<p>i see big steve still hasn't fully recovered from my chancing him. my brutal truth has seemingly rendered him incoherent!</p>
<p>I found that thread.
Saw the claws coming out a bit on that one. </p>
<p>So why do you do it?
Kicks?
That's why I'd do it.</p>
<p>Ok, so this is what I'm gathering from the bonfire that is this thread:</p>
<p>1) Essays are t3h 1mp0rt4ntz0rs because they are the only window that adcoms have into your soul; therefore, they are extremely important in admissions decisions.
2) Passionate newbie > Tired old veterans at sex...eeding when it comes to college admissions.
3) Times have changed; although the OP's post was clearly a strong application that would have definitely put him in the running today, the competition is simply fiercer than in years past and thus the experiment may be slightly skewed.
4) People should not make complete decisions based on mere hard statistics; the entire package must be ascertained for a complete application review and conclusion; this thread is, for the most part, moot.
5) Life was better in 2002.</p>
<p>what exactly did you prove....that someone can get into h and co with those number? congrats....it is unlikely to happen for the vast majority of people (especially 5 yrs later). your anecdotal evidence means accounts for little....and your assumption as to how much knowledge some ccers have is also misguided. of course hard stats do not guaranteee anything...but they can give an idea as to how someone will do...and people can do whatever the hell they want. the fact of the matter is that someone w/ 1400 sats would have little chance at harvard admission..and someone with higher stats owuld have a greater chance....sure they could get in with an "awesome all around application." congrats on having one, and congrats on your "experiment."</p>
<p>This was an interesting experiment, but it does have a few flaws. Like many before have mentioned, college admission has become much more competitive in the past few years, and I really don't know if one case is enough to prove anything. I have heard that the Ivies are looking for certain types of students, and my application efforts have been focused on just being who I am and hoping that my personality is the right one. I think if you get rejected from a school, it is most likely for a good reason. Perhaps you just don't fit there, or maybe you would sink academically. All I can say is there is no science, and thus there cannot be experiments.</p>
<p>I agree with those who say it's not a real experiment. It proves little, if anything. 5 years ago admissions were a whole lot easier than they are now. For instance, according to a book (was it A for Admission?), Princeton accepted over 90% of all EDers with a 1600/1600. While we don't know what the exact statistics are today, a good estimate would be 60-70%. Also, the author might have biased his stats to make them look worse than they really are. I do agree with a few basic points though. If you have over a 2000 SAT, they will look at your app, however for you to stand a substantial chance, you would want over 2200 at least.</p>
<p>Also, next time, keep the thread going for a little longer. I would have loved to hear what others would have said about your chances.</p>
<p>You have a good, but not outstanding chance, at getting accepted to Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and Princeton. Definitely above average though. If you could raise the SAT and SAT II scores a little bit that would certainly help. Either way, just apply to all four schools and there is a good chance you could get accepted to at least one.</p>
<p>Lol someone needs to read the thread all the way through first...</p>
<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>
<p>^^ the entire post can be summarized by two words: don't listen to others</p>
<p>an advice of which i think, personally, is eloquently put but worthless in value. people ask for chances to see how they are faring and how their application lists are. well, if they aren't gonna listen to others, why post? this argument becomes moot</p>
<p>oh, and i do think you are a piece of ancient artwork. perhaps a little decrepit. pulling some stanford data (that uses 2004 numbers) to predict 2008 chances...</p>
<p>but i mustn't sound so vicious. i applaud phantom2008's good intentions are righteous heart</p>
<p>The point isn't that they shouldn't listen to others. If someone comes in here with a 2070, it can certainly be useful for them to hear, "That's a good score. You might consider taking it again. Most successful Harvard admits are over 2200." Or, something like, "That scores a little low for the schools you're looking at. Try to raise it. If you don't improve that much, really focus on your essays. Let your application express how passionate you are, not that you just want to go to a good school, or that you were just a good student." It is NOT useful when people get replies like, "2150 isn't competitive" or "Reject." My point has more to do with people differentiating useful advice from bad advice.</p>
<p>i think we might actually agree in principle... but i don't believe in euphemism so folks feel better about themselves. if they post chances thread, they should be mature enough to handle possibilities that replies tell them they'll be rejected. you also need to understand that most of those asking for chances are rather high on ego (yes, high, **on **ego). an euphemistic "ooooh you might want to possibly perhaps maybe improve your sats just a tiny little bit you'll do better" will do nothing to let them realize that they're not nearly as impressive as they have been told by their proud parents and teachers</p>
<p>and honestly, i think actual rejections come april hurt MUCH more than CC posters telling chances-askers that they'll be rejected. these realistic appraisals only curbs their unrealistic downfall and prevent the pain to be excessive</p>
<p>I understand your perspective-- and I think it's fair in a lot of ways. Yes, a lot of people in these forums (perhaps me included?) need to be taken down a few pegs. And, yes, it makes no sense to give someone false hope, since that might make April's small-envelope-sting all the more painful. I don't have a problem with people being honest or even blunt; I DO have a problem with people giving bad advice, using faulty reasoning (i.e. the black and white "HYPS won't admit a white non-athlete with a 2050" stuff), or omitting important qualifiers-- i.e. notes about the essay's impact, etc. But, yeah, I think we do basically agree in principle. And despite the fact my frustrations with these forums prompted me to post, I do have to admit it's much more civil in here than it is elsewhere in cyberspace. Hooray for polite discourse :)</p>
<p>i love you too</p>
<p>"an euphemistic "ooooh you might want to possibly perhaps maybe improve your sats just a tiny little bit you'll do better" will do nothing to let them realize that they're not nearly as impressive as they have been told by their proud parents and teachers"</p>
<p>And sadly this arrives at to the conclusion that all CCer's are arrogant, narcissitic people with >2000 SAT's that just want to hear they they can do it. What about the CCer's with scores <1500? do they merit the same "improve you score" crap that we give the 2000er's?</p>
<p>this is a fantastic topic, just wanted to bump it</p>
<p>phantom, I’m really glad you posted this. Sometimes the cut-throatedness (don’t think that’s a word) of this site is really quite disturbing.</p>
<p>I just have to stress the fact that college admissions in 2008 is MORE COMPETITIVE than college admissions in 2002. Six years is actually quite a long time.</p>
<p>ALSO, there are many considerations to take into account that we haven’t addressed. Most importantly: ** What kind of high school did you go to? Did you live in North Dakota or NYC? What kind of stats are required for somebody from your HS to matriculate to an elite ivy?** Those stats would not pass muster for somebody from Exeter or TJHSST.</p>
<p>^ Admissions since 2002 only have become a little more competitive, but not significantly. 5-10% drops are sometimes big but not really that ‘big’</p>
<p>I think the whole post is bogus. In a word – prove it.</p>