<p>I saw the 'I got in without a x GPA' and I was curious as to what level of colleges you guys got into without an extreme SAT score.</p>
<p>I've seen way too many people on here thinking about retaking a score of 2360. </p>
<p>So what kind of colleges did you guys get into with a more realistic SAT score?</p>
<p>The better question this year seems to be: where didn’t you get in with a 2360.</p>
<p>Lol Waverly! I like your thinking. Twould be funnier if it wasn’t happening to my kiddo, though.</p>
<p>If only a high SAT score could guarantee entry, then we’d be set. ):</p>
<p>I made a 1910 on the SAT and got into Williams College (Early Write), Northwestern University, University of Pittsburgh, Duke, University of Notre Dame and Loyola University New Orleans (full-ride). </p>
<p>Numbers aren’t everything. :)</p>
<p>What was your hook kgoodwin?</p>
<p>^Very perceptive/knowledgeable! And any member who cares to can look at kgoodwin’s posting history to find out the answer.</p>
<p>This clearly shows the folly of this type of thread that only looks at a single application factor.</p>
<p>I have an 1870 SAT and I got in to Vassar and Wesleyan and I got likely letters from Brown and Duke. I wrote my common app essay about being more than a number so I’m sure that certainly helped my case. I’m am pretty solid proof that SATs are not everything.</p>
<p>I’m not sure how to take your comment entomom but I am a URM. However, I’m not going to make a big deal about it because I know there’s more to me than just my skin color. I’ve worked hard throughout high school to get where I am now.</p>
<p>Congrats kgoodwin on your accomplishments!!! Your hard work paid off. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m saying that there’s no one factor that can be taken from an application that defines an admissions decision.</p>
<p>Look at my posting history, my kids are Hispanic and also worked hard and got into excellent colleges. However, it would be disingenuous of me to act as if being URM is of little or no consequence in college admissions. </p>
<p>Anyone who thinks that knowing one statistic about an applicant is helpful in understanding college admissions is either misinformed or naive.</p>
<p>^ I agree. For people who get in with not the usual stats, there is 10 other things that we don’t know about them. And incoming seniors take just a ‘1800 got me into Stanford’ and then apply to colleges which are high reaches thinking some magic will get them in.</p>
<p>There was another post in the Stanford thread while back and it turned out the guy was actually a recruited athlete but it sounded he just got in despite his ‘low scores’ (when he was clearly recruited).</p>
<p>Full disclosure.</p>
<p>Anyone who posts here with a hook and states that numbers aren’t everything is not “helping” ANYONE. </p>
<p>Also, anyone reading this thread who doesn’t check posting histories is lazy AND foolish.</p>
<p>True, there are very few cases where being admitted into a school is decided on one factor. But in some of the top schools, you need to have almost all qualities they’re looking for to gain admittance.</p>
<p>Even if you’re the valedictorian, 5.0 GPA, President of 31 clubs, Nobel Peace Prize winner (I’m exaggerating a bit)… a 1950 on the SAT might give you an automatic rejection from HYPS.</p>
<p>In order to gain admittance into top schools, you need to meet all their requirements, whether stated or not stated. Missing one major factor, a high SAT score for example, may ruin your chances at a ‘top’ school forever.</p>
<p>I was just curious to see if anyone here got into a very top school while missing a major factor, the SAT score.</p>
<p>I didn’t post here thinking I was helping anyone. I saw the title and felt the need to comment. And I looked at your posting history after seeing your first response and noticed your posts in the Hispanic threads, which only confused me more on if your response was meant to come off slightly condescending. When I said, “Numbers aren’t everything,” I meant exactly what you stated: There is no one factor that can be taken from an application that defines an admissions decision. </p>
<p>I know the fact that I’m black probably helped some. But I also know that I’m a darn good writer, a good student, and I care about my community. That’s what I mean when I said, “Numbers aren’t everything.” I was relating to myself not trying to cast some wide net of hope for everyone else.</p>
<p>Anyone who thinks that this approach is helpful, pardon me for pointing out some realities. I’ve posted the caveats and will let you all carry on now.</p>
<p>
While most would agree that this is not the wisest choice, can you blame them? With nearly all of the elite universities having admit rates below 15% and quite a few of them below 10%, students are looking to improve their applications any way they can. </p>
<p>Take Brown as an example. Despite scores of 33-35 on the ACT being perfectly good scores (~2200-2340 on the SAT), people scoring a 36 have an acceptance rate nearly 2 1/2 times that of those in the 33-35 range. Yes, students with perfect scores on the ACT have other factors going for them, as test scores often correlate to strong academic performance, extracurriculars, etc. Still, one has the nagging suspicion that perfect scores get a boost, possibly a large one.</p>
<p>Brown isn’t alone; one of the few useful/interesting pieces of information that came out of the Revealed Preferences study is that acceptance rates rise smoothly with increasing test scores at top colleges. </p>
<p>You see similar things with class rank. Although Penn does not divulge that information anymore, only a couple of years ago valedictorian applicants had an admit rate double that of students only in the top 5% and six times that of students only in the top 10%.</p>
<p>Entomom is correct that anecdotal stories help no one. There are too many factors, and for every student who gets in with a 28 ACT, at least 20 others didn’t. Successful applicants with low test scores likely have at least one other factor working for them – URM, legacy, developmental admit, athletic recruit, etc. For example, athletes get a distinct boost at the Ivies:
</p>
<p>only a URM or recruited athlete could get into a top school with an SAT under 2000. </p>
<p>Universities should be ashamed that they would reject highly qualified applicants who, with the resources that the college offers, could become researchers or nobel prize winners who would actually contribute to the world, in place of kids who play obscure sports that no one cares about (squash, crew, swimming, etc…) or who are a certain race or skin color</p>
<p>i mean come on…this girl lacks basic comprehension skills and can’t even understand that a person is not insulting her, yet she was admitted to the top universities in the country because of her race. are you kidding me?</p>
<p>I never said she was insulting me, just that I was confused of her intentions. I later when on to even say that yes, I agreed with her, in that there’s more than a test score or a skin color that goes into an admissions decision. </p>
<p>Other than what you see on a screen, you know nothing else about me. However, I do have the comprehension skills to understand that you have insulted me.</p>
<p>But that’s perfectly okay. What you say doesn’t change what’s already happened. Besides, were a person goes to college, shouldn’t define their potential to contribute to the world. That’s a very sad way of thinking.</p>
<p>Sorry, kgoodwin, but I don’t buy what you’re saying. I can’t believe your essays are THAT compelling to move LOTS of schools like Williams, Duke, Northwestern and Notre Dame to admit you while overlooking your significantly subpar SAT scores. If schools were to admit every kid with great essays (and according to most kids on CC, their essays are terrific), but substandard scores, boy, would you see a quick drop in their national rankings (and you know that would never happen!). So you know it’s more than that, and don’t tell me it’s the so-called “holistic” approach to admissions. The holistic approach is such garbage because it’s a tool adcoms use to justify admitting lower qualified applicants. The holistic approach doesn’t apply to unhooked kids with slightly lower stats. It applies to the athlete, URM or anyone else (legacies included) who doesn’t measure up to their standards and schools desperately want to admit them for whatever reason. The adcoms throw around the term when it suits them. I’m beginning to put admissions officers in the same league as politicians – they tell you only what you want to hear and will lie directly to your face.</p>