<p>Sure. All the more reason why I think the very few who’re extremely hardcore about their studies should be accepted virtually without question. Normal people are fine – they are, after all, normal. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, because a lot of what someone needs to learn isn’t just in books, and can’t effectively be learned through them. This is why I think such students I speak of should get to interact with top academic faculty, which reside in many top schools. </p>
<p>There’s the class of students who’d prefer those schools you suggest, Northstarmom, and yet there’s the other class of such students (e.g. a friend of mine) who wouldn’t consider those schools because they explicitly want a <em>BIG</em> top school. This friend of mine is a theoretical CS person, and really saw himself at only 3 schools: Stanford, Berkeley, and MIT.</p>
<p>"This is why I think such students I speak of should get to interact with top academic faculty, which reside in many top schools. </p>
<p>There’s the class of students who’d prefer those schools you suggest, Northstarmom, and yet there’s the other class of such students (e.g. a friend of mine) who wouldn’t consider those schools because they explicitly want a <em>BIG</em> top school. This friend of mine is a theoretical CS person, and really saw himself at only 3 schools: Stanford, Berkeley, and MIT."</p>
<p>There are plenty of other big top schools with excellent faculty, schools that would probably welcome a pure intellectual with high stats. One needn’t go to the Ivies or schools your friend was interested in to find excellent faculty.</p>
<p>However, in general, it’s far easier to have close relationships with excellent faculty at LACs. At universities, senior faculty is more likely to have close interactions with grad students. </p>
<p>LACs tend to have faculty who are more interested in teaching than are faculty at large universities.</p>
<p>Yes, but a big difference between a big and small school is that the big one offers more options in terms of academics. I think that’s what my friend meant. Actually I happen to be of the same opinion – I’d rather go to a big undergraduate school than a small one, and I certainly care that the department I’m majoring in is top notch. There are courses and seminars (in volume and type) that are offered at schools like mine, and also at Harvard, which aren’t offered at smaller schools. </p>
<p>I think the rule is – if the kinds of opportunities available at a big school attract you, then go there, and if your primary goal is to meet faculty who really care about fostering your skills, go to smaller schools. Depends on preference. </p>
<p>Generally, there are also senior faculty who are willing to talk to undergraduates. Their primary goal is to research, but I don’t think one can say they’re at all blind to undergraduates. For instance, Mollie of the MIT threads frequently states that many MIT faculty were very receptive to nurturing its undergraduates who showed enthusiasm.</p>
<p>I disagree. It is one type of measurement of intelligence and intelligence, believe it or not, is an important aspect of life. Of course getting an actual 2400 on a test is no accomplishment, but the fact that you achieved that score shows potential in problem solving situation, analyzation, etc</p>
<p>Did anyone else get good feeling knowing HYP will reject you with those scores and your a jackass? I know it happens all the time in medical school.</p>
<p>Might be a good time to reopen this thread. I have a perfect 2400 that I got the first and only time I took the test, May 09.</p>
<p>According to the SAT site, only 300 or so test-takers score 2400 (single-sitting) out of about 1.5 million who take the test.</p>
<p>I applied to 13 schools. Excellents recs and essays, good EC’s, AP/Honors all the way with an extra courseload and 2 college summer courses. Varsity sport 3 years for a nationally ranked club rowing team and some interesting out of school interests. Also a 4.05 GPA (our school does not weight Eng or Hist classes).</p>
<p>I’m a white female from Massachusetts, v good suburban public school. No hooks at all.</p>
<p>So far:</p>
<p>Accepted: UMass Amherst, Smith, George Washington
Rejected: Amherst, Swarthmore
Waitlist: UVA, Pomona, Claremont-McKenna</p>
<p>Waiting on Harvard, Penn, Brown, Dartmouth, and Yale.</p>
<p>As far as I’m concerned I dont have a prayer. But if anyone is still interested in this thread I will post the results on Friday and maybe (sadly) prove the OP wrong.</p>
<p>I didnt consider ANY of the schools I applied to safeties (other than UMass) so I dont think I “deserve” a spot at any of them, but I didn’t expect to be rejected/waitlisted at every damn one of the 11 Top 25 schools I applied to.</p>
<p>The SAT is in itself a test that can be interpretted many ways. But to all those naysayers, getting a 2400 on the SAT is no laughing matter and was probably not done with luck alone and took some work. However, anyone with 2200, 2300+ probably put the same effort in, one question that your mind slipped on can make or break that 2400, so not getting to it doesn’t indicate someone as a failure.</p>
