<p>And that’s assuming that there aren;t hooked students with 2300+m, which there are</p>
<p>So are yours. We’re back at square one.</p>
<p>And my point is, most students at these schools are wealthy white kids. Look at the race breakdowns…most kids simply aren;t hooked. And pure l ogic dictates that no more htan 25% of the class can be in the top 75%</p>
<p>So are mine? I never provided numbers. I only said that the 75th percentile scores are a good place to gauge competitiveness. Sorry, but you’re grasping at straws.</p>
<p>Yes, and what factal data do you have to back that up?</p>
<p>Besides, if you look at the admitted students profiles, you CAN back up my data.</p>
<p>It’s not factual data, it’s common sense. The average SAT is skewed by hooked students, therefore, unhooked students should use percentiles higher than the 50th to gauge competitiveness. Considering that no other percentile is published, the 75th would be the one to use.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So you’re saying that hooked students have lower SAT scores on average. They might have slightly lower SAT scores but then there are many students who have nothing but high SATs which could counter that, i just think that the 75th percentile is a little high to look at, maybe taking the average of the 50th and 75th would be good.</p>
<p>How would students with nothing but high SATs counter the existence of hooked applicants? Unless you have a hook yourself, you are competing against such students.</p>
<p>I understand that it lowers the score, but your missing my point: Most studnets at these schools are wealth y, white, unhooked kids, and no more than 25% of the class can make up the top 75%. Othwerise,m you’d be getting something crazy like a class is made up of 130% of itself.</p>
<p>Most ADMITTED uhooked students simply CANT be 75%+, because there are just too many of them. Do you see what I’m trying to say?</p>
<p>So, are you guys saying that a mid 2200’s, semi-hooked (say top of class, internship, and some community service but no real “hook”), high achieving student, would or would not be accepted to the Ivy Leagues?</p>
<p>^^ Is that a chance me question in disguise? You can predict the answer to that question.</p>
<p>Depends, it’s mostly random. that’s not really a hook though. You have a decentish shot, but for these schools that usually means 13-18% chance. I don;t like chancing though lol</p>
<p>What we’re trying to say is that it’s all subjective, and that drawing conclusions from data can only get you so far.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Jersey13 is talking about admitted students. None of this discussion of percentiles is about students who are applying. It’s about students who are admitted. Can we agree that a significant percentage of students at Ivies are hooked? Can we agree that a significant percentage of students at Ivies is not students with high SATs and nothing else? There we go, unhooked students should be looking at higher than the average.</p>
<p>Commence statistical junk: Jersey13’s statistics are also better than sic’s. S/he suggests that we use the 75th percentile because only that and the 50th percentile are published. You, sic_infit, suggest that we average the 50th and 75th. That’s not how bell curves work, assuming that Ivy admissions have at least an element of the bell curve to them. (Probably chopped off after the first or second standard deviation on the high side, due to there being a maximum score on the SATs.) Because a bell curve becomes less dense farther from the mean (the 50th percentile), moving halfway, scorewise, between 50th and 75th means that you’ve captured a much larger population below your median score (and above the 50th) than above it (and below the 75th). This would be easier if I could draw you pictures…Regardless, the statistical implications get wonky really quickly, so just going with “I’m aiming for the 75th percentile or a bit below” is ideal. Not actually trying to get an estimate with false accuracy of where precisely that bit below falls.</p>
<p>Sorry about the statistics rant, I guess a little bit of that class did rub off on me… (despite my best efforts to the contrary lol)</p>
<p>You’re talking about 50th to 75th thouogh, Which i agree with. I was under the impression he was talking about above the 75th percentile :P</p>
<p>
I never stated otherwise so I don’t see the point in this.</p>
<p>
That’s not a “semi-hook”.</p>
<p>ok Lirazel honestly im not arguing since i don’t really know what im talking about, just trying to figure things out actually. But what would these colleges consider “hooks”?</p>
<p>I already gave you a list
</p>
<p>Anyways, junhugie and sic<em>infit, here is some data for you two to look over:
<a href=“http://www.princeton.edu/admission/applyingforadmission/admission”>http://www.princeton.edu/admission/applyingforadmission/admission</a></em>statistics/
<a href=“http://www.dartmouth.edu/admissions/facts/test-stats.html[/url]”>http://www.dartmouth.edu/admissions/facts/test-stats.html</a>
<a href=“Undergraduate Admission | Brown University”>Undergraduate Admission | Brown University;
<p>As you can see, all three support my original assertion. There is a noticeable difference in acceptance rates between students scoring 2300+ and those in the 2200-2300 range. Now I’m not claiming that the SAT scores are the only factor in this trend, just showing you guys the correlation.</p>
<p>Jersey, I wasu ndert he assumption that you measaid that you needed 75percentile plus to be competitive as an unhooked student. I meant to say that that’s impossible, since more than 25% of the class is unhooked, which means some or near half of huhooked students scored below the 75% percentile.</p>
<p>I’ve already looked at those statistics. I KNOW. glaksdfjlsdkfljdsaf lol. Having the highest chance of getting in doesn’t mean that nobody else is :competitive". that’s what I meant.</p>
<p>^ that just shows that higher scores increase chances.</p>
<p>but would some special EC’s be considered hooks as well?</p>