<p>Assuming I have a great GPA, EC's, rec's, and all those other odds and ends, what would neighborhood of SAT scores would be the bare minnimum for Columbia?</p>
<p>1300...................</p>
<p>Probably 1250-1300. If your ec's are truly amazing like having your own tv show, maybe 1200.</p>
<p>Assuming you're not a URM/athlete, around 1300 is a realistic floor. That isn't to say you can't get in with lower if you're truly amazing or that you have anything close to a good chance if you're higher.</p>
<p>This is out of 1600, right?</p>
<p>I knew zero non-athletes with an SAT under 1400. At least, none for whom it ever came up in conversation. I barely knew any non-international student who had under a 1500. One of the two smartest guys I knew at columbia was an international student from Sri Lanka - works at Goldman Sachs now, but had a 1420. So part of it is contextual, and that probably contributes to the average.</p>
<p>That said, my senior-year suitemate worked as the accountant in the athletic department, and he knew recruited athletes with SATs all the way down to 1000. So it ain't all roses.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I knew zero non-athletes with an SAT under 1400. At least, none for whom it ever came up in conversation.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The second sentence (it never came up) is the key. There are a number of non-athlete/URM students I've encountered who have scores in the 1300's (particularly high 1300's). They aren't people with amazing hooks, but people who had really good grades and SAT2's. So, there wasn't an issue with them not being "smart enough."</p>
<p>
[quote]
I knew zero non-athletes with an SAT under 1400.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Thats not true, you knew at least one....me. And there are many more people around columbia who are not athletes or URM who have sub 1400 scores...it usually doenst come up cause some ppl tend to be judgemental and overly competitive. Thankfully, schools like columbia understand that standardized tests sometimes dont sit well with some people.</p>
<p>First off, SATs don't measure how smart you are, they measure your aptitude inacurately. If you wanna see how smart you are, take an IQ test. I say the SATs are inacurate, because these days, anyone can take a course and raise their score by 100 and sometimes 300 points. That goes to show that SATs are not a foolproof test. Schools are slowly paying less attention to your standardized tests. Unfortunately, Columbia does put a lot of emphasis on your sat score. And please, don't stress out if you got a low score on the SATs, it doesn't mean you dumb or anything. It might mean you are a cruddy test taker.</p>
<p>
[quote]
First off, SATs don't measure how smart you are, they measure your aptitude inacurately. If you wanna see how smart you are, take an IQ test. I say the SATs are inacurate, because these days, anyone can take a course and raise their score by 100 and sometimes 300 points. That goes to show that SATs are not a foolproof test. Schools are slowly paying less attention to your standardized tests. Unfortunately, Columbia does put a lot of emphasis on your sat score. And please, don't stress out if you got a low score on the SATs, it doesn't mean you dumb or anything. It might mean you are a cruddy test taker.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Do you have a point and/or intend to finish your post? You started out with a "first off" tangent on the flaws of the SAT, but failed to even attempt to answer the OP's question. If OP is "a cruddy test taker" and "not dumb or anything," chances are that he won't get into Columbia. Given that the SAT isn't even an aptitude test (it's an achievement test), the first sentence of your post is a straw man. And, nothing in the college admissions process is "foolproof." The system is what it is -- the SAT is not a perfect metric, nor is high school GPA.</p>
<p>1300 would be really pushing it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Thats not true, you knew at least one....me.