<p>And for those with 2400, 4.0, etc. who didn’t get it, well there are many who did and the few who didn’t are talked about most to keep people like them from getting a big head and thinking they have an automatic in. Plus, those that didn’t get in might have had dismal essays, poor teacher recs(due to arrogant or otherwise bad behaviour), they may not have any substantial ecs that they were commited to. Saying “i was a member of the Academic team” does not equate to saying, “I activley participated in competitions with the Academic Team and we have placed multiple times”. So, the admissions process is trifold, and sometimes the other parts don’t equate out. Despite looking for passion, colleges are not necessarily looking for a “passion for test taking”, so usually these rejected perfects may not show much of a passion for anything except getting into collge. And thus ends my speech/rant.</p>
<p>Tito77, yup. And I’m really not bragging or trying to put too much weight on the SATI – though I do think my essays and EC’s were strong (less strong than many, stronger than many) and I know my recs were glowing (I read them). I’m not an un-passionate person and I think that came across in my apps (volunteer for political campaigns, community sailing etc). From reading the forums here I know there are MANY applicants with similar or slightly lower test scores and much more impressive non-academic and/or extra-curricular activities. But since “2400 and rejected from all the ivies” is the topic of the thread I thought I’d post my experience so far.</p>
<p>It is humbling, frustrating, confusing, and sometimes infuriating. </p>
<p>Also, fyi my family put pretty much zero pressure on me in high school. I was free to choose whatever courses I wanted to do; they never pressured me on EC’s at ALL. Now I think they wish they DID do “Mom-Managing” of me as I probably didnt make all the “right” choices for getting into the Ivy League.</p>
<p>So, I’ll probably never know, but I dont think I came across as either a mindless grade grubber or a very boring person.</p>
<p>FBBG, it truly sucks when you have work very hard and done everything right only to lose out for being too perfect. It also doesn’t help that you are a white female from the Northeast. There are so many variables that twist & change from one admission’s year to the next that it is impossible to predict what “they” want. I can only hope that you do get accepted to one or more of your remaining schools as you have proven yourself a serious, hardworking, well rounded student. If you don’t get into any ivies , try not to take it personally, getting into top colleges has become quite a game in which applicants are merely pawns.</p>
<p>I only know of one case similar to what’s been described by the OP.</p>
<p>1600/1600, 3/250, rejected by HYPSM and two other top schools, currently attending his safety.</p>
<p>FBBG–sorry about your misfortune. You could be the victim of yield protection–top colleges will avoid making offers to the strongest applicants knowing that these applicants will be accepted to very best schools.</p>
<p>Hope all works out well for you in the end.</p>
<p>I’m a 4.0 2370 Val with decent EC’s who was rejected at Stanford and MIT. I think too many people put the blame on AA and other irrelevant factors. It’s the fit that schools look for, especially Stanford and MIT, and I think my essays failed to reflect that I was a good fit for them. Truth to be told, my essays reflected who I was, so I guess it means I wasn’t a good fit. I think I’ll do better at HYP this thursday though, but only time will tell. </p>
<p>For all the other perfect/high scoring 4.0 vals of the future: write essays that reflect who you are and let the process take care of itself. You can get help from pros or others and sculpt your essays to match specific schools, but I think if you just apply to a bunch of great schools and show who you are, then the right “fits” will accept you. Best of luck everybody!</p>
<p>Sorry to hear all that, FBBG. It really does seem at some point that adcoms fall into their own trap of “we want people, not student-robots” and over-interpret what’s given to them. Can we really trust them not to fall into the misconceived but all-too-human pitfalls of interpretation? I find it hard to believe that all of the schools that waitlisted/rejected you truly had thousands of more-qualified candidates. On the other hand, I’m not so sure the schools that waitlisted you did it for yield reasons. LACs would be the kinds of schools that have perhaps “over-interpretive” adcoms who try to create a unique student body. And UVa, from what I’ve heard, is a tough cookie to get into OOS (and I’m not sure state schools are even allowed to use yield protection). With all this said, I would keep the hope alive for just these two probably agonizing days. I’d really like to see it turn out alright, especially because I myself share a similar academic profile with you!</p>
<p>Perhaps, looking at some of your other posts, your grades might have brought you down a little. Regardless, you still probably should have done better so far in your admissions outcomes.</p>
<p>monstor et al, thanks for the supportive words! I really agree with your post. Agreed about the grades, but it stinks because my school, for political reasons, wont offer official honors weighted courses in any English or Humanities courses, but they DO have “tracked” courses in those departments that all the “Honors kids” take. So you take a super hard ConLaw class that many people flunk out of or dont even try, and an A is no better than in a fun elective like ceramics. Sorry, whine over, but my GPA would have been a 4.2+ with weighted Eng and Hist classes.</p>
<p>But whatevs, I’m sure I’ll be second guessing every little flaw, whether they were real or not, for a long time!</p>