<p>Heres the thing. I'm pretty smart. I am in the top 10% of my class, took a decent courseload(no APs since only English and History where offered before senior year but took many classes harder than honors), and have a 2200(1520) SAT. I'm taking three APs this year, two of them, Calc BC and Physics are the hardest classes at my school. I'm also taking 3 honors classes and I'm currently getting all A's, something I've never done before even though my GPA is above a 4.0(Usaully had 1 B).</p>
<p>However my ECs are lackluster. I don't really want to post them, but I won at states and competed nationally in a competition. I also worked a little in my school store. I played one year of a jv sport sophomore year(injuries caused me to quit). I also recently started doing volunteer work. </p>
<p>Will I be rejected straight out for being anti-social or lazy? I basically could not bring myself to do clubs at my school. Most where there only for show, leadership was either a popularity contest or just handed out by teachers to the people that showed up most often to the clubs. The only reason people went to the math or science clubs at my school were because teachers offered extra credit, and not because they cared. I just could not find a club I was passionate about, where I felt that I was contributing something. Not to mention only my mom can drive and it was a hassle for me to get rides.</p>
<p>I really don't care about prestige in a university and money is a huge part(we don't qualify for fin aid but my parents can't afford to pay pretty much anythng for my college). However, Hopkins appeals to me because of its reputation in research, something which I definitely wish to pursue.
Should I bother applying? I have a lot of other essays I am writing to try and get scholarship money, so two more would really make it hard for me.</p>
<p>You're the exact opposite of me. I have awful SATs, but I have extremely good ECs and over 500 hours of community service (over a period of two-three years for each) </p>
<p>I wonder which one of us is going to get in.</p>
<p>Your situation is similar to mine. I feel as though I have pretty good EC's, almost an identical test score, good SAT2 scores and grades and what not. I applied ED. But a lot of the problems that you mentioned are present at my school - such as that the clubs are all for show. We put out a booklet each year and there are 18 service clubs (for a school with 1,400). I mean it feels good to go help kids at the hosptial once every fourth months, but do you really need x number of clubs? why can't you just make one big club that actually does something. I think the fact that you competed nationally in something probably will help. You should probably apply.</p>
<p>I guess there is also something called "starting your own activity," meaning if you've really spent the time to actually look around and do some research, you'd definetely be able to find something worthwhile to do. </p>
<p>Like those of other schools, clubs at my school are sort of crappy. So a few friends and I started our own club last year, which has worked out pretty well so far. We organized school wide events, weekly discussion groups, movie nights, invited guest speakers, and all sorts of other activities throughout the year. </p>
<p>Because opportunities are limited within school, I also spend my time in a few other outside occupations, like regularly submitting opinion articles to my local newspaper, serving as a long-term weekly volunteer at our public library, sports (swimming), and working for ongoing political campaigns. </p>
<p>A friend of mine had always been interested in environment, so he organized a small group of kids, and every saturday morning (eventhough everyone else is still in bed), these kids would get out there and voluntarily cleanse the neighborhood of garbage, in order to keep our streets clean and pleasant for their residents. I mean, there are just so many things out there that you can do, and so many opportunities to help you start something new, or do something nobody's ever done before.</p>
<p>Haha... I just started serving as a long-term weekly volunteer at my public library. </p>
<p>Anyways, first of all, I don't have a car. That might not mean much to you, but I live in the suburbs, and you need one to get around anywhere. My mom is the only person who can drive in my family, and shes usually busy driving everyone else around to pick me up everyday afterschool. </p>
<p>And no offense, but movie nights? school discussions? That sounds a lot to me like you were just hanging out with your friends and calling it an activity. I know they are big in college too, but our social lives now have to be school oriented? I say this because my two best friends go to different schools.</p>
<p>I don't know... I just don't like that schools judge what we do in our free time. I understand it comes to the point that they have no other way to distinguish between qualified applicants, but than again, I don't want to go to a university where people fight just for the name.</p>
<p>I'll probably apply for John Hopkins, but I am worried about colleges that attract a lot of people for prestige. I am worried it will be like my AP high school classes, where no one cares about the material or wants to learn, they just want to get a good grade.</p>
<p>Third, why? Because not only do we want our students to contibute in our classroom, we want them to contribute to the social life and climate of our university and campus. We want intelligent students that will make a difference in the classroom, the campus, and society.</p>
<p>We are not evaluating your free time -- we are evaluating you in terms of academic qualities, non-academic qualities, and personal qualities. We want a vibrant campus and community and GPA and test scores are not the only things that matter. </p>
<p>So do ECs matter? At JOHNS Hopkins they certainly do.</p>
<p>We are not evaluating your free time -- we are evaluating you in terms of academic qualities, non-academic qualities, and personal qualities. We want a vibrant campus and community and GPA and test scores are not the only things that matter.</p>
