify them. As I said, anything over 2100 suggests a student has the intellectual vitality to succeed within and contribute to a given universitys community. From there, holistic review contributes more to final decisions than does the difference between a 740 Math and a 670 Math. Has it occurred to you that people with 2300+ SATs might be admitted in higher number not only because the score itself is so important but because people who are more passionate, write better essays, achieve more, etcetera also tend to score better one the SAT? </p>
<p>4) The advantage high SATs give an applicant needs to be put in perspective. After all, when were talking about schools whose reputations are based, in part, on the number of people they turn down, isnt almost EVERYONE a reach? Yeah, Andover-educated kids with a 1500+ CR+M might get in at a pretty high rate, but the vast majority of ALL applicants have a big hill to climb, so its silly to act like a huge gulf separates the 1570-scoring haves from the 1420-scoring have nots. For example, many elite colleges deny anywhere from 50-60% of applicants with PERFECT SAT scores. Clearly, a 40-50% shot at admission is a lot better than a 7-10% chance, but these statistics show that quantifiable figures alone do not an admission decision make. Whats more, a number of studies show that, in certain years at certain elite schools, the admit rate is actually LOWER among people in the 1540-1580 CR+M range than applicants in the 1450-1539 group. Why? Well, strategic admission has a lot to do with it, to be frank, since the top tier colleges are often looking to improve their matriculation rate by admitting people they perceive as likely to attend. But this trend also occurs because many applicants with more modest test scores nevertheless manage more impressive overall applications once the more subjective factors are included. </p>
<p>5) Yes, as some of you have pointed out, my post doesnt qualify as an experiment in the definitional sensebut that sorta supports my overall point. This isnt a science and people shouldnt posit what are my chances responses that speak with science-like certainty. </p>
<p>Okay, I'm descending from the soapbox. People who think Im wrong or too old to know how hard it is for today's young pups, sorry to have wasted your time. People whove enjoyed what Ive written, thanks for the compliments. People who are wondering whether they have a legit shot with 2100ish SATs, you do if your application shows passion and intellectual vitalitydont let anyone tell you otherwise.</p>