<p>Wait, if SAT's dont matter, GPA shouldn't matter either - just my 760 yen (aka 2 cents)</p>
<p>i agree with jaug1. if your SATs are in the right ball park they never look at them again :) I believe for Columbia its 1250+ . It is obvious that they will not admit applicants with SAT scores in the 1000-1100s (unless spectacular atheltes) Nor will they automatically admit people with 1500+ SAT scores. The admissions committee wants to create a diverse student body. They don't want every student getting 1600's on their SATs, otherwise that would be boring...no?</p>
<p>and I disagree GPA is much stronger factor for the admissions committee. just because one person doesnt perform their best on that one particular day doesnt necessairly mean they are unqualified applicants.</p>
<p>If that was true, then they would admit the same percentage of 1250s as 1600s, and that's simply false.</p>
<p>Check out the graphs on page 29. The data is for Rice University but it's typical of every school. For SAT scores of 1250-1290, the acceptance rate is 12%. For SAT scores of 1550+, the acceptance rate is 67%. Also, the Rice report is making the point that their acceptance rates on the low end are raised artificially by the need to field decent athletic teams. Without athletes, that 1250-1290 acceptance rate would be lower than 10%. That's a massive goddamn difference.</p>
<p>I partially agree with you guys. It's not everything, and they did only accept 67% of those high-enders, because they do want to have a passionate, non-boring class. However, they also want to have a smart class, and the single best method for that is the SAT, because of the S in SAT: standardized (actually, not anymore, but you get my point). Each high school has its own classes, its own idiosyncratic teachers that like to grade lower or higher than they should. The SAT is the same no matter where you take it, and for that reason, it's the single most useful barometer in the admissions process.</p>
<p>Bird, this information comes directly from current admissions committee members and my current college counselor, who used to be a Columbia admissions committee member.</p>
<p>The GPA and strength of schedule is a far more accurate depiction of how well one will do in college than anything else. EC's show what involvement a student will bring to the college, essays allow for an applicant to become far more than numbers on a page and recommendations round out the picture of who an applicant truly is.</p>
<p>The SAT is a test that anyone can study for and beat. To say a student who had the money to afford an expensive tutor versus someone who has to take the test cold is a level playing field is just false. Since the test really isnt a standardized test anymore, for all intents and purposes, then colleges need a better way to discover which students will succeed.</p>
<p>Columbia does try to have a well balanced and intelligent community. This is why their general SAT score is so high, but it is not to say that students will ever be denied or admitted based solely on the SAT.</p>
<p>I would say that the SAT is still the single most important individual part of the application because GPA and strength of schedule have to be considered together, but that would be descending into semantics.</p>
<p>I wasn't thinking of the SAT in those terms, because that's just not how it works where I live. I don't think there's an SAT prep service within an hour of my house. Particularly with the ACT, people sign up, take the test once, maybe take it again if they need a higher score to meet the minimum requirements, and that's it. I suppose that's just a cultural thing; from our school, we've had one student each attend Harvard, Brown, Dartmouth, NYU and Georgetown, and that's it...</p>
<p>I'm not complaining though. The way the system is here, it allows the natural high scorers to stand out much more clearly.</p>
<p>The same methods of having an unfair playing field in the SATs applies to GPA though, too many shades of gray and I guess we'll never know.</p>
<p>wow a simple comment can fan this much reactions?</p>
<p>staticsoliloquy, Columbians love to debate. It is what we do. </p>
<p>Bird, how can the SAT be individual when it is a standardized test for the nation? Doesn't that make it the least individual? Wouldn't the essay section, where an applicant can vibrantly describe their passions and life stories be far more individual?</p>
<p>Btw, on campus we are forming a chamber group. Bassoon, Oboe, Violin, Viola and anything else we can find.</p>
<p>I meant individual as in taken singly, not in the personal sense of the word.</p>
<p>And if it turns out that I'm able to afford Columbia, I'd love to do that. You play oboe, right?</p>
<p>And any particular styles of music? I like (to play) almost anything, but I wasn't made for boring Bach bass lines.</p>
<p>Oh. That explains the logic now. Well, agree to disagree.</p>
<p>Yep. I'm another double reed guy on the smaller one.</p>
<p>Lots of Baroque and Romantic for chamber makes the world go around nicely.</p>
<p>"SAT - 1600 - drunk with sleeping pills the night before and no pencil"</p>
<p>Thatsme, thanks for the modesty. You seem like a really great person. I can really see how not having a pencil would affect your test taking abilities, but what really amazes me is the fact that you were able to get a perfect score by just licking/bleeding on the answer sheet.</p>
<p>
[quote]
EC's, GPA, Essays and Recs are by far and away the biggest part of the application
[/quote]
</p>
<p>thats.. just about the whole application lol. well I guess you could count personal information as a part too lol.</p>
<p>I personally don't think SATs are THE critical factor. It's unfair for a school to base their admissions decision on a score that was generated by a 3-hour test taken by students on a Saturday morning. There have been studies claiming that the SAT is biased in many ways - I liked "The Perfect Score"...it was a good movie :)</p>
<p>What if a student had a set of perfect transcript grades on the last reporting period, with an upward trend throughout, well rounded ECs, great teacher recs, interesting essays BUT a bad SAT score? I personally don't think the SAT can quantitatively measure a student's true ability...isn't that what it was MEANT to do?</p>
<p>this discussion...defeated the point of the thread...go argue this in a new thread...the guy who started this just wanted your stats.</p>
<p>dude, when I applied...I had an interview with an admissions officer and he told me that everyone who applies has great scores, great grades blah blah blah... but he told me that the one thing that will make you stand out from the crowd is your ESSAYS...... it will give the committee a better idea of who you are, more so than any SAT test...</p>
<p>Ahem, yeah, back to the topic</p>
<p>1560/790/760/770 ranked pretty good in my class</p>
<p>I liked my essay, I thought it was neat, and it was the only one out of all of my colleges that I wrote without any input from other people.</p>
<p>EC's GPA Essays and Rec's > SAT scores?</p>
<p>Who would have guessed. I think the most important part is personal information. Or maybe intended major lol...</p>
<p>Anyways, this thread is probably like one of those class discussions in the world philosphy classes, except about SAT scores instead of existentialism</p>
<p>nice, the topic:</p>
<p>SEAS likely RD: 1550/800 Bio/800 Chem/ 800 IIC/740 Writing/3.953 uwgpa, 4.6+ wgpa (not including 1st semester senior year, on which i got 2 Bs)</p>
<p>i enjoyed my essay, lucked out that they didnt ask for my AP scores (a 4 and a 3)</p>
<p>oh and i noticed that no matter how academically qualified applicants were in the early round, anyone who hinted at being athletically involved was rejected, so i left lacrosse out of my columbia app.</p>
<p>My friend and I were wondering, if one (my friend) got deferred early decision round, woul dit be much harder for her to get in the second time around? Also, I'm wondering is it just as hard to get into ED as it would be for RD? I'm just wondering about fairness level</p>
<p>Yeah, I didn't mention track at all</p>
<p>ED is definetely easier usually, but who knows, its usually quirky too</p>