<p>Currently, I'm a student at the University of Michigan. I'm planning to apply for transfer to one of the Ivy League schools next year. I'm interested in your comments where you think I might be competitive (or not so competitive). Thanks!</p>
<p>Stats:
SAT I:
750 Verbal
700 Math</p>
<p>College GPA: 3.7 (sophomore standing)</p>
<p>High School GPA: 4.82 Rank: 5/370 (IB School)</p>
<p>College ECs:
White House Intern
Intern on the President's Reelection Campaign
University of Michigan Student Assembly (Student Council)
Student Assembly Budget Priorities Committee/Chancellor's Adv. Comm.
College Republicans
Model UN</p>
<p>High School ECs:
National Honor Society
Student Council
Mu Alpha Theta
History Club</p>
<p>Other:
Certified Emergency Medical Technician
(Hometown) Mayor's Scholarship Recipient
Attended Harvard Summer School Previously</p>
<p>I think that you have a reasonably good shot at most any Ivy, although there are no guarantees, especially at the top Ivy's. Your GPA is not great but still not bad and your clear interest in politics and numerous EC's there should definitely be tied together to show how involved you are in political clubs and activities and how dedicated you are. If you also excelled at something else, like being a concert violinist, then I'd say you'd really stand out.</p>
<p>He wants to get into an Ivy for transfer. The top ones have less than a 10% acceptance rate. 3.7 is an A- average and is not amazing, at least relative to who applies to those schools.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The top ones have less than a 10% acceptance rate. 3.7 is an A- average and is not amazing, at least relative to who applies to those schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think 546mp was admitted with a 3.5.</p>
<p>GPAs and SATs are, in my opinion, only reduction mechanisms. If a student fails to fulfill the minimum GPA requirement, his application is not considered for admissions.</p>
<p>A 4.0 student will not always take the place of a student with a 3.7. Moreover, a 3.7 from UMich is excellent. I am willing to bet that the preponderance of applicants for Harvard Transfer come from lower ranked schools. The caliber of the school is a factor in admissions, and the OP's relatively high GPA and reputable institution combine to give him as good a chance as anyone of attaining an acceptance.</p>
[/quote]
I did not say that it was worse than(or equal to) the average applicant.
[quote]
Your GPA is not great but still not bad
[/quote]
i.e. it won't hurt you for admissions but won't stand out, as you confirmed, nspeds, "If a student fails to fulfill the minimum GPA requirement, his application is not considered for admissions."</p>
<p>This is something I have a little bit of a trouble with. Intuitively, it makes sense to assume that at schools with varying degrees of selectivity, the courseloads are more challenging or less so. However, doesnt it become pointless to judge the level of the courses and the difficulty of the material, simply by pointing out the 'nature' of the school in general? Is a 3.7 at a CC never equivalent to a 3.7 at say for instance Cornell? My impression from admissions officers and those that I have talked to say that the general coursework and the breadth of courses taken is more important then the school itself. This is all just normative speculation, but I have a difficult time believing that a 4.0 at any top 25 is any less of an achievement then a 4.0 at a lower tier school, and on face, it says nothing about the applicant.</p>
<p>Personally, I think there is a certain degree of luck with admissions to top schools (especially). With a pool of people who are all impressive in their own right, it kind of comes down to splitting hairs. Sometimes it likely has more to do with the overall presenation and how you tell your story, then on a scientific process per se. I think this is especially true for transfers. Additionally, if a school feels like they have too many government concentrators, but not enough classics concentrators then I believe a nearly perfect government applicant could get rejected, while a somewhat less qualified classics major could get accepted. When you factor in needs for athletes, URMs, musicians, etc. I think it's kind of a crap shoot among 'relatively' equal candidates. The difference between a 4.0 and 3.8 is marginal as is the difference in a 3.5-3.7. If you factor in difficulty of courseload and institution its difficult to tell the difference. It's about the big picture.</p>
<p>SSP will not help you get into a good school in my point of view either. The only thing it does is demonstrate your desire to attend Harvard. Attending any summer program is respected in the sense you attempted to do something educational and productive, but it won't make the difference between in and out--- I don't think, anyway.</p>