<p>When you say that... thats exactly what I mean. Johns Hopkins(yes, I spelled it right this time) is an academic institution, yet it judges its applicants based on non-academic criteria. I don't know why someone who has done community service in high school(ironically, I actually do community service and enjoy it) should be judged as a better person than someone who has not done community service. Every person overcomes their own personal demons which can prevent them from doing as much as others, not to mention the opportunities that money provide the rich over the middle class(the poor are given bonuses, but the middle class is still shafted). Kids are pushed to spend all their free time doing activities that look well on paper, while those whose interests are quantitatively insubstantial, but could require much more dedication and importance to that individual, are viewed as lesser people.</p>
<p>And to compound this problem, the brand name craze that has consumed colleges and people all across this country has set a stereotype that a top twenty-five college(for some five) is the only avenue to success.</p>
<p>Vibrant community, personal qualities, all that sounds like bs to me. You judge thousands of applicants a year, and you tell me you can accurately assess their character from several pieces of paper that could easily contain false information. Sadly I also understand that you have thousands of qualified applicants, and all you have to judge is what our papers say about us. I do not envy the college admissions officer.</p>
<p>Well, its not even a big deal to me, because I've already been accepted into State U's honor program, a place where I really wanted to go. My parents wanted me to get into a better brand name school, but since I'm eventually paying for it anyways, I could care less what they think. Though Johns Hopkins may have a reputation for research, I also realize that most of it is done at the graduate level. I don't think I will be submitting my application anymore.</p>
<p>Good luck to everyone who wants to go to Johns Hopkins and I hope you get in.</p>
<p>Though I personally don't feel a response is warranted as you are going to believe what you want to believe...but there are just a few points to get across for the others who read my responses for the value that I am a ten year Admissions professional and have a lot of experience.</p>
<p>(1) Johns Hopkins University (and all other colleges and universities for that matter) is not just an academic institution. The times when colleges and universities were just about education is long gone. The University experience is a stepping stone for the "real world" and during your four years your experiences are both academic and non-academic. You will not find a single admissions counselor in this country who would not agree with that fact.</p>
<p>(2) The idea that there is only 25 good colleges in this country, and the only road to success is through one of those elite institutions is ridiculous, and it is a myth put forth primarily by the media. I could spend hours on how many amazing schools are out there, and how many successful people come from the smallest community college to the most well known schools in the world.</p>
<p>(3) As for what I can garner from just a few pieces of paper, well you would really be surprised. Feel free to think the holistic approach to application is BS. Feel free to think we do not factor in personal qualities and non-academic qualities in our reviews. Feel free to think all we do is judge an applicant on some arbitrary numbers. That is just not the way it happens. I and my colleagues take a lot of pride in what we do -- and in the end we admit the right class for Johns Hopkins each year. </p>
<p>(4) Congratulations on your acceptance and good luck. I am not sure really why you came to these boards if you already made your decision. And as for the research at Johns Hopkins -- you would be completely surprised by how much the research is done at the undergraduate level.</p>
<p>The one thing I have a hard time believing is that the "test scores aren't everything," statement. The statistics show that test scores of the accepted students are above what would be considered "low" test scores (1700-1800). </p>
<p>I have excellent essays, ECs, a rigourous course selection, GPA (without freshmen year), great CS hours, and the fact that I acceled beyond my counselor's expectations.</p>
<p>Fact of the matter, is that I'm probably going to get rejected from JHU because of my SAT score and in that case, test scores <em>are</em> everything. I think I am a perfect candidate, unfortunetly, my SAT scores are going to show otherwise.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Fact of the matter, is that I'm probably going to get rejected from JHU because of my SAT score and in that case, test scores <em>are</em> everything. I think I am a perfect candidate, unfortunetly, my SAT scores are going to show otherwise.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First off, you have no idea if you will get rejected. Second, if you do, that doesn't mean that test scores are everything. Test scores mean something , but only as one part of the application. Someone with stellar test scores and no ECs won't get in. That is the meaning of saying that test scores aren't everything. Your argument implies that test scores mean nothing, which isn't the case. There is quite a difference between being the only thing considered and being one part of a bigger picture.</p>
<p>(Side note: It is annoying to me to hear people with bad test scores complain that they don't really show anything. Test scores provide a raw (emphasis on raw) measure of intelligence. It takes reasoning ability and quick thinking to do well on these tests, not to mention performance under pressure. Smarter people get better test scores. Now you can't really say someone with a 780 is smarter than someone with a 760, but you can say that they are most likely smarter than someone with a 600. That is the point of standardized tests. It isn't a perfect measure of intelligence, but it gives admissions officers a standard to compare against. It is hard to use gpa to compare people with the vast differences in high school quality and grading schemes that exist.)</p>
