<p>in the rare case that you'll actually get in (which, i know, is incredibly unlikely), is it worth it? or are you destined to be at the bottom/struggle based on your high school test scores?</p>
<p>If you really want to go to that school and you can pay the application fee, then why wouldn’t you? You can decide not to go, if you do get in, but you can’t get in if you never apply.</p>
<p>Also, test scores aren’t everything. If the school does accept you, they wouldn’t do it if they think you’re going to flunk out.</p>
<p>No. If your stats really fall in the bottom quartile, most of those are athletes or kids with some accomplishments and academic/community challenges they took on which make up for stats.</p>
<p>Was your chance thread accurate? What’s the unweighted gpa? You said ECs are mediocre (what’s that translate to- maybe you underestimate?)</p>
<p>Yes, my chance thread was accurate. My school doesn’t tell us unweighted GPAs…I have no idea how it works. My ECs really are mediocre; I know this for a fact. It’s mostly volunteering, which is pretty boring. </p>
<p>Yeah, I guess it’s not worth it. I think I’m already applying to too many schools, anyway.</p>
<p>Low income, first gen, URM, 30 ACT - yes, it’s worth it to any school you want to apply to as you probably have a legitimate shot with that set of attributes. If you were a white, female, non-athlete, from New York, top school, high income, non-legacy, I’d say no, but that’s not you. </p>
<p>Send it in.</p>
<p>Colleges with high acceptances rates have a bottom quartile. A bottom quartile score at these schools doesn’t necessarily mean a low chance of acceptance. There are also schools that don’t place high importance on test scores. Some are even test optional. The chance of acceptance for a lower test score can vary tremendously at different colleges.</p>
<p>There are many portions of the app besides test scores, and holistic colleges generally look at a combination of factors, rather than having a strict cutoff for test scores. Of course if the rest of the app is also weak, then your chance of acceptance is generally going to be low. However, the only way to insure you have zero chance is not to try. If it’s a top choice for you, and you don’t have a problem with the time and cost of the app, I’d go for it. The other thread mentions that you are a first-generation URM. Note that this is a big hook, and overall score distributions may not be a good reflection of chance of acceptance for you.</p>
<p>When I applied to colleges, my combined M+V SAT score was in the bottom quartile at every college I applied to (It was not necessary to apply to safeties since I had a non-binding EA acceptance. I am basing 25th percentile on the engineering school, rather than college as a whole, when applicable). My verbal score was in the bottom 1% at many of the college I applied to. Nevertheless, I was accepted to Stanford, MIT, and ivies without hooks – all but one of the colleges I applied to. I’m glad I didn’t let weak stats stop me from applying.</p>
<p>thanks, MrMom! </p>
<p>and Data10, thanks for sharing your story! that gives me a lot of hope, actually. i’m kind of embarrassed of my counselor seeing that i’m applying to this school with an abysmal acceptance rate, but i have low expectations and nothing to lose. i guess i’ll do it! and do you mind telling where you ended up going and if you did well there?</p>
<p>You may find volunteering boring (uh, really?,) but it’s what I meant about reevaluating whether your activities are truly mediocre. This could make a difference, depending, and is why I asked.</p>
<p>For the record, these are the schools from the chance thread: “Barnard, Boston College. Bryn Mawr, ollege of the Holy Cross, Macalester, Mount Holyoke, Rhodes, Scripps, Smith, Wellesley.”</p>
<p>OP, you can approximate unweighted if you have the letter grades. (You should, if you want to evaluate your position at these schools.) You should also have run the Net Price Calculators.</p>
<p>
I went to Stanford and did well. I was accepted to 2 grad programs in engineering at Stanford as a co-term, prior to finishing my undergrad. I saw in the other thread that you had an unbalanced ACT, with a 99th percentile English and lower math/science. I was the other way around, with a 99th percentile math and lower verbal. Being an engineering major, the math score was probably more relevant, however, I never felt like I couldn’t get an A in subjective classes. Another inspirational story from a Stanford student with lower test scores is at <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/425882-first-generation-urm-male-first-plan-messed-up-needs-your-help-11.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/425882-first-generation-urm-male-first-plan-messed-up-needs-your-help-11.html</a> .</p>
<p>Did you check with the colleges’ own web sites?</p>
<p>Using Mac as an example, I wouldn’t say you fall in the bottom quartile. The composite 30 puts you above that and the E 34/35 is at the top. You may want to recheck. You should check. And try to calculate gpa. As in Data’s case, your direction can matter- assuming you are not STEM, right?</p>
<p>thanks for the info, Data!</p>
<p>i didn’t mean that volunteering is boring, i meant that compared to the ECs of most CCers, it might ~look boring. yeah, i have my transcript for all three years, so what scale would i use? just look up a standard gpa scale? i went through the net price calculators for all of those schools and they all gave me good estimates, which is why i kept them on my list. </p>
<p>also, i wasn’t talking about any of the schools on the list in that thread. i was talking about one harder to get into, one whose student profile i checked. all of those i feel i have a decent shot at because my ACT isn’t actually at the very bottom of the admitted students’ range.</p>
<p>and yeah, definitely not going into STEM.</p>
<p>i calculated my unweighted, and it’s 3.80. i had a lot of Bs and even a C+ freshman year. the weighted isn’t much higher as of junior year because i didn’t get that many weighted classes on my schedule. i signed up for every single one i could, and i have more now, but i’m worried that looks bad…</p>
<p>MrMom, this sentence: "If you were a white, female, non-athlete, from New York, top school, high income, non-legacy, I’d say no, but that’s not you. " I know you meant it lightly but does it have an element of truth to it? That is, that it would be the hardest composite group to gain entry to a top college?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Were your stats really weak? In other posts, didn’t you mention taking a significant number of courses (more advanced than frosh level or what AP tests may be accepted for) at a local state university while still in high school and earning A grades there. If so, that was likely what convinced various highly selective universities to admit you, since performance in college courses is a better predictor of future college performance than the usual high school grades, rank, and test scores.</p>
<p>SouthernHope: Yes, it does have an element of truth to it, especially for schools in the Northeast. There are far more qualified girls now applying to the elite schools than boys, yet the incoming classes are 50/50. For kids from New York, there is no geographic diversity to NE schools, they are all competing with each other. </p>
<p>Quite possibly the only group more competitive than white females is Asian females.</p>
<p>Well, we know female STEM are desirable. Including whites and Asian Americans and in the NE. All this presumes the right strengths show in the application, as a whole.</p>
<p>Actually, female students are the majority of biology undergraduates these days, and are about even with male students in chemistry, so it is not the case that female students are in shortage in all STEM fields.</p>
<p>But a part of any balance is a desire to maintain it. You’d have to look at the number of applicants either stating STEM or showing solid potential.</p>
<p>A school trying to gender-balance its various majors might not be that interested in additional female biology majors, compared to additional physics majors.</p>
<p>
Compared to my class at Stanford, my verbal SAT was bottom 1% (verbal among the 10 lowest scores who submitted SAT), and my HS GPA was bottom 2% without recalculation. With recalculation, It would probably have been bottom ~6%. I am assuming no weighting, which may or may not be accurate, and not including the ~9% that did not submit GPA.</p>
<p>Yes, there were other portions of my app that helped colleges to overlook these weak stats including taking many classes beyond the level that was offered at my HS at nearby universities and receiving all A’s, as you mentioned. I also received top scores on math and science standardized tests, which was rare at my HS, and had various other areas of my app that I’d expect to be quite helpful. I understand why I was admitted, but I don’t think there is any question that my overall stats were weak for highly selective colleges, particularly for an unhooked applicant.</p>