<p>it was about a student - all As, very bright student during high school. he applied to Stanford University.
PS: Newspaper didn't mention about SATIIs, ECs, etc. Just assume they were above average. </p>
<p>he got a 1590 in the old SATI.
he retook it and got 1600 perfect score. </p>
<p>but guess what? he was rejected. no, not waitlisted. Rejected. </p>
<p>You know why?</p>
<p>The Undergraduate Admissions Officers said this (based on newspaper) <em>briefly summarizing</em> that:</p>
<p>this student was rejected because the adcoms thought this student was too fixed on GRADES, only grades and GRADES. they thought " why would he be still unhappy with a 1590? and when they apparently saw this student retake the test and get a 1600, instead of impressing the adcoms, it was totally the opposite. </p>
<p>they concluded, as stated above, that this student was only concerned about grades, and they said that instead of studying again to get the rest 10 points, he could have read a book or watch a movie. the student's craving for perfect grades eventually gave a bad impression to the adcoms.</p>
<p>You shouldn't be suprised. It is awfully pretentious for someone to retake a 1590 for a 1600. I would assume that this student had awful if not non-existant ecs. If he was extremely active in the community, they would not get an impression that he/she was obsessed with grades/scores.</p>
<p>I dunno, is it fair for someone to be rejected because they have better scores than others? Just because they are too focused on academics-which is what college is mostly about?</p>
<p>well, once you (general "you") get out of college, are you going to be studying for tests and writing papers for the rest of your life? No, you need people/life skills, personality, and the ability to use your knowledge for things other than what is confined to a classroom. If all someone has done is strive for perfection, even minute and trivial perfection down to the details that don't matter and won't matter in five years (after taking the SAT), then...well..that is unfortunate.</p>
<p>his app probably had other more significant flaws...a 1600 is never a guaranteed admission...this year at my hs a 1600 got deferred scea and a 1590 got rejected...sat score is not the most important factor in the app so i'm guessing retaking a 1590 for a 1600 would neither guarantee nor preclude admission</p>
<p>Well, you see, This student is obviously well off if he is willing to spend the money to retake a test for such little benefit. Therefore, he must have been acting in the best interest of others. I mean by giving his extra 41$ to the College Board, they can help pay for another student who can't afford to take the Sat's. Sadly in this case, this students phillanthropy has gone unrewarded and he was rejected. How disapointing.</p>
<p>kevster1001 said just did not mention the ecs...
maybe he has some ecs..possibly
if i was one of officers..i would offer him lots of scholarship..
there is no way i can reject him</p>
<p>You know what would have been horrible? What if his parents had made him retake the test; you never know, some parents get EXTREMELY caught up in the whole college thing. I know a friend's parents who put a lot of pressure on her to get exceptional SATs, etc. </p>
<p>Of course, he could just be really pompous. It's much more likely he did it on his own accord than his parents'.</p>
<p>you people on this thread are jumping to a lot of unfair conclusions...let me relate a personal anecdote</p>
<p>i took the old sat and got a 1590 in hopes of not taking the new one...however i found out that in order to qualify for money from national merit i had to take a writing section (i hadn't taken the satii writing before it was eliminated)...so i took the new sat and got a 2400...i wasn't being pompous and i wasn't wasting 50 dollars...i had to invest that money to qualify for 2500 dollars from nmsc...i hope adcoms won't rush to the same conclusions you did</p>