<p>The school definitely makes a difference and a 3.7 at a top tier school is NOT the same as a 3.7 at a less competitive school. The message that the former sends is that the student can succeed academically at an institution of similar caliber. Adcoms don't want to admit people who they won't feel will be academically successful - and a CC doesn't really indicate this as much as a top tier school. They also want to admit people whom they think would have been admissible straight out of high school. I think this is especially true for Ivies, as CC's aren't traditional feeder instutitions for them. When you think about everyone else who is applying to Ivies for transfer, the person from a CC is going to fall to the bottom of the pile compared to those who come from competitive schools.</p>
<p>um idk if its true or not, but it should be true</p>
<p>someone like me (top 5 percent hs, 1400+ SAT score, good ecs and coming from a Tier 1 school should in theory have an edge over someone applying from a community college</p>
<p>I would think they would also like to see growth from their applicants, whether it be academic or otherwise. The whole point of the application is to try to impress them as a lot of these schools will have many apps that look nearly the same.</p>
<p>
[quote]
someone like me (top 5 percent hs, 1400+ SAT score, good ecs and coming from a Tier 1 school should in theory have an edge over someone applying from a community college
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There are too many variables. In my opinion, a junior transfer coming from a Tier II school with an excellent GPA, decent SAT, and good ECs would have a decent shot at any Ivy. I am sophomore transfer in Georgetown, and I came from an unranked (or low-ranked) school with a 1490, 3.9 college GPA, and excellent ECs, yet my high school GPA was in the 2s!</p>
<p>There are rumors, though unsubstantiated, that Ivys have a certain number of spots reserved for CC applicants, or 'late-bloomers', so to speak. I remember reading about the dean of admissions at Yale stating that they admit students who would otherwise not have been admitted as freshman. </p>
<p>When it comes to Ivy League schools, or nearly every school in the Top 25, it is simply too difficult to predict who will get accepted. I was surprised about Georgetown, 546mp was surprised about Harvard, one student was accepted at and planned to attend Dartmouth, but unexpectedly received an acceptance in Stanford!</p>
<p>I view transfer admissions as a 'no lose' situation; you should enter it without the expectation of getting accepted. I had nothing to lose by attempting to transfer, and I even gained quite a bit.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The whole point of the application is to try to impress them as a lot of these schools will have many apps that look nearly the same.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is true, to an extent. I think the high school and college GPAs, and SAT act as 'cut-off' mechanism. Once you surpass those minimum-standards, you need to demonstrate why the university to which you are applying would be perfect for you. This can be accomplished by both telling the university why you need them (your reasons), and telling the university why they should want you, which is the equivalent of describing yourself. I had two Georgetown essays: one entirely about me, and the other entirely about why I need to transfer to Georgetown.</p>
<p>Actually, i really haven't seen any empirical 'proof' anywhere to the contrary of mine. My point was to directly refute the 'assumption', because a simple statement that a 4.0 at a higer level school is not an automatic guarantee of admission into a top-caliber school. The reason I make this assertion is because that there are more then simple numbers that exemplify the character and quality of a student, and the same way, there are equally numerous factors that must be taken into account toward the merit of the school. I firmly believe that the amount of tuition fees is not in direct relation to the quality of the school. It may make the facilities nicer, and it may attract more 'nobel laureate professors', but it still speaks nothing of the quality of education. </p>
<p>Returning to my point, yes, I will contend that sometimes it may be more difficult to obtain a 4.0 over a 3.9 at a less selective school, but this makes no difference when speaking of the intellectual vitality of the student. I may be an idealist, but I believe that admissions counsels take this into consideration, and STILL equate the applicants on par with one another. </p>
<p>Therefore, the question remains: Should someone transferring from a CC and State universities be afraid that his competition come from columbia, brown, penn, williams, etc, etc? The complete answer is no. I truly do think that those chosen to be on the admissions counsel are above the 'prestige' factor, as much as they are above the 'if they admitted him we should too'. again, I may be an idealist, but I hold this belief, and until i am -proven- to the contrary by actual evidence and not hearsay and rumor, I believe it to be right.</p>