<p>Test scores provide a raw (emphasis on raw) measure of intelligence. It takes reasoning ability and quick thinking to do well on these tests, not to mention performance under pressure. Smarter people get better test scores. </p>
<p>I don't agree with that at all. I started studying for the SAT summer of my Junior year. I bought individual books for every section and when school started, I came home and I took a timed practice test every single day. Then, I paid about $800 for a Kaplan SAT prep course. I studied and studied and studied.</p>
<p>But on test day, I freaked out and completely bombed the test. It wasn't a matter of "I'm an idiot," it was just that I didn't do well because of the stress, not because I'm not smart.</p>
<p>Thats why I don't like SATs, it doesn't matter how smart you are- if you freak out and do bad because of it, you look like a complete idiot to colleges.</p>
<p>I think what Dirt McGirt was trying to say is that the SAT also shows how people do under stress. If you freaked out during the SAT, it is likely that you will do the same for tests in college. I know it is not completely fair for you know you can perform better, but hey, that's life. The SAT is the basic comparison for all applicants because there is no way to be completely accurate when comparing the GPA's of two students from two different schools. Personally, I think this "weight of SAT scores" argument is pointless because these scores will obviously count for something, and whether they count a little bit more or less than EC's will not be much of a factor in the admissions process. Just relax and let the holistic approach do its thing :)</p>
<p>Your right... your opinion will not persuade me on the matter. You do bring up great points though.</p>
<p>1) I believe that colleges are primarily academic institutions, and anything else gained there is secondary. In my opinion, your social life should not have to be full of school activities. From what I've heard, this is the stance graduate schools take, and they look primarily at your GPA and GRE scores(and research, but thats school related). I'm not sure why undergraduate is any different, but I assume its simply because the competition is so fierce that you need to have criteria to distinguish the students. I don't think many people(especially parents) would be willing to spend 30-40k a year if they thought college was not primarily an educational experience.</p>
<p>2) It is a myth, but people believe it. And as long as people believe in it, the statement has power. Though I agree with the fact that there are a lot of amazing schools out there, and no matter where you go, your education is as good as how much work you put into it(though its true some schools offer more opportunities than others).</p>
<p>3) Your probably right, and as an expert, you can garner much more than I could from applications. </p>
<p>4) Now that I think about it... I'm not sure either. Probably just because I just wanted to see what people applying to highly selective colleges thought about ECs. Now I'm just interested in seeing the responses to this topic. In fact, the main reason I come to this website is to look at the fin aid and scholarship info, since I will have to pay college myself.</p>
<p>think what Dirt McGirt was trying to say is that the SAT also shows how people do under stress. If you freaked out during the SAT, it is likely that you will do the same for tests in college. I know it is not completely fair for you know you can perform better, but hey, that's life</p>
<p>The difference between the SAT and normal tests you take at school is that the SAT determines whether you can get into the college of your choice (If its highly selective)- and you cant' really do anything change the outcome or effect it will have upon an admissions officer reading your application and anlyzing your scores.</p>
<p>With a normal test, however, even if you do horribly (not saying I do), you can still try and pull up your grade-there's still hope you can get a good grade.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't agree with that at all. I started studying for the SAT summer of my Junior year. I bought individual books for every section and when school started, I came home and I took a timed practice test every single day. Then, I paid about $800 for a Kaplan SAT prep course. I studied and studied and studied.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This anecdote shows that you are a hard worker, not neccesarily that you are smart. Anyone can pay $800 dollars and spend a lot of time studying. Not everyone can get perfect scores on the SAT. An analogous situation can be seen in sports. Anyone can work hard and dedicate themselves, but not everyone can play in the NFL or NBA. If you are 5' tall, you probably won't make it. Some of it is natural talent. Some people are smarter than others as well. </p>
<p>I'm not trying to bash you or anything like that, I'm just pointing out that your experience doesn't necessarily mean that the test is inherently flawed.</p>
<p>Yea I usually don't see people with 2300+ scores complaining that the test is flawed and should not be weighed heavily into admission. SATs are a weak point in your app and you're just coping with that by convincing yourself that it is a bad tool and shouldn't be used. That's understandable; eveyone does it.</p>
<p>almost everyone freaks out during the sat testing that is why when u visit the the cc forums on sat that same afternoon you will see various people cursing that they made such lame mistakes. However, usually this only accounts for a 50 pt max differentiation in each section. Anyway...gl to all who apply =D</p>