[/quote]
long as you keep donating at the poker table, Shraf, you won't hear one negative word from me, SATs or otherwise! :)</p>
<p>How is the sat an Achievement test. Acheivenment test measures what you have learned thus far. A bio test or math test is an acheivment test. SAT deals with you ability to quickly take in info, analyse it, and spit it back out. If you doubt me, SAT stands for Standerdized APTITUDE Test.</p>
<p>
[quote]
How is the sat an Achievement test. Acheivenment test measures what you have learned thus far.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>From <a href="http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/sat/about/SATI.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/sat/about/SATI.html</a> ("The SAT assesses . . . skills you learned in school")</p>
<p>"The SAT Reasoning Test is a measure of the critical thinking skills you'll need for academic success in college. The SAT assesses how well you analyze and solve problems—skills you learned in school that you'll need in college. The SAT is typically taken by high school juniors and seniors."</p>
<p>
[quote]
A bio test or math test is an acheivment test.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Isn't 1/3 of the SAT a math test (which you've already admitted to be an achievement test)? And 1/3 of the SAT a writing test and 1/3 of the SAT a verbal test (which can't not be achievement tests)?</p>
<p>
[quote]
SAT deals with you ability to quickly take in info, analyse it, and spit it back out.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What exactly does the SAT II math require you to do? Or the SAT II history tests? In any test, you take info in, analyze it and spit it back out.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you doubt me, SAT stands for Standerdized APTITUDE Test.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Did you just make that up? Or are you simply ignorant? The SAT is no longer intended to have an acronym. It was most recently called the Scholastic Assessment Test (a decade ago they switched it to that from Scholastic Aptitude Test in order to better reflect its attempt to NOT be an IQ test). Regardless, it has never been called a "Standerdized" anything test.</p>
<p>And while you're at it, learn to spell words that you have misspelled (Standardized, Achievement).</p>
<p>Don't quote me, but I think it works more like this: If an applicant is in the range of SAT scores of admitted applicants (those ranges are published each year) the SAT score becomes a variable that is no longer important. ie. the applicant is viewed as having competitive SAT scores, and the admissions committee goes on to look at other parts of the application (of course those who have perfect scores or near perfect are also recognized for having such). I imagine the cut off score where the SAT no longer becomes a variable might be somewhere around 1400, although at Columbia it could be 1380. Where the SAT scores are below that, the admissions committee looks to see if there are factors that can override scores that are lower than other applciants. They may accept applicants with scores as low as 1200. A lot depends on whether the applicant is a recruited athlete, a legacy, has some unusual talent or accomplishment, was from a disadvantaged background ect.</p>
<p>u really need to stop trying to come up with any sort of formula for college admissions. The way you described it is definately not the way it goes...there is no 1380 cutoff as u suggest under which you have to be an athlete or legacy or something like that to get in. The ranges that are on collegeboard etc are the middle 50% meaning that 25% of the people who get accepted are under that range. I will concede though that there is a limit to how low your SAT score can theoretically be before you are treated differently but that score is probably closer to 1200 rather than 1400. Also, there are so many other factors including grades and SAT 2s that factor in as well. </p>
<p>And btw, by your wonderful mathematical SAT calculation above I would definately have not gotten in. Once again, stop scaring people!</p>
<p>Shraf - Perhaps if you posted some information about yourself that was conveyed in your application posters could understand your point</p>
<p>well i'm quite sure i had posted this before somewhere but i want to procrastinate at the moment so i will reproduce it here...btw, i am SEAS class of 2007 (a senior) so i started college in 2003.</p>
<p>GPA: dont remember too specifically but it was around a 4.2/4.5 weighted
Full IB diplomma candidate (ended up getting 37/45 on the IB, but didnt matter for my application)
SAT: 610v/740m
SATII: 740 writing/730 math 2C/700 Bio-M
School: small private school in NYC
ECs:
Varsity Volleyball
Sports editor for school paper
Production Manager for school magazine
Oxfam
Teaching assistant for arabic class
JV basketball
Amnesty International
Church activities (youth group and sunday school teacher)
Did a summer research program during summer of junior yr in a plant bio lab</p>
<p>As you can see nothing spectacular....no "hook"....no cure for cancer...no publication and sub 1400 SAT scores...oh and i'm not an athlete (obviously) not URM (i put down "egyptian" on my app) and not disadvantaged (went to a private school and live in manhattan)...so as you can see there are holes in your formula and you shouldnt post things like that which discourage ppl from applying to columbia. Also my school didnt rank and my essay was about learning from failure (more or less...dont wanna give exact topic so noone rips it off).</p>
<p>Btw, what is your story? stats? etc? i hadnt seen you on these boards until recently.</p>
<p>That is interesting. Thank you for posting that. I guess the answer is that one never knows exactly what they are looking for. Obviously admissions officers saw something in your application that made them make the decision to take you over others. Something about you they found interesting and compelling.</p>
<p><em>rolls eyes</em> yeah, something like great grades and (probably) highly dedicated extracurriculars.</p>