<p>SAT1 2350
SAT2, Math levelII 800, Biology 800, Chemistry 800
GPA 4.0/4.0 no weighting</p>
<p>USACO Gold
USAPO semi-finalist
USABO semi-finalist
Siemens AP Award (notified already, will announce soon)
National AP scholar (9 APs all 5)
Nationa Merit Semi-finalist
[/quote]
</p>
<p>On the MIT discussion, most got deferred. Only few, ones with these kinds of stats, got accepted. Even though I will still apply to MIT... if this is the kind of I'm dealing with then.... I give up.</p>
<p>i think MIT and Cal Tech are those colleges that seriously look at your personality more than smarts. they have enough geeks at their school to last a dozen lifetimes. now they want some unique, fun people who contribute to the community instead of dozing off on their desks. im willing to bet those that got deferred are major geeks who wrote cocky/boring/unoriginal essays. the stats back my hypothesis up. of course i could be wrong =P</p>
<p>CC has a way to make you feel less smart. I just like to justify my (relative) lack of accomplishments to many here as laziness and lack of motivation. :P Keep MIT on your list -- I'm applying to Princeton, and I have nothing spectacular like that kid, and absolutely nothing that really distinguishes myself from other applicants, but who knows?</p>
<p>This place can really make you feel like crap sometimes. Just remember that the majority of Ivy League applicants are actually relatively normal and many get accepted...this place just completely skews our perception.</p>
<p>I know that only extremely serious people actually post on this forum. Except for maybe me. But still, not a great fraction of people on this site gets accepted to those dream colleges. I see people who claimed that they had excellent essays and recs and their Stats and ECs were off the charts in my book and they were still deferred, while those with similar situations - only stats and ECs more similar to mine - typically got rejected.</p>
<p>Again, I've talked with a MIT representative about the admission process and she said that basically, there's an academic base that most applicants typically achieve and anything above that standard is all-bets-off. But that doesn't make too much sense to me. Because consider a person with 2400s 800s 4.0uw and all that across the board, along with extremely great ECs, compared with a person with something like 2160 800 720 740 and minor ECs that doesn't seem to deliver a knockout blow to the officers. Say that the essays, the recs and everything else are all from great to excellent for most people, wihch is probably true. Wouldn't the first person be a more likely candidate than the latter? And from what I sort of understand, there are A LOT of people who are like the first person.</p>
<p>Most kids don't get into their dream schools if they are top 20. There is not as big of a mystery here as many seem to believe there is.</p>
<p>Every college publishes a common data set and the numbers tell the story. The 2160 with average EC's and no hook is highly unlikely to get into MIT or Caltech. Figure 40 plus percent of kids at these schools have hooks. Then do the math to see where the unhooked applicant needs to be for a real shot.</p>
<p>You cannot let people that have exceptionally crazy stats get to you. I know quite a few kids that have had very good stats get denied from HYPSM type schools. Just try your luck and see where it goes. The only way you lose is if you do not try.</p>
<p>I agree with previous posts. People who typically post here have higher scores and are more active in posting their scores... I am 1/450 in my class but only 2090 sat and subject tests took this past nov... don't let these scores get to your head. People get satisfaction out of "machoing", if you will, their scores...</p>
<p>It's true that colleges like MIT and caltech look closely at your personality, etc.
but it's definitely NO coincidence that they accept people in the 99 percentile for test scores (SAT I's, and II's). This means that everything matters.</p>